1980Mooney

And don't forget that it will require a rather radical new cowling. I don't see that mentioned. I bet a complete new cowling including painting to match your plane adds easily $10K - maybe $15K.

That's more like it. "Targeting" $110K for the 180 HP model.

I think it delusional to believe that they can provide a firewall forward conversion including complete engine w/ accessories, engine frame, new cowling, prop, governor, instrument changes, fuel metering and tank level recalibration, probably a new electric fuel pump all certified for $90K. Especially with all the aviation related increases I doubt a conversion can even be done for $100K

Did they mention a price? I see the new Hartzell STC for a 2 blade Composite on the DA 40(XL) w/ IO-360 is about $27,000 from Ottesen Prop. With shipping, installation, tax I bet it is close to $30K. Ouch.... That is a lot to spend to save a few pounds and to "save" on field repair (assuming that you tear it up). Hartzell STC Diamond DA-40XL With IO-360-M1A Engine (2-Blade Composite - Ottosen Propeller

Good question. 25 years ago, on a 8,000 ft Towered runway, my original Mooney instructor had me touch the mains down on the numbers holding the nose off and then gently adding a little power and pulling it off into ground effect. Then followed by pulling power/bleeding energy, landing again, touching the mains down with the nose held up followed by a little power and back up into ground effect. I "landed" consecutively four (4) times, touching the mains, adding power, pulling up into ground effect with the last a full power take off. The Tower was not amused.

The "Batteryminder" external plug set-up above is totally different from what you likely have. I assume that you have the traditional heavy duty "Cessna Oval 3 Pin Plug" Male receptacle for the GPU (Ground Power Unit) {also called an APU - Auxiliary Power Unit} installed on your plane: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/extpowerrect.php#productMainImage-1 https://lasar.com/electrical-instruments/apu-receptacle-an2552-3a GPU Jumper cables: https://www.chiefaircraft.com/asoc-6141.html https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/jumpercables.php Take a look at the schematic in the attached drawing above (upper left hand corner of the drawing). Alternatively you should find the electrical schematic for your plane in the shop manual but it is harder to read. There are two (2) solenoids - The first, when energized, connects your jumper in parallel with your existing battery. The other solenoid, when energized, supplies power to your starter by connecting it to your battery (which is in parallel with the the jumper source when the jumper power source is plugged in). First , connect your jumper cable to a power cart, APU or to a running car/truck (if your plane is 12 volt). Then plug the 3 pin plug into the receptacle on your plane. Notice that there is a smaller third (3rd) pin in the plug and receptacle. The GPU plug's third pin is connected to (+). It's shorter, so it makes contact last. When the plug is inserted, first the main (+) and (-) make contact. When the third plug pin touches, it energizes the solenoid and the contactor in the solenoid closes, and GPU power goes to the battery. Therefore, there is no chance for a spark when connecting the "hot" 3 pin plug. If the battery on your plane is dead, initially there will be a surge of power to it from the power cart or running car/truck. Personally I would let it sit and charge but there is no danger to the starter or engine if you choose to start the plane. You just have 2 sources of power in parallel connected to the starter. If your plane battery is heavily discharged the power coming from the your jumper will be flowing to both the discharged battery and your starter. There might be too much current with resulting voltage drop such that the starter doesn't turn fast enough. The plane battery needs to recover some charge first in that case. If your plane does start and you choose to unplug the GPU immediately after the engine starts, it puts a big strain on your alternator. It is better to let everything charge for a while. Also, unless an absolute emergency, it is not smart to take off with a dead battery that is charging. Retracting the gear could put enough load to kill everything. @kortopates has opined on this many times.

I think that they learned that most pilots, other than you, were not interested in winning a new Icon A5. The 2024 winner, when informed that he had won a new Icon A5 or new Tecnam Astore, replied "Not Interested". When informed that he could take cash, he opted for the $100,000 outright cash. https://www.flyingmag.com/news/missouri-pilot-opts-for-cash-in-ultimate-flying-giveaway/ You may be right. They cut the 2025 outright cash option prize in half from 2024 down to $50,000.

It occurred Wednesday, July 24 at 12:45 PM. Also earlier on Wednesday, at 8:21 AM, a Cirrus SR22T wingtip struck the front of a Lancair LC-40-550 (actually built as an early Cessna model) while taxiing in the same general area at KATW. Using map and GPS satellite scale, some of those taxiways might only be 38-40 ft wide. From your picture I can see how a Cirrus with 38 ft wingspan might drift off centerline to one side if the pilot is not vigilant or is trying to avoid something on the other side. It is harder to understand how a 35 ft wingspan Mooney could hit planes on both sides with both wings unless it over reacted/ over corrected after striking the first rather than stopping. Sounds like speed might be a factor. Still the parking density is inviting trouble.

