1980Mooney

I see you have an Ovation 3

Perhaps you didn’t see his posts here on MS in the Videos Forum - topic “Will it ever fly again?” In mid-June he posted that he was parting it out. He added pictures of it disassembled in full sale mode. It will never fly again.

The picture you attached is not visible - I tried to view with an iPhone and a PC - but it is just a long alphanumeric string.

Good point. Rocket attaches a second Data Plate on the plane reflecting the STC modification. See the pic. But BAS left the Rocket Data Plate on the fuselage which is for sale separately from the "STC Kit". I have no idea how you resolve that. Good second point too. Among the other bits, just having a spare airworthy condition engine mount & frame (which is unique to the Rocket conversion) is worth quite a bit. I know from personal experience that if you have to send it off to Rocket Engineering for minor corrosion repair, you can easily wind up spending $4k or more with shipping both ways.

Another landing incident sending a Mooney to the salvage scrap pile. N57247, a 1984 M20K with Rocket 305 Conversion on June 29 at Durango (KDRO). This, like many Mooney landing "incidents" doesn't seem to show up anywhere except the salvage auction. It appears that he drifted off the centerline - there was a slight rear quartering wind at the time. ADS-B shows that he decelerated from 84 kts to 58 kts in about the width of the runway (150 ft). If I did the math right that is about 1.1 G's deceleration (similar to stopping force of a new Corvette). Sporty. Not sure what was going on but FlightAware showed him descending at about -1,000 to -900 fps on Final. ADSBExchange shows he was descending about -1,344 fpm when he turned on Final and still descending at -768 fpm after crossing the airport perimeter fence. His plane did have speed brakes. (N57247 | 1984 MOONEY M20K 305 ROCKET on Aircraft.com) Flight Track Log ✈ N57247 29-Jun-2024 (KFMN-KDRO) - FlightAware https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a758db&lat=37.159&lon=-107.746&zoom=14.9&showTrace=2024-06-29&leg=2&trackLabels&timestamp=1719686335 BAS has salvaged it and removed the Rocket 305 STC parts supposedly complete. (it appears that they got dual battery box but they should have also included the power cables extension, Charlie weights, tachometer), $25,000. All you need is your M20K, then to tear down the engine (probably overhaul - 1,431 hours and 26 years on it....), new prop, new hoses, then I bet spend about 300++ shop hours trying to determine what is missing and figure out how to reassemble. And then paint the cowl to match. Maybe invest $140,000 plus donate your plane? Mooney M20K Rocket 305 Conversion Kit, Continental TSIO-520-NB (Prop struck) The odd thing is that although the wings do not look damaged, they cut them off cleanly right through the MLG wheel wells. The description of the fuselage says belly damage, so it sounds like a gear up. BAS usually salvages Mooney wings whole even if bent up. Mooney M20K Fuselage with Bill of Sale, Data Tag, Airworthiness, and Log Books

The late Bob Belville posted that he did a gear up with that belly mod in 1997.

Do you recall where your CHT's generally were using this single point gauge during the summer when cruising WOT down lower? In the 300's? Your case above was incredibly cold - about 17 deg C below Standard at 16,000 ft. OAT was about -29 deg F. Corrected Density Altitude was about 14,000 ft. You were operating at the extreme ends of both the Mooney POH cruise charts and also the Lycoming Fuel Consumption vs. HP charts. At 7.1 gph LOP you might be making 90 HP. - so the engine is not producing a lot of heat.

Really? Ok maybe not in a F1 race car but in a Porsche 911 or 718. Now days any idiot can drive a 911 - all you need is to be 16 years old and have Daddy's credit card. Porsche promotes it - and the kids are driving 911's and 718's. https://www.porschedriving.com/los-angeles/porsche-young-driver/ Gone are the days when skills were needed to manage understeer, throttle-off oversteer, 4 speed clutch, brake fade or lock-up and to get the most out of the engine. Today full stability and traction management systems control brakes and power on each wheel individually, electric power steering, Tiptroninc auto or PDK effortlessly shifts automatically. General aviation is going the same direction. Everyone wants big flat screens with integrated avionics - and more features like electronic stability and protection, smart glide, emergency descent, auto-land. What new features will Garmin add to its Autonomous suite over the next 10 years? Auto "take-off" maybe? https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/ https://www.aviationtoday.com/2024/11/14/garmin-g3000-with-autoland-technology-gets-an-upgrade/ And commercial aviation?...in 10 years why will they need 2 pilots up front? A flight attendant can be trained to "land" the planef if a pilot croaks. (i.e. press the "auto-land" button. Hell they won't even need to know how to talk to ATC because the plane will automatically send messages on the proper frequencies that it already knows in its database for the location). Or maybe it will be remotely flown with the "Pilot" just sitting up front monitoring the systems that are monitoring the plane. I suspect the reality of events in Ukrane are going to lead to the rapid development of more UAV technology and wars in the future will be fought remotely. This, like all DOD driven aviation development, will trickle to commercial aviation.

