KSMooniac

Here are some pics of my (dirty) carpet. Hope that helps!

If anyone thinks that any airplane makes it through the production line without an off-spec or damaged part, you're kidding yourself. Parts get damaged all the time in normal production, and go through a process with engineering review to repair, replace, or use as-is before they ever get a chance to accumulate real "damage history" in the field. Any prospective plane with damage history needs to be checked out by an expert and see if the paperwork matches the repair work. D.H. does have the potential to lower the value, but it is not an absolute. Nor does it make any airplane "trash" automatically.

Paul, I'll try to take some pics tonight...I'm headed to the hangar to take care of a few things. My carpet is a cheapy (perhaps Airtex) that I don't really like. One of these days I would like to replace it with something higher quality, but have been too lazy to make my own templates.

I think I spent about 2 hours removing my cable. The bits on the business end are easy, but there is a microswitch assy attached to the cable housing behind the panel that has major access difficulty, and there is a nut that needs to thread off the housing while removing it, which of course has access difficulty. On a 201 it just isn't worth having that system...it works great on the E/F though.

I think you'd be better off tracing/cutting your own templates and getting a local auto shop to cut and sew some carpet from approved materials of your choosing.

On a 201 I would say it is cheaper and better to simply remove the ram air system entirely since it is ineffective. There is SB guidance to do so, which happened on the later models from the factory. That little orange seal is very expensive too, and prone to wear and abuse since it snubs the lower cowl. I removed mine prior to paint last year and the paint shop filled the hole on the cowl and now you cannot tell. If faced with replacing that seal or the cable, I would opt to remove the entire system and pay less money to get the cowl fiberglassed and repainted. If you insist on keeping it, you could remove the cable and have McFarlane duplicate it for a reasonable cost. Removing it is a PITA in my opinion, and I would not want to reinstall it.

50 ROP is almost the worst mixture setting to run an engine, especially one making more than 65% power which is easy to do with a K at any altitude. 40 ROP is the worst.

Is the breaker popped? Manual system disengaged? Does the motor try to turn at all?

I'd want to see the details of the damage and the repairs, as well as a Mooney-savvy pre-buy. Typically the spar doesn't get damaged in a gear-up/gear-collapse to my knowledge, so there may be more to the story. I'd be more concerned about the weak avionics, though. You'd have to get it really cheap to have some good headroom left to modernize the panel. Is this a K from AR by chance?

Amelia, with a turbo Mooney I would say both "upgrades" are well worth the money. I will never own a plane without an engine monitor (that works!) and I would also make sure any plane I own runs smoothly LOP (carb'd engines excepted). If you can get your K to run LOP reliably, you can quickly "pay for" the cost of the GAMIjectors if they are needed to run LOP in your plane. You can truly run at the same power levels on much less fuel going LOP in a turbo...perhaps save as much as 2-3 GPH for equivalent power. Figure that saves $8-15 per hour and you'll be ahead after 66-125 hours depending on fuel costs. My JPI EDM-700 with fuel flow has been a champ. The previous owner installed it, and there is perhaps ~800 hours on the installation with no issues besides a faulty display that was fixed under warranty. I expect the newer -730/830 will have no issues with the more modern display, and I'm slightly tempted to upgrade mine to that configuration. I'm waiting for OSH to see about any specials before I jump, though. Their products work very, very well IMO and I can recommend them without reservation. If your burning hole is a bit larger, then you might consider one of the latest all-in-one primary replacement monitors that would allow you to liberate all of the vintage gauges/probes/senders etc. and get a nice, accurate, reliable box. EI, JPI, Auracle are options in this market, but it might require some substantial panel surgery. I would love one of these, but I'm waiting until/if/when I do a glass PFD upgrade b/c I figure I'll do a full custom panel at that point and combine the work.

Alan, aren't you glad you made that choice? That is a trip I very likely wouldn't make in my NA-J this time of year.

I've got the same issue...I believe the simple fact is that most finishes do not adhere well to stainless steel. Aero Comfort in San Antonio makes an attractive leather cover, but I haven't opted to get one yet. I would venture that just about any auto upholstery shop could make one cheaply given some dimensions, too.

I just saw that ad earlier this afternoon and was wondering about the leading edges...TKS or protective rubber? Since a hot prop is mentioned, I would imagine they would also list TKS if installed, but who knows. Regarding a 10 AMU annual, it could be a bunch of catch-up MX to get the plane into a sellable condition. Decent cosmetics, a 530W and a recent overhaul at that price is very, very attractive. I would be taking a hard look if I were in the market for a 252.

Very beautiful work! The powder-coated landing gear are outstanding too. Keep up the good work and you'll be flying a beautiful Mooney in no time.

3 weeks and 3 days, but who's counting? I haven't been since 1994 and am taking my dad (who has never been) via the Mooney Caravan!

