Utah20Gflyer

The G is an attempt at maximum utility vs cost. Good speed and climb, low maintenance, low fuel burn but still the potential to carry 4 Adults comfortably (for a short distance) and/or more baggage room. My G will do 145 knots on 9 gph and when it comes time for overhaul I’ll pay significantly less than an F owner. Saying a G doesn’t make sense because you could have a F is kind of like saying why a F if J, or why J if K, why K if M, etc. The G often goes for less than a Cherokee 180 but does an extra 20 or 25 knots so in the grand scheme of things they are a great value plane. By the way these are all facts because I’m not biased at all, haha!

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/02/mooney-m20j-n201hf-luke-bucklins-former.html?m=1 I think this is the one we are talking about. Sounds like routing was a factor, he should have refused that route based on the 15800 MEA. That's not a reasonable altitude for a Heavily loaded J model. It did mention ice accumulation but seemed to attribute a mountain wave which is certainly possible as he was only barely above terrain when he went down, unable to climb to 16k as instructed. Reading the report again it seems very reasonable a turbo fiki Mooney would have done fine in that situation. I believe it said cloud tops were 16k. He could have been VFR on top in short order with a properly equipped plane. Very sad story.

You could be right, It's been a while since I read about it, but then again Ice melts by the time anyone shows up to investigate, either way though ice or down draft that Mooney was in a bad spot, high terrain, flying through winter weather with few options other than wait a day or two which is what we all wish happened. If I remember correctly the tops of the clouds were around 20k. A turbo Mooney could have gotten up there into some nice conditions. It still could have been a bad idea depending on what was in those clouds but it was a possibility with a turbo Mooney with deice, a normally aspirated non fiki Mooney was a hard no, or should have been.

I looked heavily at used equipment including upgrading the VFR install of the KLN89b gps that came with the plane to IFR. After much consideration I determined used equipment did not provide a good overall value, at least in my situation. Install costs are considerable and prices for used equipment in my opinion is ridiculous. I think the primary value of used equipment is to replace other used equipment that failed. In those situations its a great value because often it's just slide one out, slide one in. As for why Garmin? The reason is very simple. Based on your budget the Garmin 175, 355 and 375 are the only ones that are an option that still leave you with enough money to do other equipment. A 650 or equivalent from another provider is going to be 16-17k installed, at that point you wouldn't even have enough money to do a G5 HSI with install, let alone a GI275. Garmin is the only provider to offer a budget series of GPS. If you increased your budget to 25k you could consider the 650 or Avidyne, etc.

I'm just a humble G model pilot from Utah so I have limited experience but de ice and Turbo seem necessary for winter IFR in the mountains. MEAs are high and ice is common. I wouldn't consider flying IFR in my plane because I would be stuck at the bottom end of available altitudes and if I did encounter ice I would have very few options. Really the only option is immediate 180 and hope moisture didn't move in behind me. Not something I would consider. There was a J model Mooney that tried to fly IFR out of Jackson hole a few years back and didn't make it. It iced up and came down. Once he took off he didn't have a chance. All the altitudes he could use had heavy icing. If you limit your flying to good weather a J or Ovation would be excellent, even a G model will do, lol..

I did this almost exact exercise, I installed a Garmin 355, GI 275 HSI and a Garmin USB charger, that ran about 17k. By busting your 20k budget just a little you could get the second GI 275. The modern GPS and HSI are great and really increase the capability of the plane.

Thanks. I’m going to try this

My least favorite thing about my JPI EDM 800 is the fuel flow. It jumps up and down every second through a range of 2 to 3 gallons. Seems like they could have averaged it over 15 or 30 seconds, I'd happily take a short delay to get a consistent number.

A g model Mooney is a great plane if you want a honest and efficient plane to get around. If your highest priority is to be decisively faster than a Bonanza and Comanche I think you really need to look at a Bravo or Acclaim because those are planes that are actually faster than the planes you want to beat. Turning a G model into a quasi J model is not going to be faster than your friends planes and you will end up spending as much as you could have bought a Bravo for. That just doesn't seem like a great idea unless you have a trust fund you want to rid yourself of in short order. Decide what you want and then buy exactly that.

Absolutely, I’d be happy to take you up and you can get a chance to fly one. Message me and we will get something arranged. I’m stationed at the Tooele airport so if your in the wasatch front area it would definitely be worth the drive to get some real world data.

