NM Mooney

Thanks for taking the time to provide this detail. That sounds like exactly what I had in mind. I like the plastic bottle idea, too. I am (still) waiting to hear back from the owner in response to my last message. Ah, well, this plane's either meant to be mine or not. I'll just have to wait and see. BTW - I was reading the (original) owner's manual while checking out my friend's '46 Cessna 140, and laughed aloud when I saw this sentence preceding a two-and-a-half page long list of dozens of operations included in the 100 hour inspection: "Time studies of the 100 hour inspection at the factory and in the field have developed a standard flat rate charge of $17.50 for this inspection at any Cessna Dealer or Distributor."

Thanks, Mike - and to everyone who has posted, of course. Certainly, in the hands of a skilled pilot with lots of hours in this airplane, it's entirely competent for this scenario. Well, I went up to walk the field and... no dice. Looks like Fred (I assume the owner of the ranch that I believe was subdivided to create the Bear Paw Lakes resort, and who may later have sold his remainder) did indeed use the field in the third photo (and earlier post with the satellite image) to fly in and out. However, the field consists of an upper and lower pasture, and there's now a barbed wire fence and a little drainage diversion ditch about 2/3 of the way toward the bottom (west) end, where these shots are taken. I walked the lower portion (horses and cattle grazing in the upper half, beyond the barbed wire with 'no trespass' signs), and it looks it's been a long time since anyone used it. The tufts of grass have grown up considerably throughout the lower pasture, and the soil has eroded around their root bases, such that the surface would net a pretty rough ride, even if the fence weren't bifurcating the field. Better bet in an emergency would be the 2,000' flat and straight stretch of HWY 96 just a short distance to the west in front of the Regina Fire Station, shown in the last photo (looking north). But you could only access it from the south end, as at about 1,000' and again at the northern end, there are power lines crossing the road. Plenty of clearance but it'd be hairy trying to drop in from the north. There is a very nice approach from the south, though, and traffic is so light on this stretch that it's unlikely you'd encounter anybody in a pinch. Joel

Beautiful. Really coming along.

If 100% of the sheet metal had this finish, perhaps a bit much. But as an accent for certain pieces, I think it's sweet. But that's just me...

I love it... kill 'em with competence. Here's the signature line on my Creative Spridgets email: “Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself.” —Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Ah, there you have it... How silly of me. BTW - I see that the FAA has a committee hard at work on developing lead-free avgas, as reported here. I guess it's a bit mystifying to me, since high-torque and high-horsepower auto engines have been successfully running lead-free gas for so long now, and the compression ratio of the Lycoming in the '63 M20C isn't all that high at 8.7:1. Heck, my mid '80s air-sucker 911 was running 9.3:1 CR burning unleaded premium with no detonation... Anyway, thanks for the response.

Not at all. Frankly, I appreciate the exercise because it confirmed a way to own the plane that I am much more likely to be able to afford.

Sorry if this hasn't been covered, but hasn't anybody installed a modern AFR gauge instead of feeling about in the dark re: mixture? It takes all of a half-hour to drill and dimple the pipe, weld on a bung, and wiring these gauges is a snap. I think there are leftover accessory switches to run the minuscule current to the gauge (and heated sensor). Very precise, and they're not expensive these days. The only requirement with most broad band sensors is that they're mounted 18" (along the flow, not as the crow flies) from the exhaust port (and angled slightly off horizontal), so, you could just stick one somewhere in the Mooney's exhaust pipe...?

