KSMooniac

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.

I can't disagree about anything written above. Bottom line is to buy the best airplane you can on your budget that has been flying and maintained/improved along the way. Differences in MX cost between manual/electric or carb/fuel injection are negligible and should take a backseat to finding the best plane you can. For the record, I'd rather have a J-bar and pump-down flaps in my J, but I value the aero improvements and back seat room more than the manual gear/flaps. LOP options with the IO-360 are also more valuable to me than the cheaper O-360, so I ruled out C and G models when I started looking. I wanted an updated/modified E or F initially, but go tempted by the J that became mine when it came up locally right when I was looking...

A shop nearly local to me in Newton KS (Midwest Aircraft Services) did the cylinder work. I R&R'd the cylinders and took them to the shop via pickup. Oil consumption prior to the work @ ~1650 SMOH started at about 4 hrs/qt on fresh oil, and would deteriorate to 2 hrs/qt by 25 hours or so. Afterwards, it is running about 15-18 hrs/qt and staying quite clean. Some of the oil usage prior to the work was due to some leaking oil return lines that were replaced, though.

DP...same problem for me!

Dave, I had low compression on two jugs thru the exhaust valves, and decided to get all 4 IRAN'd (Inspect & Repair As Necessary) to baseline them since they had 1400 hours on them before I got the plane. I ended up with new seats and guides (properly ground), 1 new exhaust valve, 4 new pistons & rings, and a fresh honing. This cured my compression issues as well as oil consumption and blow-by. The pistons were discretionary and added $600 to the total.

I agree that the advantages of the IO-360 running LOP by an educated pilot with good instrumentation will far outweigh the additional cost of the cylinders at overhaul time. I also agree that whatever you choose, buying a good example that was operated well and regularly is the most important quality. It is also possible to overhaul the IO-360 cylinders if needed for half the cost or less...one doesn't necessarily need to buy new ones. Last year I had all 4 of mine IRAN'd for $2300 including new pistons (cost from the engine shop, no labor on the plane). Fuel tanks and props as mentioned above are potential "gotchas" too.

Actually, there is data that shows the earth getting cooler since 1998. ROP/LOP and what the temps and pressures are at 50 ROP are much easier to debate than climate change since there is bonefied data that is known to all, and can be measured. Lycoming and TCM (and the airframers) have a huge dis-incentive to re-write their op specs because it becomes a tantamount admission to publishing bad info long ago, which could expose them to lawsuits, or even reset the 18 year liability term that was limited by the '94 legislation.

I'm using a Davtron M655 in place of my stock OAT gauge that resides on the left, top side of my panel. It is a great instrument that gives F & C temps, pressure altitude and density altitude if connected to the altitude encoder, as well as voltage. The probe is located in an inspection panel under the left wing, just outboard from the main gear. Whatever you do, don't put the new OAT probe in the cabin air intakes that are subject to heating from the engine and sun when on the ground.

Generally speaking, the 6-series laminar flow airfoils have a "drag bucket" where there is a range of lift coefficient that has a noticeably lower drag coefficient. It could be that climbing at the higher airspeed reduces the lift coefficient (b/c of lower angle of attack) enough to slide into the drag bucket compared to climbing at a lower airspeed and higher angle of attack. I think that might explain the phenomen, but I haven't looked up the drag polar for the Mooney airfoils and calculated lift coefficients for various airspeeds... (I'll leave that as an exercise for the students. /professor)

I doubt it, and certainly not for current production planes. Hard to quantify, though. There are certainly tons of 172s with Lycomings out there, but pre-'97 182s and "bigger" Cessnas had TCM I believe. Cirrus is 100% TCM and produce more than Cessna these days. Beech has TCM in all of the Bonanzas and Barons, and some Lycomings in the small production planes (in terms of size and quantity). Mooney and Piper have a lot of Lycoming-powered models in the existing fleet. There are a lot of TCM O-200 powered C-150s that probably offset the Lycoming O-235 powered C-152s. Other twin engine planes are a mix as well...

Mooneys are trim sensitive, but I don't think the forces are excessive at all unless you are way out of trim. Jim's suggestion for a good lubrication is a great idea...Tri Flow on the yoke shafts and Heim joints and some good oil on the hinge points will help tremendously if they are dry.

There are gear warning/condition lights (and horns) for all Mooneys. Despite this, plenty of pilots don't remember to put the gear down.