KSMooniac

I have a 530W & 430W in my early M20J, thanks to the previous owners. The original added the 430, the second addded the 530, and I upgraded both to WAAS. In my plane, the 430W is on the right side of the panel...not optimal but it works just fine. There was enough room/height in the center stack to put the 430W under the 530W. If/when I add an Aspen or G500, I will likely do a full custom panel and try to get the audio panel, 530/430 and transponder all stacked together.

I wish the Artcraft secret was out last summer...I think I would have flown from KS to get mine done! One of my college professors was a retired USAF Col, with quite a resume including leading the F-15 flight test program, commandant of the test pilot school, instructor/advisor to the South Vietnamese, etc. He of course chose a Mooney for his personal bird after retiring. Actually, he upgraded from a V-Tail Bo into an M20F.

Very interesting discussion...as an aero engineer I appreciate the data from an AOA gauge and would love to have one in the Mooney. I'm not sure if/how it would change my flying, but I'm geeky enough to just want the data. I suspect it would indeed be very handy for max performance t/o and landing ops once you get some experience with it, but we rarely need that little margin in our birds, IMO. Buster, I have a classmate/friend that just relocated to Vegas from Edwards. I flew my Mooney out there last year, unforunately before he relocated, but need to do so again. It would be great to get together out there sometime, especially if you find acquire your K soon.

I installed a Davtron M655 OAT/multifunction instrument in my 201 a couple of years ago via a 337 field approval under supervision of my IA. I put it in the left sub-panel at the original OAT location, and mounted the probe on an inspection panel on the lower side of the left wing, just outboard of the main gear. This was a miror image of the factory probe location on the right wing. Someday I plan to add another probe there and connect to my JPI or whatever upgrade primary engine monitor I choose in the future. This location is shielded from the sun, exhaust, air heated by the cowling, and fingers/knees/legs, etc. so I think it is perfect. It was not a major PITA to route the wires, and worth doing correctly IMO to get accurate readings.

I'm a happy -700 user with their fuel flow system integrated to the EDM and my GPS. I'll never own a plane without this functionality! I've toyed with the idea of sending my unit back to turn it into a -730, but at this point it is not worth the money. I can download the data with their cable, so I don't need the USB interface but it would certainly make it easier. If for some reason my -700 developed a problem and needed to go back to the factory, then I might choose to upgrade. I can see upgrading my entire panel in the future with a PFD, and at that point I would likely opt for a -930 (or similar competitor) and ditch all of my old engine instruments. That would call for a new custom panel of course, and who knows what else while it is all apart! The posts above are correct in that the -7x0/8x0 cannot officially replace your OEM instruments...only the bigger -930 can do that I believe. IMO, the HP/% Power functionality on the -800/830 is not worth the extra price. I fly LOP nearly 100% of the time, and I know that my % power = fuel flow * 14.9 so I don't need to pay extra for that calculation. My recommendation would be to take that additional money and put it towards some very, very good education here: www.advancedpilot.com so you'll learn the hows and whys of engine management and make that new engine operate in the best way possible. Regardless of which monitor you choose, you are making a wise choice to install one! I cannot recommend highly enough the education that the APS folks provide to maximize the efficiency and longevity of a piston engine.

I've got it penciled in and hope to join the Caravan, if nothing else for the group parking on the North 40 + camping. I'm hoping/planning to take my dad, a former C-owner from long ago who never made it there. I last went in '94, so I'm long overdue and can't wait!

Well, the more expensive ad was listed on 1/18/2010, and it could be that the owner needs to move the plane quickly and decided to swtch brokers to AAA, and they listed it at a better price to sell it faster. That would be my best guess. Looks like a pretty decent plane!

Michael, please post a PIREP on the MT when you get it done! I'm *very* interested in one to replace my doggy '77 square-tip McCauley 2-blader. IMO, the metal 3-bladers on 4 cylinder Mooneys are waste. Slower cruise, higher potential for vibration problems, no additional ground clearance, and of course heavier weight. Only positive is subjective ramp appeal. I wouldn't rule a candidate plane out for having a 3-blade prop, but it would be a deduction in my book. YMMV.

