76Srat

I ran out of popcorn reading all of this thread--fascinating stuff. I spewed out all of the remaining popcorn in mouth when I thought how "easily" taking over and solving all of the problems Mooney and LASAR evidently have, seeing that not many of us on here actually pay the pissant $25/year to be "Supporting Member" of MS. Maybe we can all start by doing that before we start throwing rocks inside our own glass house. One more quick thought, and this is based solely on what they've published: it seems obvious to me that LASAR have no idea about their own market and what sells and what doesn't. Their latest scheme, though clever, will never fly unless and until they get to know their market and marketplace, specifcally Mooney. Shame on them for showing up barely knowing how to spell "Mooney", much less expect us to trust them with the company's survival going forward. This makes Beechcraft/Textron products look all the more appealing by the minute . . . and that ain't no compliment to them, either.

So sorry to hear this, Norm. @jgarrison would be a great resource for selling your bird.

Sorry to sound somewhat preachy about the perspective of a pre-buy, but I've always viewed pre-buys as a chance to identify weaknesses, not strengths. Find reasons not to buy the airplane instead of finding reasons to support an emotional hope that it is a "good buy". See it as a deposition, as it were, as in what do you not know about your case? Don't use a pre-buy as a chance to argue in favor of buying the plane. Use it as the chance to find any and every reason not to buy it. If it passes that high hurdle, then you'll more likely than not end up with fewer regrets.

Very cool list to see this in one short list. As an avid J follower, I'm sure every (dare I say) first-gen J driver/owner is thrilled to see their machines lumped in together with the (dare I say) later-gen Js. Though tempting, I try not to automatically consider a later model J any better, per se, than an earlier iteration, or for that matter an earlier iteration any worse, per se, than a later one. There are marked differences in the type (dual/single mags, split rear seats/single-back bench seat, airframe mods galore, etc). I find it interesting that Mooney actually got away with type certifying the M20J through as many iterations as they did, even though the gross weight and power plant(s) were distinctly different (see Cessna 172 and Piper PA-28 Arrow series as good examples of different type certificates and altogether different airplanes, but similar in market designation. That said, an Arrow is not an Arrow II is not an Arrow III, etc.). Yet an M20J is an M20J. Perhaps those far better versed in the type can set my confusion straight? Is it because the number of seats and actual horsepower remained the same throughout the production run? Not much else did remain the same from 1977 to ~1998. I'd be crazy to assume that a later model Allegro should be priced similar to a 1978 M20J and vice versa, an earlier 1978 M20J shouldn't be priced similar to a later Allegro. Thus these averages are a bit tough to analyze from a value standpoint. This really does boil down to the "eye of the beholder". I'm sure there are absolute 1977 beauties out there that are every bit worth $200K and some later model turds that shouldn't bring half of that. For many more reasons than this current chat about this, I sure wish Roy LoPresti was still around to ask him why and how Mooney got away with this--there has to be a fascinating back story to the moniker (other than the 201 mph top design speed at the time). Maybe the most telling of this list of averages is the fluctuation of numbers available from month to month (albeit in this small sample from Controller listings). Low appears to be 18 and the high appears to be 27, all within ~8 months of each other.

Makes me miss the good 'ol MAPA Log days and @jgarrison Jimmy's monthly Mooney market reports . . . With that said, I also look profusely at the market and take the Romanian and French Olympic diving judge approach, as in "throw out the highest and lowest" and then you arrive somewhere close to what each model should be trading at. But doing so doesn't mean I don't laugh every time I see a '64 M20C listed at $175K . . .

There are two words to solve all of this: Airspeed. Airspeed. Oh, and a third word goes with those two quite nicely: Airspeed.

