1980Mooney

The Rocket numbers do not represent reality. Read the past posts. Most talk about seeing 195-205 kts at 16,000 ft. That puts the Rocket right between the Bravo and Acclaims. Think about it - it is the same wing, basically same plane, similar power - you would expect it to be in the pack. It is not as refined as the Acclaim S. Frankly all the numbers are exaggerated. And they don't show weights or air temperatures, power settings or fuel burn - it is complete apples to oranges.

"Auto Lean" is simply an altitude compensating fuel pump. Sadly many mechanics didn't understand how to adjust it. - adjusted fuel flows too lean, potentially caused damage and in the end the owner had to foot the bill to replace a perfectly good fuel pump. See article below from 1998. In the hands of a competent mechanic it works great. I suspect the Missile you looked at suffered at the hands of a confused mechanic sometime in its life.

Yes - it is set up per the Continental book specs. When you say "25 ghp max FF" you mean at sea level. The Auto-Lean then reduces mixture and fuel flow per the chart below. Mine tracks within the ranges with one caveat - When at speed the ram air produces 1 inch hg denser air with is approximately equivalent to the pressure altitude produced by 1,000 ft. So when wide open at 6,000 ft I am seeing the fuel flow and performance for 5,000 ft. If I slow down at 6,000 ft and then open the engine wide open then I see the book fuel flows for 6,000 ft.

Has anyone seen steadiness in shop rates, the prices of parts, cost of repairs? Perhaps that just means one is more likely to be underinsured and their plane is more likely to be totaled. Exactly.

Rocket Engineering did not provide any cruise performance information. I had my J modified by Rocket - I have everything that they provided back then, all paper work, - there are not any detailed tables. When you say "leaning procedures" - it is pretty simple. If ROP - just bring one cylinder to peak and then richen however much you desire. 75 or 100 degrees. Interestingly I find that the old analog cylinder head temperature gauge (which has to remain per the STC) is just as accurate as the digital engine monitor - and quicker. For running LOP you need to ask others - I don't do it. The Missile is tightly cowled and heat is an issue on warm days and during long idling holds for IFR release - you need to watch your temps during climb - stay rich. You may have to level off to build speed in order to enhance cooling on some climbs. The IO550A on the Missile has "Auto-Lean" so you always take off full rich regardless the density altitude. Take off and climb are simple - full throttle, full rich until you level off at cruise altitude (Auto-Lean takes care of that). If going any reasonable distance I really prefer to cruise at 9,000-12,000 ft. I fly 2,400 rpm and wide open. When I begin a long descent, I keep the engine manifold pressure "square" as altitude drops and engine manifold pressure begins to rise - I close the throttle to keep it at 24" hg. and richen it up a tad. If you are looking for tables which show all the combinations of RPM at various altitudes with speed, engine manifold pressure and fuel consumption the original M20R tables and charts are a pretty good resource. The Ovation had the IO-550-G. It produced 280 hp because it was limited to 2,500 rpm. Your IO550A is rated 300 hp at 2,700 rpm. The Missile is a bit slower and the fuel burn is probably a bit higher than these numbers. I know the other day with a light load a little warmer than Standard Day temp, 6,000 ft, 2,400 rpm, wide open, 75 degrees rich of peak I can average 180 kts. TAS. I don't recall the fuel burn. The charts below have 2 examples. The second one shows 25 degress C, 3,200 lbs,, 6,000 ft, 2,400 rpm, 15.6 gph, 75% power (ROP Best Power), and 178 kts. The first one shows 9 degrees C., no weight shown, 8,000 ft, 15.6 gph, 75% power (ROP Best Power)- if you go to the second chart that equates to 180 kts. One thing that makes it hard to compare to these charts is that the Missile has ram air. If you have a good seal between the upper cowl and the filter then it adds about 1 inch hg pressure.

Well now that it is 2023 has anyone actually seen G100UL being sold? Anyone used it? Anyone know the price or proposed price? It seems like radio silence since the announcement.