I'm late to the party and think there is a TON of great advice and points to ponder given above. I would like o reinforce the need to get some seat time in both models, and plan to do as much transition training with an experienced Mooney instructor as you need right after purchase. You could easily include some of your continuing instrument training at this time, and in fact, getting some instrument instruction in the Mooney would be a very, very wise decision. There is more to do in a Mooney vs. a 172 or similar, and learning from a pro will ultimately be much safer and quicker than trying to figure out instrument flying in a Mooney on your own after you get the IR. My other thoughts...better to buy your 2nd plane first as trading up has costs in terms of transaction costs, taxes, catch-up maintenance on the new bird, etc. If you have the right attitude/mindset, then going straight to an M20R is fine provided you get the training. The suggestion above to look at M20S models is also very good. Even if you have to pay for higher insurance and training in year one, this will be vastly cheaper than buying a "starter" plane and trading in a year or two. More to think about in terms of a J vs. R. vs. S...think about what kind of panel and equipment you'll ultimately want. I'm guessing G1000-equipped Ovations are above your budget, so you'll be looking at conventional 6-pack panels with a GPS of some sort. The later Js and early Rs typically came with King stuff including fancy autopilots & HSIs. The King GPS is out-of-favor these days and the flight director/HSI gyros are expensive when they need attention. In fact, the overhaul cost on those gyros is high enough that many people are adding an Aspen PFD or Garmin G500/600 in lieu of putting money into the old stuff, and I agree with that 100%. The M20S came stripped-down to reduce the price, but today I consider that an advantage! They typically had regular gyros and an STEC-30 autopilot (I have one and think it is great). That system is less capable on paper than the loaded panels, but it is cheaper to own and buy, and more importantly it might make more sense if you eventually want to move up to an Aspen or G500 system since the autopilot won't require an expensive adaptor from the glass or require keeping the expensive gyro. If I were looking today in the $200k range, it would be for an M20S with a Screamin' Eagle upgrade (to give it Ovation power/speed) and a Garmin GPS or two. It should be less than a comparable year/time Ovation, and if you want to put a G500 in either plane then you'll end up with less total investment going for an M20S. If you're happy with vintage 1990s tech and a panel full of things, then an early Ovation is your choice. Ice protection was also mentioned and in your neck of the woods that might warrant strong consideration too. It is quite rare on a J of any vintage, and IMO doesn't make much sense anyway for a J because a J has limited climb ability to climb above any icing realistically, so having TKS on a J just buys more time to escape and not necessarily climb out of ice and continue on a trip. I don't believe I've seen an M20S with TKS either, but I have seen a few M20Rs, and they do have a much greater ability to climb above. If you think you'll need to reliably fly in the winter up there, then you should consider TKS. As always, it is better to buy a plane equipped as closely to what you want instead of trying to add things yourself if you're on a budget. Check actual useful loads of any candidate plane carefully, and run some trip plans with your desired missions to make sure they will work. Some planes are quite heavy and that can compromise their usefulness if you're trying to fly 3-4 people + stuff. Well, I ended up saying a lot more than I thought! Go get some seat time, and you might consider looking at a 231 or 252 as well. Whatever you decide, you cannot go wrong with a Mooney of any flavor!

Cool! I actually remember watching that F-88 get auctioned at Barret-Jackson a couple of years ago. I always wondered who would pay that much for cars like that, and how they got that kind of disposable income. Thanks for sharing.

I don't have any experience with the system in a Mooney, but played with one in a Ford 20 years ago. Last year I repaired my inflatable door seal, though, which is likely similar. I'd start with a careful inspection of the bulb and hose and try to find a leak. The hose might have deteriorated a bit, especially at the joint. With my door seal, I had to cut it and add a "stent" of R/C airplane fuel hose, and siliconed it in place with GE 108 silicone after cleaning with MEK. You could probably repair a leak with the same method.

Good choice with the EDM-730. Unless you already have fuel flow, I'd strongly recommend that you add it too! Having the fuel flow/totalizer system gives you peace of mind and much finer loading flexibility when you're trying to maximize payload for any given mission. Connecting it to the GPS also gives you lots of nice additional features.

There is a lot of upside as mentioned for buying a runout and doing everything to your satisfaction firewall-forward. Realistically, you might not find the exact plane you want (avioinics, cosmetics, etc.) that is also a runout or nearly so, so just be prepared. If you can get one as close as possible, that would be best so long as the purchase price reflects the used-up engine. The upside is if everything checks out with the PPI, plane has flown regularly, good oil analysis, etc., then there is no reason to keep flying it until you are ready to O/H (financially and schedule-wise). You might even get quite a few "bonus" hours before taking it down for work. If it were me, I'd much rather be able to fly it for a year or so and make sure all the other items are addressed and the plane is what I had hoped before sinking all that money into it. I concur with the advice to get a quality Mooney shop to do the R&R, especially with the fuel injection setup on reinstallation. I've read that the TCM engines are quite tricky, and you really really need to make sure you have adequate fuel flow setup on the turbo engines. I also read a horror story about Western Skyways over on the AOPA forum from a poster with a Turbo Arrow (same engine as a 231). It came back with some of the FI system components mis-installed, and a number of accessories failed in the first few hours too. WS made it right, but it was a huge hassle. Otherwise, they have a great reputation as far as I know. I don't know anything about the shop that installed the engine, but my inference is that they were not very savvy with that engine, and perhaps a better shop could have identified the issues more easily, especially with the fuel system.

