mhrivnak

Using an agent is a reasonable idea for a first transaction. But roughly the process can ideally be: Have someone knowledgeable look over the ad and scanned logs to help you affirm that the plane is a good fit for you and reasonably priced. Make an offer along with a proposed contract, unless the seller has a contract. It should spell out the terms of getting an inspection done, who pays for what, how long you have to complete the purchase, whether you'll use an aviation escrow service (hint: it's a great idea), etc. AOPA has an example contract you can find. Arrange a pre-buy inspection done by someone who knows Mooneys but hasn't worked on this one. It should start with a thorough and detailed log book review so you'll know what to look for during the physical inspection. With the log review done, which might reveal some specific items to look at, someone will inspect the plane in-person. You want to pay them by the hour for as little or much time as you both agree it takes to be confident in a go/no-go decision. They'll look for the most-likely deal-breakers first and stop if they find a major concern, so you can evaluate whether to continue or walk away. At the end you want to receive a summary of condition and any problems or concerns that could be expensive or airworthy. You should also receive itemized estimates for any issues that must or should be fixed soon. You'll negotiate with the seller over who will fix, or pay to fix, discrepancies. The escrow service can handle all of the paperwork with the FAA and will disperse money. Or they'll return your money, and you hand the keys back to the seller. In reality it can be difficult to schedule a pre-buy on short notice, but it's very worthwhile and the best money you'll spend. The best money I spent in my own purchase process was on a pre-buy for a plane I ended up walking away from, due to surprises revealed in the inspection process. An annual determines if an airplane is airworthy (even if just barely) today, but says little about tomorrow or next year. You want something very different: guidance on whether you should assume ownership of the plane and all of its potential / developing problems. Nobody has a crystal ball, but they can give you surprisingly-specific advice about what expensive work will likely be required in the coming years. Also keep in mind that once you start an annual, it must be completed. But with a pre-buy inspection, if the mechanic finds a deal-breaker in the first hour (airframe corrosion, metal in the oil filter, surprise damage history, ...), you can stop right there and call the whole thing off. If it's convenient or efficient to also do an annual during the purchase process, go for it. You'll insist that it at least has a current annual. But personally, even if I was buying a plane whose annual expired real soon, I'd first pay someone to spend at least a few hours hands-on looking for deal-breakers before committing to a full annual. My last bit of advice: know what you want, and be ready to move FAST because good planes get a lot of interest. Get on hangar waiting lists right now. Find an insurance agent you like. Pick an aviation escrow service. Start transition training now if you can find a CFI with a Mooney. You want everything lined up in advance and ready to go. When you see an ad of interest, respond right away, and be prepared to get on the phone almost immediately trying to find a shop in the area that can do a pre-buy.

In turbulence, I've turned the yaw damper off and on to feel the difference. It's significant. When off, there is some definite yaw happening, which is expected as the left and right wings encounter different bits of turbulence at different times. But press one button, and nearly all of the yaw motion stops like magic. As pilots, the yaw motion in turbulence probably isn't that big of a deal. I'd be fine without the yaw damper, but it does marginally improve my quality of life in turbulence. For inexperienced passengers though, yaw is perhaps the most unnatural dimension of turbulence. I'd also bet that yaw feels worse in the back seat where you're further behind the center of gravity, and thus swinging farther left and right. If you don't fly much in turbulent air, it may not be of much value to you. But I'm very happy I have it, since convective turbulence is an issue a lot in NC. If you're looking for ways to justify the expense, I think you could make an argument that it's also a speed mod! The natural yaw of turbulence causes the plane to briefly travel somewhat sideways through the air, and yaw is corrected by air flow hitting parts of the airframe that it normally shouldn't. If the tail swings right, air will hit the right side of the vertical stabilizer, and possibly parts of the plane's body, pushing it back into a straight position. That must increase the drag profile. Or you could use a yaw damper to keep the airframe pointed as straight as possible through the air flow.

@201Steve have you done a flow test? You basically aim each injector into a cup, run the boost pump for a short time, and then check whether all four cups got the same amount of fuel. It looks to me like the data you're showing would be explained by #2 getting less fuel than the others. And have you done Savvy's recommended gami lean test and in-flight mag check? That would capture a lot more data about how #2 is behaving compared to the others.

I think both plugs are working. Your description of why EGT rises during single-plug ignition is true regardless of whether the mixture is ROP or LOP. Try a LOP mag check, and you'll see the EGTs rise. Given that, the LOP data does not look like single-plug ignition.

When calibrating the 900 with my factory senders, I recall taking measurements at 8 gallon increments. On one side, the number barely moved after adding the first 8 gallons, but a little shake of the wing got it to read appropriately. I don't know if that's common, but maybe your senders didn't get the encouragement they needed to move off of the empty position.

What's the general trend for Mooney values since last year?

Apparently all of the details are in their patents, which are public. Maybe this has the info you want? https://patents.google.com/patent/US8628594B1/en

There's only one lead supplier for 100LL, so we're already at the mercy of a monopoly.

I'm 5'6" and have no problem flying Js. I put my seat at the third notch back.

Mine are routed similarly to Eric's, and they're closer to 4" from the cylinder than 2. So far one of them failed with less than 400 hours on it. I typically see peaks around 1480 at 65% power.

The straps won't feel any lift until the total lift exceeds the weight of the airplane. So you first need enough wind to make the airplane weightless, then add enough additional wind to generate 300lbs of positive lift per tie-down. I'm not saying they're great, but 300lb tie-downs might be ok even into hurricane force winds.

That doesn't sound right. If turning it on makes the ride worse, something is definitely wrong. In smooth air, I find that the yaw damper does nothing. It's definitely not intended to be rudder trim. I leave it off during climbs and fast descents so I can manually apply the appropriate rudder input. In turbulent air, turning the yaw damper on and off has an obvious impact on the amount of yaw that the turbulence induces. I think it's time to take your installer for a flight. As an aside, while most people (myself included) seem to initially assume that these are called "yaw dampeners", they are in actuality called "yaw dampers". I don't know why.

Go out and practice 100kts in advance. Some people just put the gear down, but I've managed 100kts pretty easily with gear up on similar arrivals. That's pretty close to most people's clean downwind speed anyway. On a long arrival like SnF or especially OSH, I find that approach flaps helps reduce speed a little, but more importantly lowers the nose enough to give better forward visibility. Be prepared for the plane ahead of you to go much slower than 100kts. And they might deviate from the lateral course. Mentally be prepared to break out and go back to the beginning even if it's not your fault. If you have a passenger, brief them in advance to get them involved in watching nearby traffic. Personally I'm happy to fly into a nearby airport and rent a car there, without the insanity of the SnF arrival. Some people like the challenge, but I've checked it off the list and am happy enough staying out of all that traffic. I'll fly in Thursday (planning for Tampa Exec) and be at the show Friday and Saturday. Looks like the weather should deliver plenty of "Sun"!

I think your points here, which I agree with, are: An engine with electronic ignition is very easy to start. That makes it less relevant to compare which starter might be better at starting. For example, one spins faster or is stronger than another. That just isn't of much value if you have electronic ignition. If you are considering spending money on improving the quality and reliability of starts, you may be better off investing in electronic ignition instead of a starter upgrade. I'm anticipating an engine overhaul in the near future, which will come back with electronic ignition. That definitely factored into my decision to not spend more money right now on getting a better starter.

I went with an overhauled Aerotech. The Skytec sounds nice, but I couldn't justify paying more than double. Thanks for the input and discussion.