1980Mooney

The FAA "VARMA" Document link posted by @hammdo seems to be from about 2008 and the FAA circular which governs this posted by @A64Pilot (as noted by him) is from 2009. I am struggling to find the "New" in any of this. Haven't we been living with this "program" as applied for the last 15 years? So what if a FAA Rep mentioned it in a seminar. What am I missing?

Yes Rocket Engineering added them on both the Missile and Rocket Conversions. STC-SA4443NM - Lasar - Paul Loewen. The STC also added wing tips on the Missile (early J’s) and the hinge cover in shown in your pic.

Many here seem to be under the delusion that municipalities actually want more General Aviation. Most GA airports are owned by municipalities. And most municipalities lose money on airport operations. - hangar, landing and fuel fees are hard pressed to cover expenses with massive amounts of land and perimeter to maintain. Security requirements since 9/11 are costly and difficult to manage. Most need Federal handouts for capital improvements. For instance, Texas receives the largest Block Grant of funds for GA airports - $27 million in 2022....(think of it as "airport welfare") Municipal airports are more likely to make money catering to business aircraft - higher fuel sales, more professional, less risk, large hangar rents, easier to manage security, etc. GA pilots are more of a headache- using their hangar for home storage, dumping leaded fuel on the ground, driving cars near aircraft and sometimes into, etc. Since they are owned by Municipalities, citizens have to vote for funding and bonds. We pilots forget that the general public think of us the most entitled special interest group on the world - a bunch a rich people making noise all times of the day.

In a fleet in which no new Mooney’s will ever be added, it is just a matter of time before some degree of damage history becomes the norm. 4 Mooney’s in the last 10 days were damaged. Look at ASIAS. And there are plenty that get damaged and don’t come to the attention of the FAA (like the Minnesota Bravo that fatally crashed - the Docket showed that the insurance company revealed that he botched a landing in 2017 which took out runway lights and tore up both wings. No FAA history of the incident.).

In General Aviation, no purchase is as cut and dry as you hope. Everything is a compromise. There will always be surprises and unknowns especially with older aircraft.

The flip side is 20 years and 10 owners after a repair - it has been reviewed and looked at so many times - it has stood “the test of time”. It becomes less and less relevant as a purchase or sale issue.

Sarasota Avionics is now advertising that cost to upgrade the GTN750 is about $6,100. I would not be surprised if there are some additional or hidden costs when it is actually installed. And probably about another $400 in sales tax. I wouldn't be surprised if the total cost starts with a "7".

You do know that Useful Load is not a Mooney strength. My M20J came from the factory with 943 lbs UL. Later J's had a GW increase of 160 lbs. (from 2740 lb GW to 2900 lb GW) Regarding filling 4 seats - it depends on who is in those seats. The average US male now weighs about 200 lb and the average female is about 170 lbs. Canadians are probably more fit. If you have 4 adults you could easily be at 720 lbs. Add 50 lbs of luggage and crap and you are at 770 lbs. That leaves you 170 lbs. for fuel, some extra quarts of oil, whatever junk you have on the hatrack, flight bag, etc. That means you can only put on about 27 gallons. Assume that 7 gallons is reserve so that give you about 2 hours flight time. #1 - I can't give you a fair answer - my J was converted to a "Missile" long ago which includes a much heavier IO-550 and full feathing prop - i.e. lots of weight on the nose gear and any bumps with those spongy donuts is usually a problem for me. But it may not be an issue for regular J owners. #2 - This has been a topic several times previously. See comments from @M20Doc in first topic. He owns the MSC (Mooney Service Center) in Ontario. He is also the Diamond and Cirrus Authorized Service Center and is importing planes into Canada all the time. Tri-City Aero Maintenance Inc Company Profile | Breslau, ON, Canada | Competitors, Financials & Contacts - Dun & Bradstreet (dnb.com) #3 - As you may have seen, Mooney's land gear up with great frequency. Mooney's survive gear up landings better than most single engine retractable. They are generally easily reparable by knowledgeable shops. I know a Mooney owner who landed the same J gear up twice. And he still owns and flies that plane. If a Mooney has been repaired properly it should not be an issue. If the incident were repaired a long time ago it becomes basically a non-issue. Recent repairs may bring a bigger discount #4 - You will appreciate the convenience and utility of an autopilot with GPSS steering coupled to your WAAS navigator that can do LPV approaches. Ask @M20Doc about the Canadian Mooney market - he is the most knowable here on MS about Mooney's in Canada - and he is here frequently.

So are you concerned about potential liability if you sell a plane in which the engine is making metal and you failed to disclose it? I wonder how many people asked to see the latest oil analysis during a pre-buy? If a potential buyer asked to see your last 3-4 oil analysis along with all the other logs, would you provide them?