I have a Mid Continent electric AI with a battery backup, and it is a nice unit. I'm very happy with it, especially since the previous owner installed it. I believe it costs about 20x what a rebuilt Rapco 211CC vacuum pump costs. I expect the weight of the pump + regulator + plumbing + vacuum AI will exceed that of the electric gyro and battery pack by a couple of pounds at least, but that is just my educated guess. Unless you have a lot of extra money to add to the upgrade, I'd just check the vacuum plumbing and put on a rebuilt pump for now as long as your AI has been behaving. If your AI acts up in the future, then you might think about ditching the entire system since the AI overhaul will cost 2-3x what the vacuum pump costs. The vacuum pump might also fit your 172, so you could save it for a spare.

FYI for Sagemguy and others...composites are VERY repairable, and often much more so than metal. It is just not a common skill yet, and I suspect it will be a big growth industry. I get to deal with this in my day job quite a bit. Efficiency, useful load, and total ownership costs were among my priorities in the survey. A 1300+ lb useful load Ovation would be wonderful. One that is 4 inches wider in the cabin would be ideal.

That looks gorgeous! Congrats! I'm also a happy A.C. customer...they did my yokes last year. My plane came with renewed interior so I don't need to do that for quite a few years.

Here is the link in case you didn't get an email: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=z1uFtW7dAG_2fj97P6Kmk8tw_3d_3d It takes a few minutes and certainly doesn't hurt, so I did it. Chance to win an annual or a leather jacket too. I'm not even close to being a potential customer for a new Mooney or any other plane, but it is nice to put my wishes/priorities down on the survey.

I grew up near the airport where Gene Soucy is based, and I learned to fly there as well. My dad kept his C model there until he sold it, conveniently about 1.5 years before I started flying.... Anyway, I remember seeing some Mooney acro in the aerobatic box adjacent to the airport and we always thought it was some rogue fool screwing around...it very well might have been Gene or Charlie! They used to practice their Eagles routines there too back in the day.

Craig, you are certainly correct in that you cannot file /G without an IFR-approved panel-mounted receiver. However, in the mainland, it is not uncommon to get cleared direct with some help from ATC while in radar coverage. You can always ask for it and suggest a heading (from your handheld or VFR-only receiver) and often times they'll give it to you. Technically you will be flying a vector, even if it is for 500 miles, and thus you are still legal. Obviously this applies for en-route flying only, and not terminal procedures.

Flying /G and getting direct is certainly dependent on the part of the country...out here in the plains I usually get direct so I use it all the time. When I was flying out in CA I got airways, and I'm sure the NE is the same way, so that is certainly a factor in the decision. Regarding the database cost, Jepp actually gives a reasonable discount for a combo package...I think my renewal this past fall was ~$500/yr for two WAAS data subscriptions. A single is $350 or $400 I think. Still damn painful since all they do is pass gov't data thru to us. Grrrrr.

I agree with Lew. Additionally, a 530W/430W will interface to an autopilot, which is perhaps the second biggest reason besides IFR approaches. As I've mentioned on here a bunch, a WAAS GPS + GPSS module on an autopilot is the biggest workload reducer for single-pilot IFR out there IMO, and thus a big safety enhancement. If you are a fair weather pleasure flyer only, then hand-flying with a 696 is probably sufficient. My plane came with a 530 & 430. I added a 496 for battery backup and weather, mainly because it was tons cheaper than the GDL-69 XM weather receiver to put WX on the 530. The 496 (and 696) have much better screen resolution too. I also upgraded both receivers to WAAS. If I were starting from scratch today, I would go for a single 530W and a panel-mounted 696 (and a SL30 or similar Nav/Com) and call it good. I think that would be the best solution on a moderate budget.

Brian, I'm just down the road from you in Wichita and would be happy to help/fly just about anytime. Another Mooney buddy here and I are even talking about a BBQ run to Paola (K81) very soon...possibly this weekend. Even if your ASI bench-checks OK, you could still have something amiss with the rest of the system. You might have to simply trace the pitot and static lines all the way thru the airframe and look for a problem.

oops! I mis-remembered or typed too fast and skipped a step! :0 The squares of the three readings should be AVERAGED, then take the square root of the average. Also, I said headings should be flown 120 deg apart, but it actually should be TRACKS. This can be done using a 430, a user waypoint, and the OBS mode to establish tracks to follow, vs. headings to hold.

The simplest explanation is that your ASI has a major error, or else your fairly stock E is somehow much faster than every other 200 hp Mooney ever made. Sorry to rain on your parade! You might inspect your static ports on the fuselage aft of the cabin. Check to see if they're sitting flush with the skin, and the skin is not distorted. I've heard that an old used-airplane salesman trick is to "tweak" the static ports by sticking a small punch into the opening and bending it aft, which will make the ASI read higher. Perhaps you have a partially collapsed static line somewhere inside the cabin, which might cause the same effect. When you do a GPS calibration run you'll discover how far out it is. (PS, you can also do a 3-way run on headings 120 degrees apart, then take the square root of the sum of the squares and not do a 4th run.)

Jeff, that is correct. The AT models did not include an A/P.