It appears that a trip from Albuquerque Double Eagle to attend Oshkosh ended badly for Mooney M20J, N555ED. It landed at Appleton (KATW), 16 nm to the North of KOSH, , on the morning of Sunday, July 21, the day before AirVenture started. It appears to have immediately taxied to a grass tiedown area. Yesterday afternoon it taxied from the grass tie down area but stopped near some hangars. FAA reports that the Mooney "struck other aircraft" (2?..more?) with both its left and right wings while taxiing. Crowding due to the insanity of AirVenture? Poor taxiway conditions? Stuck throttle? All of the above?! The long return trip will be somber - either commercial or ferry permit. https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a71266&lat=44.254&lon=-88.515&zoom=15.5&showTrace=2024-07-21&trackLabels&timestamp=1721578027 https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a71266&lat=44.250&lon=-88.514&zoom=16.8&showTrace=2024-07-24&trackLabels&timestamp=1721843098

It’s not the first time this has happened. Read further down - they suggest a solution

Exception?....I think you mean the "norm". Next I will be hearing the those that make a profit from infrastructure like power and water pay more than private users. That is why all these Crypto Mining power hogs are setting up in Texas. When the Grid is overloaded, ERCOT designed premium pricing kicks in which slams private users on variable price plans while the Crypto hog shuts off and pays no premium.

It is interesting that you claim this. Here in "free market" Texas, for an approx. 4,000 lb car or SUV w/ two (2) axles (about 15 ft long) to enter the Harris County Toll Road at a main plaza, it cost $1.50. For a Commercial five (5) axle Semi-truck trailer, 80,000 lbs (about 72 ft long) at the same plaza, it costs $7.00. So a Commercial semi-truck pays 4.7 x my car or SUV. And it is about 4.8 x as long as my car. I am not seeing that the commercial truck "using the infrastructure to make a profit" pays any premium over the average driver. If we look at weight (which ultimately breaks down the roadway), the Commercial truck weighs 20 times my car. And they are only paying 4.7 times my car. It looks like the Commercial (working for profit) truck is getting a great bargain.

You have to be really careful about this. You should have the Monroy Installation manual w/drawings with the plane documents. The original fuel tank vents on the main tanks were removed and plugged during the Monroy installation. There are two (2) lines connected between each Main tank and Monroy Aux tank - one (1) is the fuel line at the bottom of the wing and one (1) is a vent line at the top of the wing. Then a new fuel tank vent was connected to the new Monroy Aux tank. It vents both the Monroy Aux tank and the Main tank. @aviatoreb posted a picture of the parts list a couple years ago.

All this philosophical talk....You are making this way more complicated than it is. It is just simple dollars and cents. There is not and will not be enough money to go around in the Federal coffers. We are running Federal deficits every year of nearly $(2) Trillion per year with no end in sight. We have a few pilots here with business backgrounds......how long can you run a company on negative cash flow constantly borrowing? Something will have to give. General Aviation only exists due to funding and hand outs and from the Federal Government. When it comes to significant capital improvements and spending most smaller airports survive on FAA AIP Grants (about $3.5 Billion per year). Money for highway infrastructure will win out over money for small GA infrastructure. Local communities will not want to pay more (i.e more taxes) to subsidize money losing GA airports. The burden of shortfalls will fall to pilot/aircraft owners to fully pay their way. And local airports always expected the Federal Government to provide the money for infrastructure in the form of Grants. A good example is the recent discussion of Mesquite Metro Airport (owned by the City of Mesquite) and its plan including improvements and expansion. @hammdo commented on the Master Plan and all the great possibilities - "I like the idea of longer runway and expansion for more hangers. The plane wash areas would be nice to have… ". @N201MKTurbo said "Well, it’s Texas after all. They have their head on straight. " Looking at the Mesquite City Budget, 2024 Projected Airport Revenue of $3.5 Million with a small loss. 2027 Airport Revenue projected to grow to $3.9 Million growing to about a $(0.25) Million loss. There is no material Capital Spending. The "Master Plan" needs about $20 Million on Capital Improvement in the next 5 years just for airport infrastructure (no hangars). They expect the FAA and TxDOT Aviation (which gets most of its funding from the FAA) to pay for it. The City has no funds for expansion and does not want to sell bonds which voters will need to approve and ultimately be responsible for. Without a handout (free ride, "Aviation welfare") from the Federal Government, Mesquite airport will not expand.. Like a crack baby, Texas is just as addicted to Federal funding as any other state for airport infrastructure spending.

Since you asked: General Aviation uses about 29% of TRACON ops And our fuel taxes pay about $29 Million towards the $9 Billion ATC Ops Budget ($10 Billion next year to pay for more Controllers) - that's about 0.3% Almost Nothing Military uses about 4% of TRACON ops Military pays Nothing The way the major carriers look at it, is that GA is responsible for about $2.6-2.9 Billion per year of ATC Ops cost. Spread over about 200,000 planes and helicopters that is about $13,000 - 14,000 cost per plane per year (that we are getting free and not paying for)....

For those too young to remember primetime TV on one of the three (3) channels in the 50's and 60's...

Cynical??

Good to know that you are longing to read my posts.... Also, I suspect in the future, in spite of your complaints of cost and regulations (remember when you posted how pained you were to be forced to install an ADS-B tail beacon?), that you will fondly look back at this as the "good ol' days" of General Aviation.