Scott, for the record, I agree with your sentiments completely. I think I recently read over on the AOPA board that the EAA/Peterson STC's for mogas covered just about every possible GA configuration that does indeed work reliably, and if they didn't get STC coverage for a particular plane then it just isn't feasible. 180 hp Mooneys of course are not covered... The argument for mogas for us is moot these days IMO due to the damn ethanol and other crap the greenies have mandated, which doesn't meet the existing STC's I just mentioned. I haven't read/heard anything about Swift fuel lately...I hope they're still working on the scale-up issues and can develop a solution that doesn't cost a fortune. GAMI's fuel also seems very promising and I expect we'll learn more at OSH. My money would be on one or both of those solutions for us... I'll restate the most important part of this whole debate...the fuel solution *must* accomodate the high compression and/or turbo engines because the users of these engines are the ones purchasing the vast majority of 100LL today. The fact that a Cub or old 172 can run on mogas or 94UL or whatever has no bearing on the economics of the problem. If a business owner with a 421 or a freight dog with an Aero Commander can no longer fly their planes, there will not be any infrastructure to sell whatever avgas ends up replacing 100LL because there will not be enough volume. That is why we need a completely transparent replacement for 100LL that will work without de-rating the existing engines.

From http://www.crcao.com/reports/recentstudies2008/UL%20AVGAS/CRC%20UL%20AVGAS%20Exec%20Summary%20FINAL%2005132008.pdf CONCLUSIONS CRC research into unleaded aviation gasoline alternatives has focused on meeting engine octane requirements. Research results to date reflecting the unleaded fuel blends identified above have not identified a transparent replacement for the 100LL AVGAS product. Although full scale engine tests indicated some blends were capable of providing knock free operation in the test engine, these blends represented the use of specialty chemicals which require further evaluation with respect to environmental impact. Economic viability of the blends tested is not the jurisdiction of CRC and will also need to be evaluated separately by industry. Furthermore, blend properties were not controlled for agreement with the ASTM D 910 specification as the primary focus was engine octane satisfaction. Although experimental blends of specialist components may achieve or exceed the 100LL specification of 99.6 MON minimum, such formulations are very different as compared to the current ASTM D 910 product and potentially compromise other important specifications. Depending upon engine power output and configuration, high performance aviation engines can require unleaded fuels in excess of 100 MON to achieve octane satisfaction. Leaded AVGAS 100LL or 91/98 offers greater octane satisfaction in full size engines when compared to unleaded products of similar laboratory MON. CRC test results are indicative of the significant challenge regarding a high octane unleaded AVGAS formulation and further serve as a reminder that aviation fuels represent specialized products optimized over many years to maximize performance and flight safety. Through the CRC, a broad range of industry expertise and facilities have been made available to investigate this issue. Such groups, with input from all parties, and working in collaboration with industry offer a viable means of conducting meaningful research. The goal remains a viable solution which assures performance and flight safety for both the existing and future general aviation fleets. ******** In the page above the part I copied, they mention one of the test engines as the IO-540-K, which uses the same compression ratio of 8.7:1 as our IO-360-A* engines (and perhaps the exact same cylinders) to achieve 300 HP. One can only conclude that the IO-360 is equally unsuitable for <100 octane fuel, especially without lead. A couple years ago Lycoming announced with great fanfare they were going to approve IO- and O-360s for mogas, but then didn't follow through to my knowledge. Like many of their public statements over the years, I think the marketing folks ran way ahead of the technical folks without looking at the real data...otherwise you can bet they would be pushing 94UL or mogas and not insisting on 100 octane like they are currently. (http://www.generalaviationnews.com/?p=25063)

Again, O-360s are not the same as IO-360s. The compression ratio is higher on the IO-360, and mogas or 94UL is not suitable without a knock-sensing electronic ignition to be able to tolerate the reduced detonation margins safely.

Surely a built-in O2 system could be added to any '79K using the Mooney engineering data for the later models. That would be a very easy buy-off, and not require an STC since Mooney already got it approved.

It is my understanding that the O-360 180 hp engines would run fine on 94UL, but hte 200 hp IO-360s will not. We really need to rally together to end up with a 100UL spec replacement fuel, otherwise we'll all be S.O.L. The planes that *need* 100 octane are the "working" planes that buy the bulk of the fuel today, and if they cannot fly, then there will not be enough volume to support the infrastructure to manufacture and deliver any airplane fuel. Thus, if 94UL is all we get, only the lower-performance planes could use it, and they won't be able to buy enough of it to make it a go for the refineries and FBOs.

My '77 J had a custom N-number right out of the gate, so I wouldn't read anything into the N-number on that bird. Most others were N201xx just like the K's starting in '79 were N231xx. The original owners could order an N-number if they wished.

They indeed published something officially within the last year regarding the obsolete/unserviceable *displays* for the legacy GX-** units. Perhaps they can service the guts of the box, but if the display goes T.U. then you are S.O.L. unless you can locate another serviceable box to re-install. At the time, they offered a pretty sizeable discount/trade-in towards a 430W/530W. With any luck we'll have a B-K option this year (snicker) orthe next-gen Garmin units unveiled...and the prices on the 430W/530W might come down accordingly. Too bad Avidyne & Chelton haven't pursued any retrofit navigator boxes and instead focused on complete glass solutions for OEM installations.

If you're open to door suggestions, check out Hydroswing doors instead of sliding or bi-fold options...they seem to be the gold standard now. http://www.hydroswing.com/

Looks like a decent deal. The software on the 430 is not-current, and I bet it is not a WAAS unit, so that is a bit of a downer. Otherwise, there isn't much to nit-pick! Intercooler and JPI would be mandatory equipment on a K for me, and a Merlyn controller would be very nice to have also.

Watch it, Mcstealth! There are other Aggies here too!