1980Mooney

Wrong. You need to fill it out. It will go onto the County Tax roll as "Personal Property" which is tax exempt. I am in the same county. If you don't fill it out it they will assume that it is income producing and you will be taxed.

Exactly. It is the original "Poor man's Ovation". N9136B | 1991 MOONEY M20J MSE MISSILE on Aircraft.com

Probably to close an easy loophole in the flow of Fentanyl to the US. Just like in the days of the rise of use of marijuana and cocaine, "cowboys" smuggling by air has been a favorite of Americans. "Hunting Trip" - great cover..... And with Fentanyl it is so much easier. CBP posts seizures that show that just one (1) pound of higher potency Fentanyl pills (5,000 - 1 gram pills) can have a street value of $100,000.

This was already a topic on Monday

At first I wondered why an heir to the Wasabröd fortune would be flying a 2005 Ovation or why the higher cost to fly in Europe would really matter to him - why wasn't he flying a pressurized turboprop or Visionjet? But digging deeper I see he filed for bankruptcy in 2009, served time in prison for corporate copyright infringement, financed ultra right wing efforts, was a Holocaust denier on Facebook and was still pursued by Sweden for about $13 million in unpaid debts. He lived in Switzerland to try to shield himself.

So you say that your ammeter is discharging at low rpm. Is this all the time or only after starting? How old is your battery and has it been tested recently? (Is cranking speed/sound the same or is it noticeably slower?) When in cruise, if you shut down everything that you can, does the ammeter go to zero? - ie not discharging and not charging because the battery is fully charged. When you turn some load back on in cruise such as lights or pitot heat, do you see change in ammeter charge/discharge and also a change in voltage?

Apples to oranges. You have a K with a Continental that uses a "coupler". The OP has a J with a Lycoming that uses a V-belt.

The design is foolproof. If you reverse polarity on your auxiliary power source by accident, then the solenoid will not energize the relay and there will be no connection with your airplane’s battery. It’s just like jumpstarting your car – the auxiliary power will first flow to the battery adding whatever charge is left there and then onto your starter. I’ve used it once that way and it worked just fine. Many years ago while I was heading for an engine conversion. My Lycoming was on its last legs and on my final refueling stop the engine would not restart. The only way to get it started was by hooking the cables up to an FBO truck while it was revving its engine. Since then, I’ve only used the auxiliary port to charge my battery from time to time.

@Ragsf15e That is good advice - while there is still someone at Mooney that can address this. (and put it in writing from Mooney). Otherwise you may have trouble selling it as a true Encore conversion.

As I mentioned before, I have the Missile 300 J conversion with standard single puck brakes but rated to 3,200 lbs GW. When landing heavy (and maybe a bit too much speed) standing harder on the brakes does not add additional stopping power. Their stopping force plateaus. You can stand harder and harder on the brakes and it still slows at the same constant rate - and you better have enough runway. It is rather unnerving. I have to believe that the Double Puck brake is superior.

Here is the Double Puck brake. You have the lower arrow - Single Puck

When you look at your POH (should be on the W&B) and other documents is your plane rated to 3,200 lbs. (like the first M20M with single puck and like the Rocket 305 and Missile 300 conversions with the existing single puck brake) or is it rated to the full 3,368 lbs like the double puck long bodies (including later M20M)?

That is the traditional single puck brake cylinder.

@Dustoff49 Seriously, whoever did the most recent Annuals and the "Pre-Buy/Annual" is incompetent. You are lucky that you didn't have a gear collapse. At the very least you should report them to the FAA. And it would be helpful to inform unsuspecting Owners here of the identities so they can stay away from those shops. Given the inept prior Annuals, you might want to consider having Sarasota do a complete inspection of your plane.

And this wasn't noticed during the Pre-Buy? I hope that you didn't pay anything for that Pre-Buy. Did they even open up the plane and drop the belly panel?

Rocket Engineering certified both the Rocket 305 and Missile 300 mid-body conversions to 3,200 lbs. GW with the original single puck brakes. Braking is not great when heavy and/or too fast. You can feel them fade - pressing harder doesn't make them stop quicker. I can see why Mooney went to dual puck brakes on long bodies certified to 3,368 lbs. (The first TLS through serial number 27-0107 had single puck brakes but were also rated to only 3,200 lbs. GW)

@Ragsf15e "mike261" posted RETROFIT TSIO-360-SB ENGINE DWG. NO. 940141.pdf here on MS on August 26, 2022 as a download....but both he and the drawing are gone along with his posts. Such is MS.