Isn't that the whole aim of future flight operations?.....basically the same finite number of airports & runways but accommodating more flight operations? The only way to do that is tighter spacing....closer landings.

As much as some above wish to dismiss the accuracy and usefulness of ADS-B, it is the backbone of NextGen real-time traffic avoidance. TCAS is well along in evolving into ACAS ( Airborne Collision Avoidance System). ACAS is aimed at reducing dependence upon visual separation procedures and interaction with ATC that is using radar. (they refer to that level of dependency currently as a "deficiency"). ACAS systems use ADS-B information and selective interrogations of nearby aircraft to determine their position and velocity; this information is passed through “threat logic” to determine proximate traffic, issue traffic alerts, and issue collision avoidance “resolution advisories” to flight crews.Resolution advisories provide flight crews with vertical guidance (climb, descend, remain level, donot descend/climb) as appropriate to avoid collisions. In order to achieve a high level of safety, the alerting criteria used by current ACAS systems often overlap with the horizontal and vertical separation associated with many safe and legal procedures (e.g., visual separation operations). ACAS monitoring data from the U.S. indicate that as many as 90% of observed resolution advisories (RAs) are due to the interaction between ACAS II alerting criteria and normal ATC separation procedures (e.g., 500 feet IFR/VFR separation, visual parallel approach procedures, level-off with a high vertical rate, or VFR traffic pattern procedures). This new ACAS system will address this deficiency. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/dah/tcas_acas https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2021/ADSB/P05-FutureADS-B-ENG.pdf https://www4.icao.int/ganpportal/ASBU/Element/Pdf?IDs=153&ShowPart1=true&ShowPart2=true&ShowPart3=true&ShowPart4=true Also there is talk of a ATAS (ADS-B Traffic Advisory System). It is intended to be "This low-cost alerting capability for general aviation reduces the number of aircraft collisions." The standards have already been set. After receiving an ATAS traffic alert, the pilot takes action appropriate to the operational rules in effect at the time. Unlike TCAS II systems, ATAS does not provide resolution advisories or maneuvering guidance. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/adsb/pilot/atas Bottom Line: Future flights will be more reliant on integrated technology and autonomous real time data systems..... that may mean "more head down" looking at the panel.......and less time talking to ATC.....

You are correct. Both Tiger Aircraft LLC and Columbia Aircraft went bankrupt in 2007. As far as I can tell Tiger Aircraft only built four (4) AG5B with G1000 during 2005-2006 before ceasing production. An unknow number of Columbia 400's were built in 2006-2007 with the G1000 before bankruptcy. Some show up for sale with WAAS upgrade. After Cessna acquired the design & assets, the 2008 "Cessna 400" models came standard with G1000 WAAS.

Really? Are you looking at the same data that you linked in your post? Just eyeballing, there appears to be a decline over the 10 year accident rates for Non-Commercial Fixed Wing - both overall and fatal. So the "finite limitation" of "time and money" resources currently spent by pilot/owners today actually delivers improvements in aviation safety. No matter how "misdirected" you believe the split of current spending is on avionics, training or just keeping one's plane on the flight line, it is actually yielding positive results. "Imagine how much better things would be if those pilots kept their airplane on the flight line instead of in the avionics shop, flew more often, and spent a few bucks on training with the local CFIs, or even just flying with more experienced friends." I get it that you wish that pilots trained and knew their equipment better - both aircraft and avionics. And you wished that safety statistics improved faster. Who doesn't? But that doesn't mean that they have to sacrifice technology (which relentlessly marches on). This argument reminds me of the discussion 25 years ago around the broad advent of GPSS/Roll Steering that allowed most autopilots to fly more approaches - less hand flying and more relying on technology. There is no going backwards.....

It shows up on FlightRadar24 with pic but no recent history. Must be a glitch on FlightAware. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n7730m

So then it would seem that the newer Mooney's with non-WAAS G1000 without an upgrade path to NXi are also on borrowed time. Every other aircraft manufacturer that installed the G1000 over the past 20 years, as far as I know, now have an upgrade path to NXi.

Does your outlook apply to all brands/series of NAV units or just the Garmin GNS variety?

Correction - It is a rod going up the front part of the door - It is a bent rod attached to the top clamshell jaw latch. Have fun.

