KSMooniac

I suspect some part of that is they don't want to advertise different performance numbers b/c it might trigger an expensive POH update that they don't want to do for every application. That of course runs against every marketer's instinct as Byron pointed out he would pay for a few knots faster cruise! I'm very curious about it and had a conversation with a sales person in their display. It is the lightest option for us, at 43 lbs vs. the MT at 46 lbs. For some (dumb) reason they went with an aluminum spinner assembly instead of composite which boggles my mind. I mentioned all of their cracking problems and I was assured they made a new spinner that doesn't crack, but it didn't fit this prop so they made another new one but she didn't think this one would crack. Time will tell. I asked if they had any flight test comparing it to the MT option and they do not. I would love to fly back-to-back tests with my MT and see how it does. I just spent a lot of overhauling my MT (including a replacement hub and bearings) so my upgrade budget is shot for the year, unfortunately.

@1980Mooney, you grabbed a pic of my old paint and old wingtip somehow! (the maroon tip with the 201 painted on) My plane has changed a lot since then!

I stand corrected! That's good to know.

You don't really get to pick your parking/camping spot aside from Vintage or GA. They'll send you where there are open spots whenever you arrive. Getting there after Sunday afternoon likely means you won't get in the N40, at least until people start leaving on Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday.

No, to do that you'll need to re-skin the outer wing section to provide the flange for the wingtips to attach. The later skin is a little longer, and protrudes outboard past the end of your wing. You'll also need to change the aileron end rib and counterweight. I had all this done while getting hail damage repaired and I'm very happy with the upgrade. If you're willing to go that far, then you should step up to something modern like I did: Crystal Conforma for Mooney - AveoEngineering

I'll endorse Don's detailed reply. It is an amazing event. IMO, the experience is best enjoyed camping with your plane so you avoid the awful logistics of driving/parking/hiking/sitting in traffic every day. The permanent facilities include buildings with real sinks, toilets and showers so as far as camping goes, it is NOT roughing it all. You cannot beat the camaraderie when hanging out with so many like-minded folks and the coolest planes on the planet everywhere. Arriving with the Caravan doubles the fun too, and having the big party tent and meals there (along with tables, chairs, lights, etc) make it even easier to stay in the North 40.

I'm an element lead in the Caravan for the first time, and one of my wingmen has been flying 50 years, but never to OSH! Can't wait to get up there!

@mooniac58 might be able to help squash this invasion. Multiple posters and forums...

Flutter in its simplest terms relates to the interaction in a lifting force and the structural response of the vehicle. There are a LOT of potential flutter modes from simple wing bending (think bird wing flapping) to twisting, or bending + twisting, or a single control surface flapping, or a combo of control surface + wing (or empennage). Then there are modes associated with engines mounted on wings or tails, or fuselage bending & twisting, etc. The first and easiest failure to visualize is called "divergence" where the aero load simply exceeds the capability of the structure and something breaks in a single load application because of the deflection causing an increased aero load. Flutter is what can happen without a simple divergent failure, as it is a dynamic condition where there are tons of variables, and the modes are driven by the aerodynamic input, the structural response (think deflections) as well as the level of damping inherent in the structure. An un-damped structure can cause the structural response/deflection to increase with each oscillation until there is a failure. Think about a car on a bumpy road with no shock absorbers... it will get so bouncy that it likely will hop right out of control. It is a very complex topic, and quite fascinating.

That is not an aerodynamically accurate statement by Mr. Wheat. It is quite possible that a Mooney flutter speed is dramatically higher than anything the airframe can achieve, but the angle of the control surface hinge line relative to the longitudinal axis has very little to do with it. (degreed Aerospace Engineer but not a practicing aerodynamic engineer. I did take an upper-level Aeroelasticity course long ago, and have stayed at Holiday Inns, though.)

I expect his old 3 blade metal prop is from the 90s or earlier... Long before the modern blade designs of this century. A big assumption on my part, though. I would love to see real flight test data from the same plane with the metal 2 blade 7497 Top Prop and the new Outlaw version. Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

If this new 2-blade prop is not NOTICEABLY faster than an old, metal 3-blade prop on a 4 cylinder Mooney, then I would call it a massive failure. I'm very curious/interested in this ever since seeing it a couple years ago, but I unfortunately just had to do an un-scheduled full overhaul of my MT and will be married to it for a while longer. (hub and bearings were trashed). Weight, response and smoothness are of course great improvements and majors selling points for this, and the MT prop as well. I had high hopes that this would be the fastest cruising prop available to us, though.