FLYING announced that it acquired Plane & Pilot Magazine. Plane & Pilot will dumb down and focus only on Piston GA. https://www.flyingmag.com/flying-acquires-plane-pilot-magazine/ As you might expect they try to put a positive spin on it. - They are claiming that piston GA is making a "robust comeback". The production numbers compared to fleet attrition are flat-line at best. There is no subscription support for competing stories or competing reviews of GA products. GA advertisers are not going to support both. It is also a function of the reduced popularity of publications that are also struggling with higher costs. IFR Magazine acquired IFR Refresher in 2021 and combined the two which IFR Refresher ceasing to exist Textron (Cessna) acquiring Beechcraft has not breathed any new life into Beech GA pistons - their production continues to shrink. MAPA is trying to stumble back into publication but most seem skeptical It is probably only a matter of time for Plane & Pilot to be combined into Flying. "FLYING and Plane & Pilot have been the top two independent aviation magazines for decades. While the brands have been viewed as competitive at times, the focus of the two magazines has also differed. FLYING is an aspirational brand, featuring the latest and greatest in general aviation, spanning the most advanced light sport models to the fastest business jets. Plane & Pilot, on the other hand, has had deeper coverage of the piston community and the world of recreational and private pilots."

Most J's do not have an Alt. Field switch. The Service Manual with Electrical only shows Alt. Field switch starting with 28 volt system and Serial Number 3000 and up. As noted in the Service Manual, for the 2,999 M20J's without an Alt Field switch, the only way to diagnose the charging system per @M20Doc 's explanation above is to pull the Alt. Field CB. The POH for Serial Numbers below 3,000 notes "The master switch operates the battery relay which controls battery power to the main ship bus bar. This switch also cuts the alternator field power - from main bus to the alternator." The "Normal Procedures - Starting" for those M20J's does not say anything about the Alt. Field. It does not say to pull the CB. The POH for Serial Numbers 3,000 and above (28 volt systems) says to leave the Alt Field "On" when starting. As noted by @jkgyr52 and others, Mooney has been inconsistent in providing an Alt Field switch and in the instructions for its use across models. But in 40 years, starting the 3,400+ J's with the Alt Field "on" has not been an issue for old or new avionics. This seems to be a non-issue. As @ArtVandelay said "Frankly I would be more worried about a lightning strike frying the electronics...."

As said many times the airbus stalled because the human at the controls manually pulled 1.6 G's upward at 35,000 ft. without full power on the engines. If the pilot would have maintained attitude and power while the pitot tube thawed and reengaged the autopilot all would be well. It is no different than if you are at altitude in cruise and your pitot tube freezes. Do you panic and pull the yoke back? Or do you keep it straight and level while you figure out what is going on?

I never meant to imply that the pilot monitoring could not take over. Who gets to choose with 2 pilots up front? The PF at the controls is flying. The other pilot is monitoring. Fight /force between 2 pilots? - that is a sure way to crash. That CRM went out years ago. AF447 - the 2 pilots were both acting PF fighting each other on the controls with opposite inputs. One has to hand off to the other. If the AI Autopilot goes down the pilot takes over. How does 2 pilots help that situation?

I think the basic problem with question #1 and #2 is that I believe you are assuming that the pilot will actually be flying the plane. A more sophisticated "AI" autopilot will be flying the plane in the future. The "pilot" will be monitoring. I hope you don't think it is actually pilots today that keep planes from flying into mountains at night these days - the route is set in the FMS. Same goes with a pilot falling asleep. As far as runway incursions go, one set of eyes should be adequate. On the GermanWIngs 9525 disaster, there were two (2) pilots on board - That didn't stop a determined pilot. Are you suggesting that planes need to go to 3 pilots so that one single pilot is never alone? Lastly what today keeps a hostile actor from hacking our spy satellites and drones and redirecting or crashing them? Encryption and security.

@KSMooniac is right - If you want a add a turbo (normalized or boost) to a 4 cylinder Lycoming powered Mooney, the only way you will get one is by trading planes with someone that already has one. The companies that offered STC's in the past are gone - M20Turbos, ModWorks and Turbo Bullet (an early Darwin Conrad company before he started Rocket Engineering). Rajay Turbos has been resurrected in North Houston at Kestral Airpark but they don't own the STC's for Mooney applications - not clear that they will even sell parts to those that already have a ModWorks STC based upon the Rajay turbo. See comment from "tomgo2" who is Rayjay. Note that they ref the Mooney STC's as being in "no man's land". https://rajay.aero/pages/list-of-stcs (Mooney applications via ModWorks listed in the detail at the bottom of page) The Turbo Bullet installation required the pistons converted to lower compression. The turbo originally boosted to 38" but because it produced more than 200 hp and broke crankshafts, the FAA reduced the allowed boost. It effectively had to be flown like TN.