If you have all new Garmin glass, why do you need a yoke mounted iPad at all? Doesn’t your new Garmin glass panel/Garmin suite give you everything you need allseamlessly integrated? All a mini or full size iPad on the yoke does is block the view of your new Garmin glass panel. Maybe I am missing something but I don’t see the need for Sentry or Foreflight now. And you get a much better data price with Garmin OnePak on your new Garmin suite including Garmin Pilot. I can see keeping an iPad handy as backup in case your panel goes dark and also for uploading or downloading. But your primary and your eyes should be on your new panel.

Sounds like you are speaking from experience....

It sounds like you just need a serviceable hub and spinner plus governor. Do you care if has logs? Reselling used/ potentially prop struck blades sounds like a losing proposition. Have you tried calling any of the larger prop shops to see if they have old hubs/cores?

BTW - we replaced the original miserly Rochester 2GC 2 bbl with the biggest 2 bbl available - a Holley 500 CFM 2 bbl. I never really noticed any material difference for all the work (like many well-intentioned modifications on cars and planes!)

Here is a great composite that shows the Lancair, the first flight school 172 in the pattern that got buzzed twice by the Lancair, the second flight school 172 in the pattern (the collision 172) and the other planes in the pattern (an SR-20 that was in the pattern, a twin taking off, a Caravan taking off, etc.) The first 172 was initially on a collision course with the Lancair when the Lancair made a bizarre 360 entry to enter the pattern while flying directly against aircraft in the pattern at about 160 kts - it put the Lancair on a collision course 100 ft above the first 172. The first 172 was buzzed a second time when the Lancair passed about 200 ft above the 172 while it was touching down - the Lancair was accelerating from 110 to 140 kts. down the centerline. It is inconceivable that Lancair was not aware that there was other traffic in the pattern - especially student traffic doing touch and go's. That is all the more reason to give the students space at an uncontrolled airport.

It sounds much nicer than the 1962 Bel Air Station Wagon that we had with a 283 2-bbl.. I assume yours still had the 2-speed "Powerglide" slush bucket tranny.......

I find it odd that it says "experienced a landing gear issue and made an emergency gear up landing at runway 19R at Buchanan Field Airport (CCR/KCCR), Concord, California." He took off from Byron Airport, (C83) and flew a non-direct route to Buchanan Field Airport (CCR/KCCR) If his gear were stuck down - no biggie - but he would have flown directly to his home drome Buchanan Field Airport (CCR/KCCR) ( where all his flights originate from). If his gear were stuck part way, then he would have also expected him to fly direct and then circled the airport trying to correct the problem In the picture there is no indication of partial deployment His approach to Buchanan Field Airport (CCR/KCCR) appears to be basically straight in. If he experienced a gear failure on Final, I would have expected to see a balked landing and a circling procedure to trouble shoot. But no - just straight in. I listened to LiveATC KCCR Ground/Tower #2 at 03:00 Zulu Feb 21. At about 5:30 minutes Mooney N3490N contacts the Tower and requests RNAV 19R (The owner is not Instrument Rated per FAA Airmen) Winds were calm at the time. Sky clear. 10 mile visibility. 30.13 in Hg. End of Civil Twilight was about 6:20 PM PST and this happened at 7:07 PM PST. The Tower immediately responds that he is cleared to land. There is a lot of commotion at 8:10 min - the radio says "Mooney landed on 19R - It looks like it was wheeled up" The Tower closes the runway and rolls a firetruck. The Pilot of N3490N NEVER ANNOUNCED TO THE TOWER WHILE INBOUND OR ON FINAL THAT HE HAD ANY LANDING GEAR ISSUE The owner of the plane is 70 years old per internet, https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a3e122&lat=38.058&lon=-121.910&zoom=12.2&showTrace=2025-02-21&trackLabels&timestamp=1740106433

Does your friend know if there was any communication of intentions by either plane on the CTAF? And if the AeroGuard (former Embry-Riddle) plane has a moving map showing traffic?