Just got my copy and haven't put it down yet--amazing read. If you like stories like Stephen Coonts's Cannibal Queen (another phenomenal read; unfortunately out of print), you'll LOVE this book. The shortest summary possible: Egan (longtime Road & Track contributor and huge car, motorcycle and aircraft guy) and his wife took a country-wide trip in their J3 Cub and he wrote about their adventures. Here's a link to obtain your very own hardcopy or Kindle version: https://www.amazon.com/Landings-America-People-Summer-Piper/dp/1642341894/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3F9J2YCXV9QBV&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.MDODCHmI_wPCG1qntMHUucpgQGCrCt1ENu5TU8eM9lBsrZKhSY2X1o5Y6t3Id-zIL995ZcXImq6DBkzBeZQj86S6VFRMDbsgaAfefWxZY2AlOru4bqmZ90SxuAEj3qi3dLA540k_b1Q_TBP12sDchki_uYntMTUYIZx9YAFNVpahR4kiMcZHtjHXI-o04GJmYhpYkdKhM7QUV9F4i3nCuOp1klK5tytWxxjb7mdeh80.oM0eeskKgf3vq2-foGJFQS6b7BhuvV6TBzNoDjT0v2Y&dib_tag=se&keywords=peter+egan&qid=1756914317&sprefix=peter+egan%2Caps%2C144&sr=8-1

Not throwing rocks at all on the Mooney Summit process of how selecting the location(s) works every time. I know there are hundreds of considerations that go in to planning and putting something like that on--we're all grateful for all of that. That said, it would be great to see those decisions focus more toward more GA-friendly airports and locales. At the risk of sounding completely cynical, most airports in larger metro areas have zero interest in supporting anything involving piston and/or GA operations. I know holding the Summit in Tampa is far more glamorous and attractive than say, Ogala, Nebraska, but why do it at an antagonistic place? Thanks for posting your PSA--when policies don't match up to reality, we should move on.

Shhhhh . . . don't tell Cirrus. They'll ban its use in their aircraft immediately, for "not compliant with the STC" . . .

Thanks for your service--we all owe you a debt of thanks and gratitude for what you've done in your day job--way to go, man. First, give @parkerwoodruff a shout. He's our very own resident insurance expert (and a dandy one, at that). Second, apologies for some of the "picking fly sh*t out of the pepper shaker" talk on here about the benefits of this Cessna over this Piper over this M20C over this M20xx or whatever. We all have the best of intentions but sometimes we let the fog created from our own mouths cover up those huge building cumulonimbus building up in the flightpath ahead--you said you'd also like to use the aircraft for some charity work. A longbody Mooney will be perfect for that, too. I love the J3 and all family of Cubs, etc., but those aren't going to work for anything other than a Young Eagles flight at the local EAA Chapter meeting. Finally, I can't recall if you said where exactly your wife is on her 141 journey, but if she also needs to add her instrument rating via the 141 path (which I highly recommend due to the waivers enabled on that track), then make sure that particular school allows IFR training on the 141 program in your own aircraft--some do not. It would be terrible to find out that you/she cannot use your new-to-you Mooney for that purpose. Just a thought . . . Anyway, welcome aboard and enjoy your new adventure. Get the Mooney and love every minute of it. If saving .05 cents per gallon is your main concern, then subscribe to every possible aviation rag out there and merely dream about flying for real. Not trying to minimize anyone's concerns about flying expenses, etc., but let's face it: none of this is cheap and trying to do this great hobby in the cheapest way possible usually doesn't work out well in the end.

From her superb flying skills to the beyond-professional editing, there's so much good here. This is the standard against which I will compare all other GA flying clips on YT. Wow. Enjoy. PS--a total mystery to me why she doesn't have thousands of subscribers by now. Let's change that.

