redbaron1982

I don't need excuses if I want to buy one, I just wanted to know if this would be a good addon to the toolbox I'm trying to put together. So far I think I'm going to focus on getting some good quality manual tools, taking into consideration not getting a traditional screwdriver set but having a set of bits from say Wera. Eventually I can add a gyro screwdriver to my set for things like inspection panels, cowling, etc.

Hey offtopic but related, I assumed that most of nuts, bolts, etc in a Mooney are SAE no? No or few metric stuff, right?

Hey all, thanks a lot for the reply's. I was more concerned about if the tool would fit in the tight spaces, but I totally agree that power tools tend to strip up screws, so maybe better to avoid them at least in the aircraft. I liked the idea of the gyro screwdriver, I have seen that and was curious about how "natural" it feld. That my be an option, although it still breaks the "romantic" idea of not using manual tools in an aircraft that was assembled with manual tools and lot's of dedication.

It was not one year, it was 6 months. One year was from the moment until I did the prebuy and immediately the annual after it until now. The part it the aft stub wing spar. The factory is already finishing it, so shouldn't take much longer.

I'm trying to put together a set of tools to keep in the hangar for when I get my airplane back from the shop. I was looking at Makita's ratchet wrench and the 90° screwdriver as well. Are they good? I'm not asking much about the brand but if they are useful for work in tight spaces in a Mooney. PS: I was sure there was a post about tools, I search for it but couldn't find it. If there is one and any of you has the link at hand please share it. Thanks.

I'm following the advice of the best Mooney shop in the US.

I totally understand the OP feeling. I have owned a Mooney M20J for 1 year now and haven't got to fly it yet, annual of hell, Mooney taking 6 months to produce a spare part, MSC that are a complete ripoff, etc. The GA ecosystem seems broken. I'm not saying that everything is bad, but there is a lot of things that are messed up. Some I think are fixable, many others no, unless the industry really turns around, what I don't think is going to happen. I sometimes think that we should come up with a system that could help us stay as "safe" (not only physically but financially as well) as possible. What are your thoughts in having a crowd source system for: Reviewing/evaluating GA shops and part sellers. Having helpful resources in a organized/centralized way for pre buy inspections, general maintenance, etc. Many times I think of starting myself something like that, just for the fun of it, but I don't know if it would gain traction. Also, something I would really like is to be able to be able to get certified as a AP+IA. Being able to maintain our airplanes would be a huge benefit for saving money and time, not always, but in a lot of cases.

Just wondering who's going to pay for al the mess he did. Insurance goes so far for liability. I doubt that his insurance had a limit so high to cover all the expenses out of this. Has to be multimillion dollar damage we're are talking about here. How this works out?

Not even load the approach in the 430, because he would have had the waypoints right there if he would have loaded the approach. It's really very strange, it would really insightful for the guy to show up and explain what happened. In the 911 audio, near the end you can hear him saying "I'm sorry. I shouldn't have descent that low" or something along those lines.

Was the guy even IFR rated? Or was he incapacitated? It's shocking how sloppy he was even with simple indications from ATC.

A 3 degree GS (as it's shown in the approach plate) is around 300ft per nm. That makes around 320ft at 1.22sm. Considering that this path cross the threshold at 40ft, you're talking about 520 (TDZE) + 40 (TCH) + 320 (GS) = 880 MSL at 1.22sm. That's if your are right in the center. I understand that LPV has same sensitivity when close to the runway as ILS. A full scape deviation is 0.7. In that case, right at full scale deviation below GS, we are talking about 520 (TDZE) + 40 (TCH) + 230 (GS@2.3 degrees) = 790MSL.

This story is amazing, I heard about it a couple of year ago, when I didn't know what a Mooney was. Is truly amazing. A lot of luck, but also a great airplane!

Yes, that could be, but a few things to have in mind: 1) If you cross the FAF at the indicate altitude and your glideslope is indicating you're below, like full scale deflection below, you should climb to intercept it or even better, go around. 2) Even if flying at 1600 MSL all the way until intercepting the GS, he should have cleared the power line.

The alt setting had a spread of .13 on a period spanning 6 hours before and after the accident. That equate to 130ft, no? I don't think there was any strange phenomenon. Also, as stated earlier, LPV doesn't rely on the BARO for vertical guidance. This assuming that the pilot was flying it with a WAAS GPS, which supposedly he had in the AC.

I agree with this. First of all, good that they are alive. We need to do better. Better preflights, better planning, better ADM, etc. I'm quite new to the GA world, but really, even with 10k hours flying LIFR at night, in a single engine, it's pushing it. Anything goes wrong and you have very small room to have a successful outcome. I'm not a fan of more regulations, I think the GA should self impose on them higher standards. The main beneficiaries is ourselves: we stay alive, we pay less insurance, etc.

I did post about this some time ago, the pictures specifically can be found here:

Waiting on a wing spar from Mooney. Not sure when it's going to be ready. Hopefully before end of year. In my case the horror story was corrosion on the wing spar. What was your case?

Yep, I'm planning on renew it that way if there is no certain date for the airplane to be airworthy again.

Thanks guys for the responses. It seems that insurance goes between 2k and 4k for more "normal" conditions. That some way comforting because this will be a temporary situation for me. As soon as I get the airplane I expect to put around 150 hours per year. So after first (second) year it should go down at least a half with IR + ~150 hours in make/model.

Yeah, regarding being safe, I am quite aware of the risks and my limitations, so I will go very slowly, have been practicing for a year in a PC simulator just to get used to importance of checklist (i.e. not landing gear up) and also I'm getting my instrument rating as way of add another layer of safety (not much planning of using the extra flexibility to fly in weather conditions). So I'm quite confident that I will approach this the right way. Maybe reducing the hull value is a good idea, as may main concern for the insurance at the beginning is not losing the aircraft but being broke because of the property damage I can inflict in others).

Hey guys, I know this has been a recurrent topic here. I'm a bit concerned regarding insurance costs. I'm renewing and the quotes are coming around 7k/8k per year. A few things to have more context: Although I had own my M20J for almost a year now, I haven't got to fly it yet. Horror movie first annual right after buying it, still working to have it fixed. So in my case 0 time make and model. I don't have my Instrument Rating yet. I'm almost there (waiting for the check ride to be scheduled). 150 hours TT In this scenario, I'm getting 8k/year quotes. For a hull value of 170k and 100k/1M personal/property damage. What rates are you saying in a more favorable scenario? Meaning with let's say over 100 hours make/model and instrument rating?

I don't know if I should be worried or not, but in the flight school where I did my private and instrument rating almost all aircraft have those kinds of "dents" in the control surfaces. And they keep flying like that, not even repaired.

I haven't paid attention to how small the power loss was. I completely agree that for that small amount and for all the factors involved and measurement errors, both power settings can be considered as producing the same power output. Great answer Skip!

But then again, the M20J POH indicates that at 2400RPM and 22.8inHg both at best power and economy the engine produces the same power and the aircraft flies at the same TAS. The only difference is that with economy mixture it burns 12% less fuel. So I don't think I was confused, just didn't understand why it was that.

Thanks @carusoam for the detailed explanation. I'll get the engine manual to see if I can have a more complete picture. I think my error is to consider best power as if it was actually more power, if you do 65% of nominal you don't have best or worst power, you just have the same with different operating conditions of the engine (hotter or cooler).