TangoTango

I suspect you value engine time at $30/hour unless you have a budget overhaul shop to recommend

Our T hangars are actually slightly cheaper than that, utilities included. Of course, for the money all you get is a gravel floor with an asphalt parking pad and a light bulb on the ceiling, but it does its job of keeping the weather out. Suffice it to say we are in quite a rural area. I have very little experience with central LA, but if it's like ours, the anemic local economy is only part of the story. We basically maintain the city's hangars for them and in return the city basically leaves us alone to maintain and fly our airplanes as we wish. I read stories about airports banning maintenance in the hangar or washing airplanes with a hose and it just boggles my mind...

I don't think it's unusual to read 0 in cruise flight when there's plenty of airflow to dilute and carry away the exhaust. Mine is 0 in cruise flight, perhaps 1 or 2 in climb (I assume I could fix that with a door seal), and as high as 40 if I taxi with the door open (I have to mute the Sensorcon AV8 because it sets off the "low" alarm). If I taxi with the door closed, it's single digits. On another note, the card type "spot" detectors aren't great, but I still keep an up to date one stuck to the panel as a backup to confirm the Sensorcon is working.

I don't think it matters whether it is set to continental or regional radar (other than speculation that the lower resolution continental radar may load quicker since it presumably requires less bandwidth). I've seen the same artifact many times on my 650xi at low altitude despite normally keeping mine set to regional, and once I climb out and get ADS-B reception the data always fills in. Interestingly, I noticed on a recent trip across Wyoming on V6 at the MEA (10k MSL, but only 2-3k AGL) when I had poor reception the FIS-B seemed to be smart enough to load a smaller than normal ring of radar data around my location first, then expand as I continued down the airway toward an area of better reception. I thought that was neat, as it's the first time I'd spent a significant period of time with marginal FIS-B reception at altitude.

When I read the term "true cost" I immediately jumped to misallocation of fixed costs. Mooney surely has a lot of fixed overhead at that big facility that would be much lower per unit if they could just spread it out across some volume... and with volume decreasing now that the fleet is shrinking, there probably is some reckoning that's long overdue. I could see that hiding on a P&L for a while with a big healthy dose of "next month/quarter/year will be better, and we can spread those costs out at our current price levels". The real problem is that Mooney has a facility sized and equipped to build airplanes out of, and they're trying to support it by building parts. That has probably never been a solid long term business plan.

I make use of GOES imagery when I'm checking weather on the ground. Admittedly, it's more useful for VFR flight planning, but it does assist in visualizing the big picture for weather that doesn't paint on NEXRAD, such as fog/smoke/growing cumulus. I've had a couple times on long cross country trips it would've been useful to get an updated image along my route. GOES Imagery Viewer - NOAA / NESDIS / STAR

Texas is a bit unique in that they tax inventory as personal property, which makes Mooney carrying inventory as you describe particularly punitive. I don't know what the rate is in Kerrville, but since airplane parts are relatively high value and Mooney is relatively cash strapped, I'm sure they don't want to carry any more inventory at that location than they have to. I wonder if Lasar can order Mooney parts in enough volume to produce some economies of scale, then carry the inventory on their books back in Oregon (where inventory is not taxed)?

I just sent you a PM

The new 61.316 states "you may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that, since its original certification, meets the following requirements..." (emphasis mine) "Since its original certification" as it affects VS1 is explained on page 244 and specifically excludes modifications, so any airplane that was 2900# from the factory is out. However, I can't find anywhere that addresses the question of aircraft that were originally eligible, then modified to a non-eligible state, then reverted back. Unless I'm missing something, it seems whether those aircraft satisfy the "since its original certification" verbiage is still up for interpretation?

I find it hard to believe any aging PPL/CPL/ATP would choose Sport Pilot over Basic Med. The real truth is that Basic Med is already a pretty permissive standard: Basic Med doesn't go through MedXpress and denials aren't reported to the FAA. If a doctor won't sign you off, you can simply keep trying until you find one that will. The new Sport Pilot privileges are more useful to new pilots, because unlike Basic Med it doesn't require you to have ever held a medical. This allows people who didn't want to face denial or the Special Issuance process a pathway to some much more capable airframes. I predict an incoming wave of Sport Pilots with a childhood history of ADHD or other conditions that the FAA has frankly made unnecessarily difficult to get through the regular medical process. They won't have a pathway to ever fly for hire, so it's really only going to attract those that have a passion to fly for fun. I suspect that population is safer than average.

I'm going to revive this thread instead of starting a new one, as I'm currently ordering parts to build a hangar setup and I'm a little confused by the transfill kits for sale. Since I'm NA, I use a portable Aerox bottle with a CGA-540 fitting, and I recently leased a 300cuft tank of oxygen with a GCA-540 fitting on it. It seems like I should be able to just buy a clean hose with CGA-540 fittings on each end, attach the two bottles, and modulate the flow with the supply bottle's valve to keep things from getting too hot until the two tanks have equalized. However, I notice the aviation oxygen equipment suppliers (Aerox, MHoxygen, etc) sell FBO transfilling kits with bleed valves, pressure gauges, and even regulators. Is any of this necessary? A bleed valve seems like it would be useful, but an additional pressure gauge seems redundant when the small tank already has one, and I don't understand what would necessitate a regulator on the transfill line since all we are doing is equalizing two tanks, and the speed with which this happens can be regulated with the valve. Can somebody more experienced enlighten me on what is really necessary for those of us that are filling tanks for personal use?