Complex is right. Some like to toss around the "intent of our founding fathers" and their obsession with "preventing tyranny of government". From the beginning of recorded time Ad Coleum Doctrine held, private property owners owned "everything from Heaven to Hell" - airspace above their land and everything below it. The Fifth Amendment states "no person shall be ... deprived of property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Yet the US Gov't did exactly the opposite 100 years ago. The 1926 Air Commerce Act which took away the airspace rights of private property land owners without compensation (some would call that "theft"). But it is still a complex matter since we have Russian and Chinese satellites overhead all the time.

The majors/commercial are already funding a majority of the FAA budget with all the pax taxes, fees and fuel taxes (way more than just the ATC budget). The ATC operating budget is about $9 Billion out of the FAA $24 Billion total budget. This was only about privatizing the ATC portion. I think the long term goal of the majors would be to influence and sway the Board of the private ATC to: Offload more of the ATC cost onto Biz Jet and GA Prioritize spending where the majors fly That means less spending on the thousands of GA airports where the majors will never fly I think that they would move to streamline airspace to keep GA out of Class B airports and busy corridors. This could lower ATC costs, make it more efficient for the majors and lower their costs

What do you need a pilot for in the future? To monitor the computers? AI-controlled fighter jet takes Air Force secretary on historic ride (airforcetimes.com) The Pentagon’s Plan for More Ambitious, Affordable Jet Fighters: AI Pilots - WSJ USAF's F-16 to fly pilotless for first time in 2025 | Shephard (shephardmedia.com)

Everyone here (as well as on every other Brand X or GA forum) is "preaching to the choir". Of course we think ATC should be free for GA, for GA to have freedom of flight and that the benefits outweigh the costs. But we are less than 0.1% of the voting and tax paying population. And we tend to dismiss history. And the drivers of past history are only getting stronger/worse. We are running huge deficits with no near term relief in sight. Funding is going to be a much bigger issue next appropriation round in about 4 years. If (I should say "when") we get into the next Federal Budget crisis it may come up even sooner. The voting public is not particularly interested in higher taxes to support subsidizing aviation at any level - national or small town budgets with a money losing GA airport. The forces for change are all still there. Even Bloomberg op-ed last year is suggesting ATC privatization would be good now. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-05-10/it-s-time-to-privatize-air-traffic-control GA is at the bottom of the food chain... How soon we selectively forget 2017: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-unveils-plan-to-privatize-us-air-traffic-control-system https://www.reuters.com/article/legal/republicans-propose-bill-to-privatize-u-s-air-traffic-control-idUSL1N1JI25M/ Per Fox "Trump wants to turn the air traffic control system into a modernized non-profit organization that operates on fees paid by airlines and others that use U.S. airspace, instead of taxes." A Delta report said: "US supporters of privatization have argued for a shift to user fees as the primary source of revenue for ATC, claiming it will eliminate federal fuel and ticket taxes." All the major carriers were supporters of the 2017 H.R. 2997 to privatize AOPA pointed out: "Privatization is simply a move by the airlines to control the system...GA and rural communities will be left with the crumbs as the board will be dominated by commercial interests." NBAA pointed out: "Truth The 21st Century AIRR Act (H.R. 2997) goes well beyond just removing ATC operations from FAA and turning them over to a private not-for-profit corporation. In addition, services such as flight information, weather briefings, aeronautical information, airport advisory services, and responsibility for navigational aids would be removed from FAA. Congressional oversight of air transportation taxes, allocation of resources, and most importantly access decisions would be given to a not-for-profit corporation. This corporation would be able to tell all general aviation stakeholders where and when they could fly."

True. That might be the future solution. For the same reason that we will not need 2 pilots in the cockpit either in the future. That will solve both hiring problems....

To summarize my other posts: Passengers ultimately pay for about 55% (and are projected to pay about 69% in the future) of the entire FAA Budget. It is either directly in the form of ticket taxes or in Airline fares driven by the fuel surcharges. General Aviation piston pays about 0.1% of the FAA Budget. We (GA Piston) pay for basically nothing.

But we in GA (flying gas burners) don't materially pay much in total annually in the way of surcharges on fuel. It may seem like a lot to us but it amounts to almost nothing towards the FAA budget. Only 0.3% of the ATC Budget. However on any given day we occupy a lot more than 0.3% of the airspace - VFR or IFR. And unlike Commercial Operators, we don't pay any other aircraft related taxes or fees to the FAA. Any other taxes or fees we pay on our aircraft or flights go to City, County and State. That is why the Trump Administration and Congress (encouraged by the Commercial Operators) in 2017 proposed to privatize the ATC. The Commercial Operators figured that they could reduce their costs significantly (as much as 60% on some flights) if every aircraft were made to pay. The logic being that the cost to control a 737 on an IFR flight plan is not materially more then the cost to control your Mooney on an IFR flight plan. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/05/watch-trump-expected-to-unveil-a-plan-to-privatize-air-traffic-control.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/16/trump-privatize-air-traffic-control/99216578/ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-03/FAA_FY_2025_Budget_Request_508-v5.pdf