1980Mooney

A thread by Diamond owners says that Garmin will not service used/salvage GIA 63W that owners scrounge as a way to backdoor an upgrade to WAAS. They will only service it if it was installed new in your plane. The last post highlights that Garmin is able to establish the chain of custody from their records so there is no way to fool them. Garmin refuses to service GIA63W LRUs - diamondaviators.net

If you "fly" your route on ADSB-Exchange, which uses available ADSB as well as its own receiver network, it shows that you are UAT the entire route - both legs - there and return https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a98695&lat=40.882&lon=-74.062&zoom=10.2&showTrace=2022-03-18&trackLabels&timestamp=1647635546 Your squawk going down was 4372 Your squawk on the return was 4261 ADSB-Exchange had trouble with your track briefly at 3:18 11 seconds but it did not drop you to "0". FLightAware picked you up fine at that point. It seems like there may be some delay in the presentation of your location and speed data but it is all seems to be there let me know if I am looking at the same track that you were

OK just to make sure we are talking about N7125U on Friday and today. When I look at FlightAware on the Friday return leg I don't see where you said it shows you at "0" altitude. The data is complete with no gaps in time stamp. It is all listed as UAT data except for 1 minute 46 seconds minutes at 3:12 PM however the data is still there.

Unless the plastic has discolored and turned black why not just use plastic polish or tooth paste to polish it?

The Inogen G5 is the same as the OxyGo Next. The only difference between the Aviator and home models is the visual flow indicator (2) (see below) and Y splitter for 2 users (you can rig for one or two users) . I bought a slightly used OxyGo Next locally for a few hundred dollars. It comes with a car charger (12 v lighter plug) which works great since my plane is 12 v. The hoses and connectors are standard home oxygen supply - you just need to figure out what you need. I recently bought it and have only used it once below 10,000. So far it works great and O2 levels 99%

Side issue - Many have asked how many no back springs have failed. I have never found any statistics however here is the FAA Incident Report of the first Eagle M20S Serial number 30-0001 N2234X that suffered a spring failure at 178 hours since compliance with the SB in Dec. 2003. It describes the failure mode. IN FLIGHT, 178.3 HOURS SINCE COMPLIANCE WITH MFG SB AND MANDATORY REPLACEMENT OF NO BACK CLUTCH SPRING WITH NEW. BOTH TANG ENDS BROKE OFF OF SPRING INSIDE OF LANDING GEAR ACTUATOR WHEN GEAR WAS SELECTED DOWN FOR LANDING. ONE BROKEN TANG APPARENTLY JAMMED BETWEEN THE NO BACK CLUTCH SPRING AND THE NO BACK CLUTCH SPRING HOUSING MAKING EITHER ELECTRICAL OR EMERGENCY MANUAL EXTENSION OF THE LANDING GEAR IMPOSSIBLE. AC WAS LANDED, GEAR UP, UNEVENTFULLY BUT SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TOPROPELLER AND BOTTOM OF FUSELAGE WAS CAUSED BY CONTACT WITH RUNWAY. INVESTIGATION UNDER WAY, OTHER REPORTS OF IDENTICALFAILURES.

This is interesting - didn't have TKS then.

So what you are saying is that this plane needs about $50K soon. Prop last OH 27 years ago. Hopefully the tanks are ok or that is another $10K or more It is a capable 2 person plane. The UL is 816 lbs. The serial number is too low to qualify for the GW Increase STC. On the plus side it has dual brakes and dual articulating seats with lumbar support Here are the logs on this site (oh now I see them on the other site too) https://www.hangar67.com/aircraft/1986-mooney-m20j-201/21251?psrc=15209 Flown 210 hours in last 10 years. 4 hours in 2020 and 7 hours last year. Looks like the same A&P for the last 19 years. A new set of eyes on the prebuy may find many things.

That confirms that Mooney's finances are so dire that they are living from "hand to mouth". They can't spare any cash to pay Eaton for springs that will be tied up in inventory (working capital) for even a short period of time. They are ordering and then immediately reselling as soon as they arrive in Kerrville. They probably don't (can't?) pay Eaton until they receive the cash from the MSC's. The crazy thing is that these are in such high demand that they will fly off the shelves. It sounds like the current business model is to only build parts when they have firm orders in hand. That means one at a time with lots of startup costs and expense or waiting for a batch of orders. That means high cost and/or slow delivery and lots of downtime for Mooney owners unfortunate enough to need a factory part. Sad

Interesting…so Garmin still makes you buy additional (and their brand) equipment to “unlock” this feature. Garmin just gives you (forces) multiple ways to buy all Garmin .

