KSMooniac

The GAMI story involved a 310, I believe, which are notorious for exhaust troubles. IMO, any signs of trouble on a turbo involving loss of MP should lead to a precautionary landing ASAP. Thanks for sharing the story! I and am sure everyone else are glad to hear you're around to tell it!

JV, Mooney fuel tanks get more attention than most other airplanes with wet wings due to the design/construction of the Mooney. The landing gear shock absorption "system" consists of rubber biscuits instead of oleo struts or bungees, and the main gear of course bolt right into the strong and stiff Mooney wing. Over time, the biscuits wear out and allow more shock to get transmitted into the wing and fuel tanks. Owners that don't replace the biscuits often enough and/or operate from very rough strips routinely will accelerate the demise of the tanks. Consider your 182 example...it has a more forgiving landing gear system and a fuselage to dissipate ground loads before getting into the wing, so those tanks see significantly less shock over time compared to a Mooney.

There has been quite a lot of debate on the merits of bladders vs. reseal on this forum before, so I'd suggest searching a bit more instead of starting anew here. Regarding a deduction on asking price for not having a reseal...that is a tough call. If it were me, I'd use Jimmy Garrison's most recent spreadsheet evaluator for the Pre-J planes and see how that compares to the asking price as a first step. You'll see lots of planes advertised with a Willmar reseal (or similar) so there is definitely some value to having it done. I'd estimate that the value is about half the cost of the task (similar to avionics or cosmetic upgrades) so figure a plane would be worth ~$4k more with than without. However, one can't really deduct from a sales price if it hasn't been done and the tanks aren't leaking either! If the plane is otherwise perfect, then I would still pursue it seriously and just keep in mind that you might get to do the tanks at any time...much like flying past TBO. Finding everything you want in a used airplane will not be possible, so prioritize what is important to you and get the one that has as much as possible. Old, non-leaky tanks wouldn't bother me at all if the plane was otherwise nice with a modern panel, good history, nice cosmetics, etc. You could, for example, spend a lot more adding an autopilot than resealing the tanks, so I'd rather have the autopilot and fly it while preparing for tank work in the future. I went for the reseal at Willmar in 2008 and was extremely pleased. Willmar has since sold, and the guy that specialized in the tank repairs recently went out on his own now and is doing business under a different name/shop but I don't recall what it is called. Should be easy to find, though. Don Maxwell's shop would probably do an equally nice job and is a good alternative. I place a high value on useful load and didn't want to add to my empty weight with bladders, or pay more than the reseal cost. Do your research and you can make an educated choice...but in the mean time just fly it!

I'm really sorry this is not going well. I typically hate recommending places for this reason. I wish I could recall the name of the guy I dealt with. I'm surprised they gave you such a low worst case. I don't recall the number but they warned me about the possibility of higher cost if the exhaust was in worse shape. Again, sorry your experience is not going as well as mine did. I hope the quality at least makes up for it.

Gary, I stay lean on the ground from startup until takeoff, even to the point that I have to enrichen during the runup, otherwise my engine stumbles. If taking off from high elevation, I put the mixture knob where I think it needs to be for the target EGT, then smoothly go to full throttle and tweak the mixture as necessary. After a couple of times anyone should be able to figure out where the knob needs to be.

Eldon, I would order a set of the newer fairings from LASAR...they are longer and will come black so they can be fit/trimmed/drilled to suit your plane. I replaced my smaller ones (like yours) when I painted the plane and put the later model fiberglass dorsal fin and "knuckle" fairing on as well. They weren't too expensive, relatively speaking, either.

I just use the Target EGT method, which is to find a reference EGT on a cylinder and note what it is while taking off from a sea-level (or nearly) airport on a standard day (or nearly). Assuming your engine is properly setup with proper fuel flows and the EGT probes are in fairly nominal locations, this value will likely be in the 1250-1300 dF range. Anytime while climbing you simply lean a little bit to keep the reference cylinder EGT within that target range. When taking off from any elevation, lean during the roll to the target range. It is that simple if you have a monitor and doesn't require 5 or 6 steps.

If you're an AOPA member, there are a couple of good threads on their forum in the "flight bag" sub-forum. I have an EVO 4G and love it, but don't really use it for anything aviation-specific beyond the web browser and fltplan.com's Android app. I bought the Repligo PDF reader (fantastic) and can use it to view NACO approach plates very easily, but it is my backup backup and not used much of course.

Ray, Congrats on the purchase! Bevan-Rabell at KICT is the best option in town these days. They installed my GTX-330ES earlier this year and are quite competent. I've heard/read good things about Select Avionics in McKinney (KTKI) and I travel there all the time (my hometown) so if you want to go there, I can help with the ferry requirements easily. Ditto for KADS.