Headline: Pilot Unions Form Coalition to Oppose Single-Pilot Operations, Citing Safety Concerns and Profit-Driven Motives The only reason that 3 competing pilot unions would form a coalition to try to stop single pilot operations is because they know it is a imminent real threat to their employment. Notice that it is 3 international pilot unions (not the APLA) banding together - no wonder the concept that airlines have "profit-driven motives" is foreign and confusing to them. I am sure their strategy will be brilliant - go on strike while being made redundant. The same fight is going on with rail - in North America and Europe. The industry is pushing for single man rail crews in the cab. The UK rail unions continue to strike for 2- man crews. However apparently the European unions have already given up on freight trains and are operating those with single man crews. Maybe the logical progression in aviation will be that freight flights, FedEx, UPS, etc will be the first to go to single pilot ops.

The other reason that it is hard to justify is because a J will always command a premium over an F, even one fully modified with all the “201” mods and with comparable quality paint, interior, hours, avionics, etc. It’s not a “J”.

There is enough hot air in this topic that we are all levitating……

Actually the young pilots will have to wait. It will take a long time for airlines flying single pilot ops to re-employ all the experienced pilots made redundant. Budding young pilots won’t even be able to get jobs as drone operators- the redundant pilots will have them first.

They just need to have their dog sitting in the Right Seat. Wait - maybe the dog is supposed to sit in the Left Seat!

Oh - and how many here on MS have flown family, friends, Angel Flights, etc with ONLY A SINGLE PILOT..??!!

You and others say the line in the sand is “no pilots” up front. But the more likely next step is “one pilot” up front. Is that a line in the sand? Many Part 135 operations are already single pilot and I don’t hear anyone complaining other than Pilots Unions. Perhaps some here arguing that they will only fly with 2 pilots up front have already flown a charter, business or sightseeing flight with a single pilot. It will solve the pilot shortage overnight.

Do you really know the point at which when technology is "helping" you vs. when it starts "controlling" you? There is the issue of speed and complexity. Automobile engines adjust fuel injection pulse widths in milliseconds. The GNSS (GPS) system makes changes at the rate of one microsecond. QA/QC is all automated. Humans are informed after the fact - the system will make changes long before any human notices. Humans can't think fast enough to process and respond to many technologies. Does your autopilot say "Please turn now and BTW - I am just going to keep flying the current heading which eventually goes into the mountains while I wait for you human to do something"? or does it turn automatically while also informing you (regardless of whether the human is paying attention or not)? And many aircraft have FADEC controlling the engines - can you over-ride it? Change mixtures and pressures because you might think you know more than the computer? NO. FAA - "Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) means just that. There is no direct pilot control over the engine or manual control mode. If the FADEC fails, the engine fails." No human is ensuring the real time accuracy of your GPS guidance the exact moment while you are flying. Humans will be alerted or review data anomalies identified by the automated QA/QC systems potentially after you have made a decision based upon the GPS signal. Yet I assume that you trust it real time. So that line between "help" vs "control" is blurry and getting more blurry. Many automated systems will have a period where it "takes control" rather than just shut down/disengaging while waiting for the slow human brain to get involved. Cars may go into "limp mode" when they detect something amiss - bad if it happens just as you need to accelerate on a busy freeway entrance ramp. You can't over-ride it - it takes control and alerts you. And as was previously stated the Airbus stalled because a human manually pulled 1.6 G's upward at 7,000 fpm while cruising at 35,000 ft, without full thrust thereby losing needed kinetic energy to fly.

I don't know about the short bodies, but the Travel Boards for the mid bodies and long bodies are the same. Just look at the Part's manuals. It is in Sect. 95-20-00. They are just fancy plywood or aluminum protractors that conform to the shape of the wing.

It doesn't seem like it would be worth much more than any other M20E if even that. It is possible that the attempt and actions to "save" it makes it neither desirable for a museum piece nor anything out of the ordinary for a "Standard Category" Certified plane. When Kyle Kennedy purchased it in 2016 it was the original CAFE speedster in the Experimental/Exhibition Category. The article by Dr.. Brien Seeley highlights how he achieved the speed gains. Among other things he stripped out the IFR avionics, buried the single com antenna in the tail stinger, removed the autopilot, step, removed the Stall Warning detector in the wing, removed the pitot tube brace and stuck it in the wing leading edge, built a bespoke tuned exhaust system without any heater, built a custom cowl and extended prop/spinner, removed the wingwalk coating, step, built a bespoke 3rd door landing gear full cover, reduced the size of wheels, installed a throttle body injection, experimental electronic ignition, 2 "3-cell" batteries located in different places wired in series, etc. 'Homebuilt' Mooney (sustainableaviation.org) In the article Dr. Seeley claims everything had to be Type Certified however I can't find any STC's in the database in the CAFE, or Seeley names. Perhaps some exist. In the YouTube, Kennedy makes it clear that he is removing and replacing everything that is not STC'ed back to stock. He specifically states that he is removing the electronic ignition. And he says that he has to reinstall the Stall Detector in the wing. The question is what else is being converted back? - throttle body injection?, unique exhaust? cowl and spinner? gear doors? FlightAware shows no flights since October of last year. The registration seems to show that it is now "standard" category. N6057Q Flight Tracking and History - FlightAware The question is how much really remains of its former CAFE form.