I have a moderately modded g model with everything essentially other than the J windshield. It does 145 knots which is respectable considering the low fuel burn. Useful load is about 865 lbs and increasing as I do upgrades. I think by the time I’m done I’ll get it into the upper 800s. I wouldn’t count a g model out as they are good planes and perform well considering the power plant. It’s faster than any Piper Arrow even if it has the 200hp engine. If you get one with the Johnson bar and in good condition they represent the least expensive to own and operate complex airplane that’s still fast enough to get places and has good backseat legroom. They are in my opinion the most utilitarian model of Mooney ever produced and I am not biased at all…

Its hard to say exactly what the plans of Russia were but it looks like their military is doing just fine, they just have a different military style than America. Initially it looked like they tried an America style shock and awe campaign but then switched to a Russian style offensive. This may be because long narrow offensives are very vulnerable to American provided weapon systems. The blunt/wide front currently being employed almost completely negates American weapons as you can't get close enough to the front lines to take out tanks, etc without getting shelled by their artillery. More recently the Russians are focusing on destroying infrastructure the Ukrainians are using for resupply. The Russians are grinding down the Ukrainian army and at this point their defeat is certain. It doesn't matter how many weapons or how much money we send - it won't make a difference. Ukraine needs to go back to the bargaining table and make a deal before their military collapses and their bargaining position collapses.

Trent talked with the property owner and received permission to land there, subsequently he decided it wasn’t somewhere he could land safely using the techniques outlined in the the FAA document on conducting off airport landings. The FAA position is incoherent and creates bad case law. Other potential issues with the ruling.. can’t land at an airport without a centerline marked on the runway cant land at an airport without runway lights cant land at an airport without a wind sock These are the criteria the judge used to determine the landing sight wasn’t appropriate. Unfortunately this removes many publicly owned and FAA approved airports as acceptable landing sights. The FAA wanted to convict so badly that they threw logic out the window and created some very bad precedent. Will they use this precedent against me this weekend if I do a go around? I doubt it but they could convict anyone of anything if they can make up new rules after the fact to get the result they want. Not a lawyer, just a guy who hates government incompetence

Im referring to the Trent Palmer case and some very concerning case law being created.

I prefer to land with half flaps because in the case of a go around Or touch and go I am in a better position than if I have full flaps. Keep in mind I have hydraulic flaps which complicates going from full to take off flaps. I often do no flap, half flap and full flap landings - good to keep your options open for any potential situation. I wonder if individuals who always do full flap landings have more accidents when performing go arounds? Fortunately the FAA has fixed this issue by making go arounds illegal.

I was there about 10 am but in a Mooney of course.

I must have just missed you today, I flew down to Delta to do a practice instrument approach and pick up some fuel. Congratulations!

Considering the corrosion problems with the Magnesium control surfaces and the inability to source new ones I would say the Mooney tail is significantly superior just based on the ability to keep planes flying. The trim system is better because it doesn't require a trim tab. Given the same engine power moonies are faster and burn less fuel. Some of that is the smaller frontal area and some may be attributable to the tail. I considered earlier Bonanzas at one point but specifically decided against buying one mostly because of the tail corrosion issues. Given a little bit of corrosion you could have an unflyable plane for who knows how many years - Maybe permanently. That seems like a risky investment.

Maybe I feel this way because I'm in Utah so the thought of flying in Denver seems like a rather routine matter, but based on the time of year and the length of the runaways I would say just fly the plane like normal, it really shouldn't be a big deal. If it were august and the runway was 3000 feet then we might have something to talk about.

G model Mooney's have the battery in the front.

Full power, retrim, gear up at 80 mph, flaps up 100mph positive rate. Being a G model I can go full power and still be ok by pushing forward on the yoke until I get trimmed out. I have hydraulic flaps so I don't feel comfortable trying to partially retract flaps low to the ground, so I'm going to gain speed and altitude before I mess with them. I most often land with half flaps which is perfect for a go around since that's takeoff flaps. If I happen to be full flaps I'm going with that until I'm at 100 mph and climbing.

Was there any talk about what the install would cost?

TailbeaconX is a remote mounted transponder, therefore needs a control head. In an older Mooney this is an interesting option because you can install an AV30 that can act as a transponder, backup AI, backup CDI and also a display for traffic information. Combines a lot of functionality into one 3 and 1/8 round hole. We older Mooney's don't have a lot of excess panel real estate so definitely considering it. I do wish it had ADSB in though.

I've had a couple Bruces covers for a year now with zero noticable wear. I couldn't imagine it failing in only another year. I have no experience with Macs but would say I am very happy with the Bruce's covers and will likely add some wing covers next winter.

Given an adequately long runway it's seems perfectly reasonable to do touch and goes. I do them all the time, likely hundreds of them just this year. Once the nose gear is down, carb heat off, flaps, nose down trim, full power. Goes pretty quick. At least it does in a G model. As for too much heat I would strongly disagree. I find that my engine runs the hottest on my first take off. On touch and goes my engine easily runs 20-40 degrees cooler in the climb. I suspect this is because I'm rolling down the runway at idle power doing approximately 50 mph while I quickly reconfigure. The time at full power to go from 50 to 65 when I rotate is only seconds, then only a few more seconds and I'm at 80 maybe 10 more seconds and I'm at 100. I think it's the 0 to 50 at full power that builds up the heat in the engine that can be difficult to get rid of 30 -60 seconds later.