Attached is a pic of the panel in my '77 J for another data point. The previous owner installed the goodies except for the GTX-330ES that I did earlier this year, and the 496 on a glareshield RAM mount. I did upgrade both GNS units to WAAS in 2007, though, and am very happy I did that! There is an avionics cooling fan box mounted below my 530W behind the plain plastic "fill" panel. Ideally it would be nice to have the 430W under the 530W, but it is not worth the effort (for me) to try to make that happen since I already have a functional panel. IMO, having two GNS units is a bit of overkill, but they were there and I use both. The 430W typically is used to show more of the numerical data fields instead of a map page. If starting from scratch today, I would choose a 530W and a 496 (or perhaps similar) in a panel dock, along with an SL30 nav/com. I have no experience with the 480, but it is sure popular with those that have them. I'd be worried about future parts support/availability since it has been discontinued, and there are far fewer of those units in circuluation vs. the 430/530 line.

I'm not sure adding TKS to a J (or other non-turbo Mooney) is a great idea because there is a high likelihood that you won't be able to climb above icing conditions and you really shouldn't drone along in icing conditions even with TKS. Ovations at less than gross weight can climb better and that might be a better candidate, but IMO one should really have a turbo along with TKS in order to maximize the escape options while trying to complete a trip in the winter. If you can't climb above it, you likely need to turn around (or descend if still above MEA) and you can do those things without TKS in a J.

Bill Wheat's belly pan uses camlocs. Carbon fiber is roughly 10x more expensive that fiberglass, so all things considered, the price is fairly reasonable in aircraft terms IMO. I work in the aircraft industry and with composites and understand what it takes to do this... The weight advantage vs. fiberglass is on the order of 10 lbs or so if I remember correctly and weight-neutral versus the standard aluminum panels. I want one, but bought a new prop this year instead. Maybe next year!

The overlapping nose gear doors are a factory part from later model J+ airframes. I added them last year in conjunction with paint since my old ones were eroded at the front and in need of repair anyway. I couldn't measure any noise reduction.

The hub can be replaced, but the cost now is pretty high vs. when the AD had just been issued and Hartzell was offering a discount. I wouldn't recommend buying a brand-new prop just to ease the sale b/c you'll never recover the money. Perhaps you could find a used non-AD prop if you really want to swap, otherwise discount the price just a little bit. The MT was 10.5 AMU with custom paint and the shiny spinner.

Could you tell us which shop did the O/H on the governor?

Jim is correct IMO. A well-maintained, high-time Mooney can actually be in much better condition than a low-timer that has been sitting a lot. Check the "consumable" items like rod-ends, gear biscuits, actuators & motors (for overhauls), etc. and enjoy the price reduction.

I bet his oil coming from the governor is simply getting blown onto the exhaust and smoking. Hopefully the mounting pad issue is indeed all there is to the problem and you get many hundreds of hours more out of the engine! General troubleshooting tip...always look at what was just touched when a problem arises. It is highly unlikely, statistically speaking, for a new problem to manifest itself right after you work on the plane for some other reason.

The pre-J spinner is much smaller and a different shape than the J, so it cannot be used with a pre-J plane unless it has a 201 cowl mod of some flavor. It is hard to believe that Harzell can't figure out how to make a non-cracking spinner for this application. My 33+ year old McCauley spinner is still crack-free, but perhaps that is due to the counterweights on the -A3B6D variant of the IO-360 vs. the -A1A. My MT spinner is fiberglass, but I got the optional shiny finish so it will look like a polished aluminum or chrome spinner. Hopefully this is the best of both worlds...light weight, long-lasting, and shiny.

The only surprise is that it took so long for this to happen...

I'm sure you won't have any issues with fit, and would guess that it will be tight for your son, but better than most other light GA planes. Some of the later model Mooneys (mid 80s+) have vertically adjustable seats that may be able to get "lower" than a stock vintage seat, but I'm not sure. The newer seats are easily installed in the older Mooneys, but they're very hard and/or expensive to find. One option might be to get the seats re-built with new, modern memory foam and use less of it in the seat bottom, and have a booster cushion upholstered to match that can used with shorter passengers. Definitely try to find a local Mooney owner and try one on for size! Most of us are happy to share the infection!

Actually, I believe the 252 can be upgraded to Encore-spec relatively easily via compliance with a MAC drawing and the different engine. I believe someone on the email list even did it at overhaul time, and it wasn't horribly expensive. The Encore can be had with FIKI as well as the greater useful load, which are two very nice advantages IMO. The slower speed is most likely due to the higher gross weight and/or TKS panels.

I should be able to give a PIREP on the MT scimitar prop pretty soon.

37 here and my hair is thinning out faster than going gray. Civilian also, and think every day is Veteran's Day! Thanks to those of y'all out there serving now, and those before you as well. Back in 2000 I was real close to joining my local B-1 ANG unit as soon as they started granting waivers for eye surgery. I took the tests, had the app together, etc. and went for my surgery consult...long story short the eye doc said the chances of bad side effects might be as high as 1 in 10 for me with the PRK procedure (only option for air crew) so I declined.

Quote: danb35 If you change to the 200 HP engine and add the 201 cowl and windshield, you'd still have the gross weight and fuel capacity of the G, and you would have spent most of the cost (not most of the cost delta, most of the cost) of the 201 in the mods.

You'll be extremely lucky to find any in stock in a salvage yard, and they won't be cheap either.