It makes me sad to see a Mooney parted out... but I personally would never take on a project like that. Maybe someday there will be enough value to rebuild Mooneys from a dataplate and a logbook like the tube and fabric guys do. I've seen them bring pre-war basket cases to like-new condition. Unfortunately for Mooneys, the fleet needs parts bad enough that the salvage value threshold is pretty high. Of course things could always be better than they appear like Pinecone says... but I wouldn't want to bet on that without a very close preexisting relationship with a local A&P/IA.

I don't think you would want to hold any back pressure past the flare. We use back pressure on the rollout to put extra weight on the main wheels for improved braking; I don't want that extra weight grinding the belly ribs into the asphalt during a gear up

Tempest URHM38S, and they now have a couple hundred hours on them. At the time they were brand new. #4 is my coolest cylinder by quite a bit, so it was hovering around the 300dF mark when I was targeting 350 on the hot cylinder. The fouling was never a problem (it always burned off with a high power runup for a minute or two) but failing a before takeoff mag check will make an impression on the passengers. I haven't failed one since increasing my target CHT. As far as moving, my summers aren't too much warmer than yours. I know there are several AZ based members here; I flew out to KCHD this May, and that was hot. That trip was the only time I couldn't maintain under 380CHT in a protracted Vy climb.

This is basically what I do, however I now target closer to 380CHT on the hottest cylinder in cruise. I ran around 350 CHT for the first 100 hours I had my J model, and I fouled the #4 bottom plug several times (brand new fine wires). After cleaning a surprising amount of lead out of the plugs, rotating them, and changing my target to 380 CHT, I haven't fouled it once in the subsequent 100 hours. I always lean to roughness for ground ops, so I doubt that was the culprit.

I'm always a fan of new places to track airport fees! The AOPA data is submitted by the FBO so it is frequently incomplete. However, I'm getting an error when I try to visit:

If just the clock drains your battery, that's the plane's way of telling you it needs flown more

My J has a glass barrel fuse in the tailcone just inside the access panel. The previous owner pulled the fuse to prevent the battery from running down - the overhead interior lights bypass the master switch, so it's easy for them to be left on unnoticed. I would assume a Bravo has a similar fuse in the same place By the way, on mine the panel clock operates off the same fuse. Is your clock also inop?

I just did 860nm and burned 46 gallons in 5.8 hours. I was at 11,500 most of the way with a decent tailwind, sucking on o2, leaned to peak and 2500rpm. I find a lot of joy in beating the airline schedule to my destination and making it nonstop is the best way to do that. I find that strategically managing liquid input and having some snacks handy makes long legs much more tolerable. The travel john is mainly on board for moral support On a related note - how many of you run one tank completely dry? Or is @201Steve's method of leaving a few gallons the preferred method? I've always been too nervous to run one dry, but I do like the idea of knowing all my fuel is in one tank for landing.

Notably the Pipstrel Panthera: It has performance very similar to a Mooney with a Lycoming IO-540, trailing-link gear, chute, and mogas. They've made a few as Experimentals and apparently they've been working on certifying it in the US. These new super LSA rules almost seem designed around it.

I wonder how much testing would be required for a paper STC to reduce max gross on the 2900# birds back down to 2740#? Ultimately though, I don't expect I would be interested in such an STC even if it were available. Since I've already held a third class, I could always just downgrade to Basic Med. Basic Med is so easy to get signed off on, I'm not sure I would ever accept the Sport Pilot restrictions in order to fly on a driver's license only. Maybe it would be useful to a new pilot who wants to start without ever having to get a third class medical? Learn to fly on a Sport Pilot + Driver's License, buy a 2740# Mooney when you're ready. That wouldn't be the worst idea for the right kind of person. I could see it increasing the popularity of Sport Pilot licenses.

After reading and rereading the final rule, I think only the 59KCAS clean stall speed applies to a pilot exercising sport pilot privileges (ie a PPL holder operating with a driver's license as a medical). This is part of the new 14 CFR 61.316, which describes aircraft a sport pilot can operate, and only mentions the 59KCAS Vs1. This would allow Hank's C model, but it puts my 2900# J over the limit. The more permissive 61KCAS dirty stall speed only appears in the new 14 CFR 22.100, which describes the criteria for certifying new airplanes as LSA. As we've already determined, we cannot convert our normal category airworthiness certificates to light sport airworthiness certificates, even though a new airplane built after the regulation could be exactly the same and get certified this way. Since these new aircraft cannot be operated by sport pilots unless they also meet 14 CFR 61.316, I guess this rule just helps manufacturers by reducing regulatory overhead? It should also make the repairman certificate more valuable if manufacturers start producing these "big LSA". ... I wish they would've just picked one light sport standard. Having two makes the term more confusing than it needs to be.

The lack of clarifying information released with this rule change is a bit frustrating. Page 136 may turn out to be the fly in the ointment. If I'm reading section 9 on that page correctly, only newly produced aircraft count? I'm not sure if that provision is only in reference to repairman certificates, or if it also applies to whether they can be operated under LSA rules.

I'm still trying to digest this monster of a document (MOSAIC Final Rule Issuance), but on pages 23-24 it appears there are two separate speeds. For light sport category aircraft, the limit is 61KCAS Vs0, and for light sport category pilots, the limit is 59KCAS Vs1. Assuming you hold a PPL, I think any Mooney with a dirty clean stall speed up to 61 59KCAS can be flow as a LSA, meaning no medical required. That would certainly not include my J model. EDIT: I had the two definitions confused. See lower in the thread

When I bought my Mooney, the previous owner had the sticker on the panel next to the ELT switch. I liked it so much that when I updated the ELT registration I put the new sticker in the same place