It is an extensive effort. 40-50 hours minimum if the installer knows what they're doing. There are two complete/separate installations of the single system for starters, plus the addition of the backup battery, backup battery status panel, and a tach relay integration box. The switch panel is much bigger than the old Bendix key switch, so I needed a new left sub-panel and lost a 2 1/4" hole over there. Also there are 6 new circuit breakers required as well. Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

I think it isn't too hard to fit the exterior to the interior later, unless you paint yourself into a corner with wild colors. Most choose something neutral, with warmer palettes like tan/beige/etc or cooler ones with greys. Either can be coordinated with exterior paint done properly. If you make yellow and purple seats, well good luck. IMO Mooneys are hard to scheme elegantly. My first paint job in 2009 led me to a freelance scheme designer that was fantastic. I had some ideas/elements I liked, and conveyed this to him. He used to own a Mooney and had a great eye, and he went to work. He showed me what I was thinking, and then several alternatives that went different directions but with the same elements. In the end, we iterated through many versions and ended up with something different than my original vision, but that I liked much better. I honestly don't like either of the AI schemes shown above, sorry. They're not Mooneys, and when rendered properly they might look different enough to bother you. I think you ought to grind though the options with your husband and get to some common ground, and then get a real designer to help make it real. Unfortunately my guy passed away years ago, so he cannot help. Edit: the first one looks like a Mooney, but the tail paint is cluttered and awful with the vertical boundary on the dorsal and the little appendage over the numbers. Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

If I can do something to get away safely with being lazy, I'm quite inclined to try it. Look at it this way... our planes have different performance at light weight and gross weight. I'm fairly experienced with my J and have a sense of what I can load (and where) and how she'll perform. Do I calculate W&B for each end of the flight, or any point in between anymore... not really. I just want to go fly! A good AoA system can allow you to just fly, presuming you'll be within the W&B envelope, of course, and be safe and precise. I don't refuel after every flight, so I typically have variable fuel loads. I don't weigh my cargo unless I know I'm getting close to max gross, and I don't check out my fuel load on approach to calculate a Vref typically since I have the AoA on board. And then of course it can save your bacon in an emergency situation by alerting you to an issue while maneuvering with enough warning to do something, and/or get you to a proper glide speed without correcting for current weight. It does require some dollars and hours of labor, but some of that can be DIY/owner-assist/sweat equity with a friendly IA too.

It's a great system. I put the original Eagle version in my J 10 years ago now and love it. I may check out the add-ons for flaps and gear at OSH this year. I bought a second-hand kit that was still NIB, and worked with my IA to install it. I recall spending about 8 hours on it or so. I use it as my primary reference on final and don't fuss with trying to figure a weight-corrected Vref... just pitch for the Blue Donut and manage power to get to the aiming point. No need to carry any extra speed "just in case" and float down the runway, or worse, get into a bounce/PIO/prop strike situation. If needing to get into a short runway, I can fly just the upper half of the donut. The audio alerts are helpful, and I imagine would be especially important in an emergency if you're maneuvering engine-out and trying to stretch a glide unintentionally and it might smack you back into maintaining control and hitting your spot under control vs. stalling above it. My last trip took us into Taos from the east, over some mountains and it was helpful to hear "getting slow" a few times while managing the crossing in the wave/winds/turbulence.

Bladders are a deduction for me due to the loss of fuel capacity and/or loss of payload capability. You cannot have too much useful load, or fuel capacity, as those features increase the utility and flexibility of any Mooney. The 30-45 lb hit for bladders could be your weekend luggage on a trip, or that last little bit of fuel to make a trip non-stop safely. If your 20 year old reseal was done by a pro, you might be able to effectively patch it for quite a while longer. If it was not done by one of the experts, then consider getting it done and that will increase the resale value more than the bladders IMO. I think bladders ultimately end up being more expensive too. I had Weep-no-More reseal my J in 2008 and don't regret it one bit. If/when I have any issues in the future, I'll start with them again to see if expert patching can extend the life of that previous work.

Rich is correct.

Does Dynon specify something in particular? I've become a fan of the Deutsch connectors and have been using them as I upgrade things on my plane. They're at my wingtips and tail for the strobes and nav lights, landing light connection under the cowl, glareshield lights, etc. You need a proper crimp tool for them. I like them much better than the knife connectors + heat shrink + zip ties that were standard in 1977 (in my case).

It is good practice... protects the spinner finish from the frequent R&R of the screws, and I think helps absorb some of the vibration and reduce the chances of cracking.

I'd recommend getting a dynamic balance done now that you've had that many hours put on the installation. It is likely to be improved, even if you can't feel it in the seat. A good balance will help everything on the airplane last longer and reduce human fatigue on long flights.

@Cody Stallingsmight be able to help

This is a primary factor that helped convince me a few years ago that Wichita is the long-term place for me, even after living here for 25+ years at the time. I'm from Texas, love Texas, will always claim Texas, but these days there are many places in Texas I would not live, and many I don't even enjoy visiting any longer due to congestion and traffic. Wichita is just right for me, and most importantly, cost of living allows me to own and enjoy a nice Mooney, which in turn can get me *away* from Wichita whenever I like to visit other places. I currently have a pretty nice rental hangar at a great muni airport in town for $358/mo. I'm in the process of buying my own hangar at an airpark as I mentioned, just to secure my own future storage solution while I prepare to build a home and hangar. My rental hangar might be $500-$1000 in a "major" metro area with a multi year wait. I could get a cheaper hangar far away, but as often as I fly and tinker, that degrades quality of life and convenience. Back when I still had a wandering eye, my survey of hangar options was depressing, and made me happy with what I have. For that reason, I'd encourage any Mooney owner looking to relocate to find a hangar solution first.

Sooner or later you can find anything on eBay if you're patient!

I checked what I have left and I'm afraid I don't have what you need. I sold the KX165 & tray long ago, and might have included the ship-side connector with it.