I can attest and verify that your experience(s) with the morass that is the FAA medical process/Med"Express" is not your fault. It is solely and squarely the fault of the FAA in OKC. Here's a direct quote of a very high up at CAMI OKC on the delays related to all processing of all FAA medical applications: " . . . lack of overtime possibilities, DRP departures and influx of thousands of ATC applicants". I know this doesn't and shouldn't make any of us feel any better about this situation, but per Washington DC, all ATC applicants get priority over any other AME/Med"Express"/medical applications because of the optics and politics of it all. Combine that with the severe shortage of agency personnel who process such applications and we have the nastiness that we all encounter when our applications are either denied or simply delayed without any further explanation. Here's a quick and dirty example of just how ridiculous this has become (I'm in the process of trying to assist a family friend with what I'm about to describe): A now-18 year old student pilot applied for a medical via Med"Express" when he was 16 and was denied because of an ADHD prescription written to him when he was . . . five (5) years old. His parents actually forgot they ever had such prescription written for him back then. The FAA denied his medical application, as a result (error number one). When they appealed, the FAA took 6 months to respond, which the FAA then required this family to fly their son from Tulsa to Washingon DC to see the FAA Flight Surgeon. They tried for over 6 months to get an appointment, only to be given the cold shoulder until one day in the throes of an icy January Friday and they had somehow, magically been given an appointment for the following Tuesday, in DC. They pull the kid out of school, book last minute flights and had their appointment. The doc there asked them why they were even seeing him, to which they replied, "we were told we had to do this, if our kid wants to get his medical reconsidered". The doc then asked, "reconsidered for what? Did he get denied because of this [the former ADHD 'scrip from 10 years prior]?" "yes". Doc's answer: "This is ridiculous. Your kid is fine and I'm approving this appeal right now." This was two years ago, by the way. Fast forward to this very day: Still in limbo in OKC. The Tulsa-based AME failed to send in the DC Flight Surgeon's paperwork approving this appeal. When the Tulsa AME did, OKC refused to even confirm receipt, citing (get this) "HPAA regulations prevent us from discussing this matter altogether". Recall that this kid was originally 16 when all of this started. He's now 18 and thus an adult, so his parents are now on the outside looking in, and the FAA regional office (Ft Worth) are giving them the ultimate taffy-pull bulls*t response. We finally received word back in May that "the file is on the desk of the agent in OKC working this matter and will be processed in queue in June". This still hasn't moved from where it was two years ago as of this evening. This isn't a post to throw anyone at the FAA under the bus, but truly what the f*ck?? This is insanity on its finest display. An applicant can be suicidal, and on meds to curtail same, and as long as they can attest to not being suicidal for at least two years prior to applying, the FAA will automatically approve that applicant's medical. But this kid, who truly wants to fly and fly for a long time, gets denied for something he was prescribed when he was 5 years old and never filled the 'scrip and never took the meds can't get his damned medical app approved or his appeal worked timely? Ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous.

I was also laughing at what must have been quite a sight by any onlookers watching her "ground work" when she's balancing on one of the mains each time. Can only imagine the hangar-flyers critiquing "all of those bounces", when in reality they were a masterwork of controlled inputs and great reasons for them.

Love the correlation between stability and control: the more stable, the less controllable; the less stable, the more controllable. Flying is logic and she nailed the example as simply as I've ever seen it or heard it. Thanks for sharing this. Subscribed immediately.

The biggest whiff by the OKC group's comments/suggestions submitted to FAA, in my view, is that there is zero mention of the ADS-B issues that have infected this entire matter. Granted the OKC group is solely concerned with and knowledgable about the ins and outs of the Civil Aircraft Registry and filing documents there, but they missed the most important issue of them all: the very FARs requiring compliance with ADS-B by the good guys is now enabling very bad actors. This is yet another classic example of FAA's zeal lagging behind the actual operations subject to the FARs. The other irony, to me, is these very same firms and companies in OKC are the ones who have succeeded in lobbying FAA to open up the digitization of the Civil Aircraft Records. So euphamistaclly, they've led the horses out of the barn and are now asking the FAA to put them back in. It doesn't work that way. Back in the day, not so long ago, all such records were microfiched and you literally had to be physically present in the Public Documents Room in OKC just to have access to and research them. Now, with a simple internet account, you have instant and unbridled (mostly) access to all such documents from anywhere in the world. I guess we're getting what we deserve when we try to expedite and digitize access to these records.