I am curious how the CG moved materially aft on your 1966 M20E. (As asked above are you flirting with limit?) - did you gut the original panel with a complete upgrade? Composite prop? Lightweight starter or other accessories? If so that would seem to be advantageous Because since 1966 the true front seat pilot/copilot weights have materially increased. If you haven’t made any big changes then perhaps there is a W&B calc error

This was just discussed last month. WAT (Whelen) which bought LoPresti 4 years ago. They no longer show the Mooney cowl for sale (they still sell Piper cowls). When it was for sale it was $16k plus $5k install and it needs paint. I bet if they were to fan one today it would be way more (like every thing in aviation). If you are actually considering paying $25k+ for a cowl you might be better just buying a better plane….or an overhaul….or an IO-390….

Just to be clear - it will be hard to continuously make 65-75% power in a normally aspirated engine at 11,000 ft. -especially on a warm day. More like 60-65%. I also plan 170-175 kts at 11,000 at 2,400 rpm ROP.

During the last 22 years, no problem lubricating the flap hinge and bearings from the open back - the sides flare a little. No abnormal wear and zero maintenance required on the flap bearings during that time. And I fly hard and fast - per earlier thread on Flap Operating Speeds, I many times drop half flaps at speeds higher than POH and there have been times when I was firewall forward wondering why I was slow only to realize I forgot to raise the flaps. Think about it another way - the bearings are nicely protected by the Wing Flap Hinge Covers. For those without the hinge covers, the hinge and bearings are being constantly blasted by the elements blowing through the bearings at about 140-180 mph. No wonder they need more lubrication and attention to wear. From both an engineering and operating standpoint I prefer the Hinge Covers (SPECIAL ORDER ONLY) WING FLAP HINGE COVER FAIRINGS - LASKIT102 — LASAR

The lack of speed gains from wingtips on the Mooney square wing is well documented here. Bill Wheat explained " that the winglets were not necessarily a drag reduction component as much as they provided more air flow back on the ailerons creating more effectiveness. " Per @Blue on Top "Squared off tips are actually good. The reason is that one wants the wingtip vortices to depart the airplane cleanly. Any roundness will cause the vortices to cling to the airplane and be drawn inward ... slightly shortening the wingspan." He went to explain "Winglets were originally designed to allow for a gross weight increase without having to beef up the spar or re-wing the airplane. If airlines really wanted the highest efficiency airplanes they would have longer wings (not winglets) ... and then they would not fit at the gates." Winglets actually add drag under most flight circumstances. And @Blue on Top concluded "If you're cruising at 5-8K, you'll add drag." I think Rocket required them on mine because they increased my GW to 3,200 lbs. So yes the extra HP I have helps overcome the increased drag from my winglets. Granted they look nice - maybe they will make you feel like you are flying faster.

Actually tubby. The 252 empty weight was 1,800 lbs. The Encore empty weight was 2,000 lbs. - 11% heavier than a 252. Only because Mooney increased the GW on the Encore to 3,130 lbs was the Encore able to carry more than 2 pax.

Older is right. There have been several posts in the last year that it is getting harder and harder to get anyone at Rocket to answer the phone or email.

True - nicer, more substantial. And those panels are heavier than thin Royalite - less U.L.

I have a 1980 J. I had Rocket Engineering convert it to the Missile over 20 years ago. They added the wing tips and aileron gap seals. I separately added the one piece belly. I don’t think that the wing tips or one piece belly add any speed. But the gap seals may help. I have flap hinge covers - can’t remember if they are standard. The one piece belly speeds belly inspections- I think there are only about 8 -10 cam locks. The wing tips unfortunately push me into a larger hangar (per city airport regs) by 6 inches. That costs me about $100/mo. more over the next smaller hangar which fits short and mid body Mooney’s Without wing tips (squared wingtip) - no benefits there. https://lasar.com/mods Any mod is a lot of money for little benefit. Gap seals don’t cost a lot but there is considerable labor. If you add gap seals you will be doing some repainting too.