Sorry if I've been less than clear - my chief objective is not selecting a bush plane. Rather my objective is to apply the collective experience and help of the forum's M20 pilots to this exemplar strip, in order to: (i) learn the limitations of this excellent vintage aircraft, especially to the extent the '63 short body I'm looking at is any different; (ii) qualify or rule out a potential emergency landing area; and (iii) have some fun in the bargain--ideally for everyone, not just myself. Joel

Another related word. In my experience as a municipal defense counsel and hearing officer (I have presided over licensure suspension proceedings under the Air Quality Act - e.g., emissions testing facilities), the way this sort of thing would probably come up is where someone gets a license, then basically does no work for an extended period of time. Then, let's say the license-holder does a job, the aircraft owner is dissatisfied, gets injured, or causes damage attributable to the work (or someone claimed that it was, anyway), and the FAA gets notified and is asked to review the license or does that unprompted. The thing is, barring that scenario, it could well be that this question has never been addressed in a formal opinion. But another basic principle of law in general is that the legislature or admin agency: (i) knows what it's doing; and (ii) choses language deliberately. So, applying that principle here, if the FAA had wanted to impose a minimum hourly requirement, it would have done so. In my experience, that's an argument that a hearing officer or, say, a U.S. District Judge is going to accept absent settled common law--or an agency decision or advisory letter--to the contrary. Hope that makes sense. Joel

14 CFR § 65.83 - Recent experience requirements: "A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless, within the preceding 24 months - (a) The Administrator has found that he is able to do that work; or (b) He has, for at least 6 months - (1) Served as a mechanic under his certificate and rating; (2) Technically supervised other mechanics; (3) Supervised, in an executive capacity, the maintenance or alteration of aircraft; or (4) Been engaged in any combination of paragraph (b) (1), (2), or (3) of this section." *** With the proviso that I am not herein offering a rendered legal opinion to anyone reading this post, but merely making general observations for our discussion and leisure purposes, my reading of the section is as follows--beginning with some basic canons of construction. First - any statute or regulation must be read as a coherent whole. Second - courts default to a plain language reading unless that would produce an absurd or unjust result. Third - courts defer to admin agencies where their expertise in interpreting and applying a highly technical reg is appropriate/needed--only one possibility here that matters for our discussion. Applying those canons: Note the use of 'or' in two places. The first instance, between (a) and (b), means the Administrator could waive the requirements in (b). The second instance is what we care about. Its placement means that any of 1-4 is sufficient; the conjunctive 'and' would mean all would be needed. Applying the canons as I ordinarily would, paragraph (b)(1) contains no hourly requirement at all by itself or by reference to the other provisions. That said, I'll fire up Westlaw when I get a chance and see if there are any FAA admin decisions or courts being asked to weigh in on an appeal (if allowed) on how the meaning of 'served as a mechanic' has been interpreted by the Administrator or a hearing officer (I sat as a hearing officer for the local environment department for > 10 years). In the meantime, here are a few opinions skirting this issue that I found on the FAA website. They seem to be focused on the substance rather than duration of qualifying experience, in ways that I don't think resolve the issue. That said, again a plain language reading of the reg seems to impose no specific hourly requirement. Joel Carpenter_2012_Legal_Interpretation.pdf DaSilva-CommuteAir_2015_Legal_Interpretation.pdf Pohl_2008_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

That's hilarious, re: the departure sequence... As I've said earlier, the identified field was chosen: (a) by pure chance, having seen it while fishing and hauling firewood from my brother's cabin; (b) as a fun example for discussion and gaining valuable real-world experience from the folks weighing in on this thread. Depending on work stuff, I am planning on heading up there for more wood sometime this week, so will walk it with the GPS app and charge up the GoPro to take some stills and video of the field to inform this discussion. I think this is a neat exercise in ruling out a proposed unimproved airstrip--as I've said, even if only with an eye toward having an emergency set-down location in mind. Toward that end: I will also take shots of the nearest obstructions, which from memory aren't tall trees but rather various peaks of the surrounding Jemez Mountains.

Wow... okay, thanks. BTW, my maternal grandfather left Poland with his brother to land in Wisconsin, and his first date with my grandmother was... totally true, you can't make this up... barnstorming in a biplane across the countryside.

Thanks for the info--and nice photo. The paint scheme looks very similar to the plane I'm looking at...

Interesting. I'll be sure and scrutinize competing policies for related provisions. Thanks.