You can only get coupled VNAV from a GTN box if you have a DIGITAL AP. Most likely @HIghpockets has an analog AP. That means he will need to buy a GPSS/roll adapter to make his autopilot work vertically with either the GTN or the GNS. In that case he can do coupled approaches with vertical navigation on the GNS530W. The only other way for him to get coupled VNAV is BUY A NEW DIGITAL AUTOPILOT...$$$$$ (AND GARMIN PREFERRABLY WANTS HIM TO BUY ONE FROM GARMIN) There is no doubt that the newest from Garmin and Avidyne have the most bells and whistles, the fastest processors and the be best resolution and largest "installed" panels as well as the longest support. But in order to get all those things you need to spend a lot more on everything else. It depends on your mission but not everyone can or wants to spend multiples of $20k on a plane for small incremental benefits. The plane will go no faster, no higher, no farther. You get "built in panel" visual improvement - basically what you already have on your ipad with Foreflight just in the instrument panel instead of in front of you or in your hand. There were more than 100,000 Garmin GNS built according to Flying Mag - more than any other Nav/Com...someone will support them. There is a reason that so many GNS530W are still in use. Just my view.

The first is touch screen vs knobs - so if you want touchscreen then you have to change. But if knobs are fine then it is a useless feature. The next 2 are marketing hype "modern styles" The next 2 are about size and pixels The next 3 let you know that you have to buy a remote audio panel to make room The next 11 are features found on an iPad with Foreflight......yawn. They don't even mention the features you highlighted. Many dont want charts on a screen in the middle...they want them in front of them - Foreflight on an iPad mini on a Ram mount on the yoke is superior

You have to be careful with these claims. Bluetooth is false, After spending about $20k with tax on a new GTN750xi you still don't have bluetooth. You still need to pay Garmin another approx $2-4k to buy a FlightStream 510 chip, a GMA-35 Remote Audio Panel or a GMA 350 Audio Panel to make it work with Bluetooth and your portable devices. A GNS530W gets bluetooth from the addition of a FlightStream 210 box. So the GTN provides no advantage. GTN box full AP integration is true if you have a Garmin EFIS and Garmin Autopilot. GTN box might integrate VNAV and GPSS/roll with some autopilot and EFIS but not all. Not knowing your other components you may need a GPSS/roll adapter. In that case no difference between GTN box and GNS box - they will both follow GPS heading but not approaches. Compatibility is mind boggling - talk to your shop. BeechTalk - BT - GTN 750 on-going saga - no GPS control Chart display is true and nice - but don't forget that you will have to pay for that with an annual subscription. You are already probably getting that on an iPad for a whole lot less than it will cost with a GTN box from Garmin. Garmin charges $2k to unlock the Jepp Charts for instance on a GTN box. They have a bundle price but it is still more than Foreflight charges. Integration is nice - it depends on your mission - it may not add much. Foreflight may provide everything you need with a GNS530W. Foreflight was kicking Garmin's butt so bad that Garmin were forced to build in compatibility with Foreflight. Garmin's preferred solution is to make you buy everything on the panel from Garmin in order to get all the benefits. - it is easy to spend $80k doing that. Just my view.

I have a 530W/430W stack like you are considering and am perfectly happy with them. I see no reason to change them. They are perfectly integrated and cross-fill. I could spend $30,000 to get new models with larger touch screens but get no better functionality.

Are you contemplating purchasing one versus the other? If so I would definitely get the GNS530W for a couple reasons. First the screen is much better and easier to read - both size and resolution. Also Garmin is near the end of being able to support a GNS 430. I had mine overhauled recently and was told that they’re no longer able to get new screens. If you do buy a GNS 430 W don’t pay much for it.

You may be right that I have conflated 2 Jonathan Scott Pollack's living in the Northeast into one. But what I do know is that Mooney's Jonathan Scott Pollack is educated as an attorney and owns N705SE. He is Instrument Rated. His pilot license, aircraft registration and law license all show 129 E 82ND ST # 3A, New York, New York as the address. FlightAware shows that N705SE is based at Great Barrington Airport (KGBR) in Massachusetts near the New York state border. It also shows that the plane has made one trip to Kerrville in the last 3 months. It arrived in Kerrville on Jan. 10, 2022. It appears to have then made trips to Corpus Christi and San Antonio and returned to Kerrville. It departed Kerrville for KGBR on January 22. It is still "Crickets"

Exactly The original shock mounts are made by Lord and about $18 each - brass/nonmagnetic studs I assume specified for the days of magnetic instruments. Lord J-6984-64 Instrument Panel Shock-Mount at SkyGeek.com The shaft going through the instrument panel is shorter. The ones referenced in Aircraft Spruce in are J-6984-1. They are 1/8 inch too long. (the same length stud on each side) Overview Lord round instrument panel shock mount, as used in Cessna aircraft. Overall length 1-1/4". Rubber molded on 8-32 threaded projections. New manufacture. There is a remedy - you can cut 1/8 inch off one side on each mount. Aircraft Spruce also has some cheap ones with ferrous studs. Looks like you may be a new "J" owner. You might want to look at this: Page 614 (56-10-06, page 0) mooney.free.fr/Manuels M20J/M20J/Mooney M20J Illustrated Parts Catalog.pdf Also mooney.free.fr/Manuels M20J/M20J/Mooney Service Manuel M20J Vol. 1 of 2.pdf http://mooney.free.fr/Manuels M20J/M20J/Mooney Service Manuel M20J Vol. 2 of 2.pdf