It looks like the gasket on your fuel pickup is leaking. That may be the source of the fuel that is seeping into the wheel-well. The pickup is at the highest point - with the interior in place it doesn't evaporate as fast and the liquid avgas will find its way down with gravity eventually into the wheel well where it evaporates leaving the dye stain. I personally would replace the pickup gaskets, clean it up and then look for any leaks that might be from the tank. Your interior must reek of avgas when you open the door. Let's see what the A&P's here say....

Isn’t @Will.iam asking about “parts” prices and not about the purchase price of the plane?

Wow - all 475 pages (55 MB) in the download - and you don't even need to pay $270 for the book.... I am surprised that someone isn't here already calling us all thieves and accomplices like in the M20L Conversion to Ovation topic last October. https://mooneyspace.com/topic/7846-ovation-1-to-ovation-3-via-the-midwest-stc/?do=findComment&comment=765668

That might have been true in the past when Mooney was actually building planes. But today they struggle to remain a parts supplier. Not everything is supported. The jigs for the short and mid bodies were trashed years ago. The company is short of cash so they wait until several orders come in prepaid before they tool up or order from outside suppliers (example -no back springs $1000+ and 6+ month wait). The recent Mooney factory parts prices that have been quoted here on MS seem outrageous. As a result Mooney owners are always looking for alternate sources. The good news on short and mid bodies a lot of salvage parts exist and some drawings are in the public. Third parties supply interior parts, etc. With long bodies this is not true - you are more dependent upon Mooney if you can’t find a salvage part. I think the better comparison is like buying parts for a BMW M3 vs a Delorean. ( yes parts exist - the owner of the Delorean trademark and what’s left used to live next door - he continues to supply) Either way parts will be expensive. And since everything on a Mooney is so cramped and therefore harder to work on labor may be higher - ask @M20Doc

The OP said “The mechanic said they were at the end of their service life at 25 years old (maybe even a bit older).” I think your point is that if you are going to dispute a squawk based on age then one should know the actual age. A bit older?….30 years old? 35? The OP should know exactly from the logs.

More likely unrealistic sellers. It is not surprising that sellers will generally argue that the plane is just fine as it is - that is why these “grey area” discrepancies have not been repaired prior to sale. The inspection may identify “near end of life” items which a new/inexperienced/non-savvy buyer may not have noticed visually or in the logs. It’s like your example of dry rot in old tires - they will get you home but don’t expect them to last. Here on MS it is consistently said that the first Annual after a purchase is a big dollar one as a new set of eyes are on the plane - bigger than expected. And it is generally more than the squawks found in the pre purchase inspection.

True. In this other current topic a “Fritz1” comments that he would pay as much as $5,000 to do an inspection that is more comprehensive than an Annual. And he will pay a Seller $1,000 to bring the plane to his hangar for the inspection. So the potential Buyer is out a lot of money if he doesn’t buy. And if he buys he is out potentially less if the inspection identifies discrepancies that the Seller agrees to repair.

Yes - demand may be down but consolidation is driving prices up. Tailwind Technologies, which owns Hartzell and other aviation businesses, bought AWI in Jan 2020. In Jan 2021 they bought Dawley - they shut Dawley down, moved equipment and consolidated in AWI Minneapolis. In July 2022, the acquired Acorn Welding in Canada. https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/hartzell-aerospace-welding-acquires-canadian-welding-company/?amp

I am getting lost in these hypotheticals. Per the example AOPA Purchase Agreement above, in order to trigger the process to get the escrow back there has to be an inspection.

There is no reason to feel insulted. There are any number of reasons why someone might have second thoughts about buying a plane which don’t have anything to do with something you said, your specific plane or you personally. Let’s face it - flying carries risk and buying a plane is one of the largest nonessential financial commitments one can make. Maybe: - He spoke to his insurance agent - Maybe his partner (potential co-owner) said “No fricking way and It’s the Mooney or me” - Maybe he is stretching financially and the realization that the plane could need expensive repairs sooner than later (like the bladders) was a “wake-up call” that he can’t afford a plane after all.