Before you go and disturb all these adjustments, first try to see if something caused a change in the door. This happened to me a long time ago also. Did a strong wind catch the door swinging it open hard against the stop? (will flex the door out at the top) Did anyone lean on the top of the door to steady themselves getting in or out? (heavy handed mechanics have done this before) With enough force the door and hinge will flex ( @skykrawler is right - be careful). Fitting the door is an art - the complex curves should all just line up and touch evenly. If the top of the door gets flexed it can cause misalignment of the clamshell latch at the top - it can't pull down enough for the bellcrank to fully turn to its stop. Also - lubricate everything before making any adjustments. Don't turn a simple problem into a big problem. Once you start adjusting you can screw it up worse. It may just be dry linkages inside the door. A cable runs up the front between the housing and window - it has a linkage to get to the clamshell. They are a bitch to lubricate. See the KNR article on door problems. 0-202011 Cabin Door Handle Problems Also on alignment

Did you check the boots around the rudder/brake linkage boots? The leakage could be coming from right around your feet. Even in good condition those cannot seal very well because there are two rods with the brake rod moving up and down as the entire linkage moves fore and aft. (see the first 2 pictures.) The last 2 pictures are an Ovation boot salvage at Dawson. You can see the hole in the boot where the linkages protrude forward.

This sounds like your core issue. You want everyone to have it 100% no exceptions, understand how to use it and use it 100% of the time because it is useful and effective.

@dvictory Low time pilots with similar missions have asked this question before. These might help:

Like everything else in aviation, it is a trade-off. It works but with highly restricted and unequal turning angle (11 deg. left and 13 deg. right) which results in a large turning radius and its fragility during towing operations. Per POH long body turning radius (without brakes) is 40 ft to the right and 48 ft to the left.(outer main gear radius). By comparison a Bonanza (outer main gear - no brakes) can turn in under 16 ft. either way.

Small point. The Turbo Bullet was not developed/marketed by Rocket Engineering. Indeed, Darwin Conrad, who went on to form Rocket Engineering, marketed the Turbo Bullet in a company named Aircraft Design, Incorporated (ADI) in Spokane. Prior to forming ADI, Darwin Conrad was an employee of Machen as head of R&D, American Aviation, Inc was the parent of Machen. In 1988, Darwin Conrad and his partner Gary Dilley (a former client of American Aviation) .formed Aircraft Design, Incorporated (ADI) In 1989 ADI was awarded two (2) STC's for the Turbo Bullet conversion ( STC SE4757NM and STC SA4758NM) In 1990, Machen and American Aviation sued Darwin Conrad and his partner in ADI ,Gary Dilley, for theft of Turbo Bullet design. They allege that Conrad developed it while working for Machen. The lawsuits drug on for two (2) years. In August 1993 the Airworthiness Directive limiting boost due to crankshaft failures was issued. (AD NUMBER: 93-14-15) In the meantime, Conrad formed Rocket Engineering in 1990 with a different partner. The Turbo Bullet was not part of Rocket. Machen, Inc. v. Aircraft Design, Inc., 65 Wn. App. 319 | Casetext Search + Citator Machen, Inc. v. Aircraft Design, Inc. - Washington - Case Law - VLEX 894951679

Not sure why you would think that an Acclaim is "more expensive at every turn". The Eagle, Ovation and Acclaim all have the same long body with Continental 550 cubic inch 6. Maintenance of the landing gear (gear, pucks & actuator), control surfaces, paint, glass, lighting, fuel tankage & senders, speed brakes is all the same (ok - the Eagle did not have rudder trim or speed brakes) so the cost is the same. As you move up the model chain there is a of "layering on" of hardware and options. In addition to the turbo-charged engine and built-in oxygen, an Acclaim will likely have more hardware (accessories) that will add weight and increase maintenance cost like FIKI or/and Air conditioning, fully adjustable seats, Speed brakes were an option in the Eagle. Built-in oxygen was an option on Ovations. The additional hardware (standard or option) will need maintenance - some more regular and some more expensive than others. Acclaims will have G1000 panels - 2005 Ovations and up will have G1000 also. Older Ovations and Eagles came with vacuum and "steam gauges". What each has today varies. I think the "5-10%" increased cost was related to fuel consumption. That again is related primarily to speed. For a given altitude, increased speed in general will require more horsepower and more fuel consumption as a function of a square due to drag. Acclaim owners will go higher to do better than that with less drag in thinner air. But not many passengers like oxygen cannulas up their noses and even less like masks. As a result you will see a lot flying at 10-12 K feet. An Acclaim primarily flown at 10-12 K will have higher fuel consumption and higher engine maintenance than an Ovation. You will likely need to do a top overhaul in an Acclaim before TBO. That is over $25 K today. You already mentioned turbos.

Like Groundhog day, this has been discussed before...six (6) years of discussion: https://mooneyspace.com/topic/18071-real-world-performance-differences-between-acclaim-and-ovation/