Here are 2 topics from Mioneyspace on Experience with Blue Skies. Not very flattering

This is why there aren't a whole lot of companies clamoring to get into this market....and why FBO's don't want to make multiple investments in dual infrastructure that will sell less fuel in total combined.

GAMA 2021 Full Year Single Engine Piston (and Single Engine Electric below) Aircraft Shipments and Billings Report is out. Cirrus dominates. Mooney is MIA. Textron lost ground to Cirrus - built no (zero) Bonanza's in 2021. But they announced that they are bringing the Cessna 182T back into production to better meet market demand basically unchanged from 2005 when last built. Diamond and Tecnam remain solid performers with a decent share of market. Piper's numbers are stronger than they appear. They lost some share in basic SEP trainers but built more of their lucrative pressurized singles - piston and turboprop (which are not reflected here) and lucrative twins (also not reflected here). Extra, American Champion, and Sonaca are steady. CubCrafters growing. Pipistrel growing (in addition to 26 pistons, delivered 48 Electric trainers and certified Panthera "modern Ovation"). ICON in decline - novelty wearing off, parent company issues. Although not shown in the GAMA data, a registration search shows that Maule is building again, and Game Composites builds about 12 planes per year. It seems like especially bad timing for Mooney to give up on aircraft manufacturing. Quarterly Shipments and Billings - GAMA SE-Piston 2018 2019 2020 2021 Mooney 14 9 0 0 Cirrus 380 384 347 442 Textron 208 203 306 254 Diamond 98 203 213 207 Tecnam 180 197 138 186 Piper 134 203 178 146 CubCrafters 19 16 64 50 Flight Design 43 63 38 41 Pipistrel 22 8 17 26 Extra 24 25 22 22 American Champion 13 10 14 20 Sonaca 4 24 19 19 Icon 44 41 22 18 AVIC 4 2 7 3 Pacific Aerospace 0 0 1 1 From Registration Search Maule 4 1 0 5 Game Composites 1 11 12 12 SE-Electric Pipistrel 0 0 13 48

It’s just as well that Aeroshell #6 is not available. They made a change in its formulation a while back and it is suffering premature separation of the mineral oil. Van’s is reporting the problem too https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=178968 My Hartzell is streaking the blades and throwing on my windscreen. It is currently in a Hartzell shop for a reseal with Nyco GN3058 a lithium synthetic grease. Hartzell no longer uses Aeroshell on new props https://hartzellprop.com/SERVICE-DOCUMENTS/SL/HC-SL-61-366.pdf

Based upon serial number it looks like Mooney only built about 140 M20TN’s. Some were exported. Some crashed. AviationDB shows 121 airworthy in the US. There are four for sale right now on controller. That’s over 3%. That’s more than the fleet in general.

Yes but all the Mooney purists would lose their minds. They would say it looks too much like a Cirrus. After all we enjoy enduring gear up landings, paying higher insurance rates, paying higher annuals to swing gear, replace no-back springs, replace Lord Disks, lubricate, repair nose gear truss bearings, repair bent nose gear truss from excessive tow bar turning and to have a wide turning radius.

Perhaps it is all perspective but I don't call the Mooney Corp. of 2013-2019 "small". Yes today they are small. But between 2013-2019 the Chinese owners admitted to infusing $150 million capital into Mooney (per AvWeb ref. Company statements). A newly opened engineering and test facility in Chino CA had 80 employees by 2017 with plans to go to 150. $50 million was invested in the M10T trainer. They had developed " test procedure / plan, test articles, full sets of new drawings, test flights etc." for the M10T - they were in the business of developing planes. https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/mooney-m10t-aircraft/ But that all came crashing down. They laid off everyone (80) in CA and closed the facility. In 2019 they laid off 229 in Kerrville. Between 2013 and 2019 Mooney could have made further investment in their flagship M20 line but besides the door, they didn't. It wasn't due to lack of funds or knowhow - it was done by choice. Widening the cabin or increasing the UL would have been truly incremental for their technical, engineering, development, testing and certification skills during that period. Today, with each passing day of silence from Mooney Corp or their management, it looks hopeless. https://www.avweb.com/air-shows-events/mooney-consolidates-in-kerrville/ https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/mooney-again-will-it-ever-thrive/ https://www.avweb.com/insider/mooneys-last-act/