KSMooniac

The KSN 770 has been delayed again, apparently indefinitely. The KFD 840 (PFD only) is priced about the same as the G500 (PFD + MFD). Methinks it is another swing-and-a-miss by Honeywell/BK...too late to the party and at the wrong price point. If their PFD were priced closer to the Aspen we might have something to talk about, but I doubt they'll sell many.

yes, the Turbo Arrow uses the same Conti as the 231, as does the Seneca II+. The only turbo options for 4-cylinder Lycomings to my knowledge have been aftermarket systems like the Turbo Bullet mod for J's, plus Rajay and M20 Turbo turbo-normalizers. Only the M20 Turbo system is available today, for the low price of 34 AMU plus installation. Tornado Alley Turbos (sister company to GAMI) released a system of the Cardinal RG last year, which uses the same engine as the J. I believe the price is also in the 30-40 AMU range, unfortunately. A truly turbo-normalized IO-390 would be the cat's meow IMO, but I doubt we'll see one for a long, long time if at all.

what "stock" TIO-360 are you considering? I don't believe there is one except the TSIO-360 Continental engine, which of course is 6 cylinders and longer than the Lycoming of the M20C-J.

Congrats on both fronts, Craig!

Beatuiful Twinkie! A friend of mine helped me get to and from the paint shop last fall with his Twinkie and I sure enjoyed riding/flying it. Perhaps the most reasonable twin for a private owner, too. Enjoy!

I went ahead and dug up the link and here is the pertinent info: S/N 24-0001 thru 24-3200, 24-3202 thru 24-3217 -- 2740 lbs. gross weight. C.G. Range (+45.0) to (+50.1) at 2740 lbs. (Landing gear extended) (+41.8) to (+50.1) at 2470 lbs. (+41.0) to (+50.1) at 2250 lbs. or less (Straight line variation between points given). Retraction moment 615 in. -lbs. S/N 24-3201, 24-3218 thru 24-TBA, and 24-1686 thru 24-3200, 24-3202 thru 24-3217 when c/w MAC dwg. No. 940071 and insertion of applicable AFM supplement - 2900 lbs. gross weight. Bottom line, the latest models (S/N24-3201, 3218+) came from Kerrville with 2900 lb GW, and the others -1686 thru -3200, -3202 thru -3217 can be modified in accordance with the Mooney drawing No. 940071 and have the AFM updated to get the 2900 lb. GW. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/60107bc8954c93a686256c24005b5075/$FILE/2A3.pdf

It is not an STC per se, but simply some paperwork and ASI changes *if* your plane falls in the correct serial number range. If you read thru the M20J portion of the TC on the FAA website, you'll see a distinct break in the serial numbers...going from memory I think it is something like 24-16xx+ that are eligible for the increase, which begins in the '88 or '89 model year time frame. Parker Woodruff was able to get this done on his 1990 model. Also FYI, doing the increase will result in useful loads very similar to those of the early J's like mine. It makes up for most of the weight-gain over the production run as more features and avionics were added.

That sure sounds funny! You might look into LASAR's Wiser Visors too...I think they're quite similar and might have the proper STC coverage. I love my Rosens that came in my J, and the previous owner (now has an Ovation) wishes he would have taken them out to install in his Ovation! He says the OEM versions are a joke.

Congrats Bob! Can't wait to hear how tomorrow goes. Chris, I knew Tom G was thinking about selling a few months ago, but then he took his plane off the market from what I read. I guess he changed his mind again? Planes like that are the ultimate piston single IMO, especially if equipped with TKS. I met a guy on our local ski club trip last weekend that has a TN A36 here in Wichita and hope I can fly with him sometime. I *love* my J, but if I had the space/stuff requirements like you someday then a TN A36 is where I would try to go.

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet but is very important is the written purchase agreement (PA). When you find the candidate plane, the deposit + PA lead to the PPI (or annual) with written words covering who pays for what, where & how the plane gets there, and how much you lose if you walk away. Typically the buyer would/should cover the cost of the inspection and expenses to get the plane to the shop, and the seller will cover airworthiness items uncovered during the process. "Recommended" items found by the shop can be negotiated or split as required. I feel this is important because you do not want to be responsible for a bird that goes away from home and then gets grounded after they uncovered massive corrosion or some other show-stopper. As for finding a good shop to do the inspection, just check back when you have a geographic area narrowed down and I'm sure you'll get a PIREP for one nearby. With very few exceptions, it is a lousy idea to let a broker/consigner/FBO that is offering the plane do the PPI like N6843N described with Mooneymart.

Please let us know what you end up, with Chris! Any chance of a TN A36, or are you set on a twin of some flavor?

Congrats! I can't believe they're letting it go after all the recent work! You're getting an outstanding plane. Enjoy!

I'd vote for flying to another examiner's region for the test. Ask around and figure out where the more reasonable ones are, and then go there. Even if you make a 2-3 trip out of the deal, it will still be cheaper than adding brakes or renting a different airplane.

I think the Top Prop is around $7-8k new, outright with spinner but I'm not exactly sure. I've read of a lot of trouble with cracking spinners, so I hope they get it fully sorted if it isn't already solved. With Hartzell there is always the risk of a dubious AD to make you buy more stuff from them in the future...that is why I can't get too excited about that prop. Hopefully I'm wrong and they've finally figured out how to make a durable product.

The extra 400 hours or 1 year is still not worth it since you have to haul around all that extra weight. I don't know any Part 91 owner/operators that follow those schedules for props and just do it on-condition or when the engine is off.

Excellent news! I'm sure Parker is itchin' to get that beautiful maroon plane out of Waco too.

I don't mean to throw water on the idea, but most of that info is out there already, and free, even if you have to go to 2-3 sites to get the info. The only thing new in your idea is having a database for Mooney experts at a given field, and I'm not sure that would be needed info for somebody planning a routine flight. If stranded on the road, a quick search here or question to one of the email lists will usually get the info. Airnav is great for general research, lodging and fuel prices. www.fly2lunch.com is great for finding food, and is free. (slight disclaimer...it was created by a friend of mine that is also in the USAF!) I use www.fltplan.com for flight planning and filing. I get trip-kits of procedures at www.flightaware.com, as well as making sure my IFR plans are in the ssytem. Between those sites, my needs are met very easily, and most importantly they are free. Just one guy's opinion...

Heated hangar or warming it in the sunshine are really the only ways unless you want to get some real aircraft de-ice fluid. I would never use anything other than aircraft-approved stuff because it could lead to bad corrosion.

Keep in mind that if you go for thicker windows, you will be eating into your useful load. That may or may not matter much to you, but perhaps it will to the person buying your plane in the future. The most effective noise reduction solution is a modern ANR headset.

I too don't think we'll be stranded any time soon. A large number of GA planes can run fine on unleaded avgas, but the trouble is that the minority of planes that cannot are the ones that are really "working" GA planes, like the bigger turbo-charged twins, and those really cannot be left stranded. So, we continue on with 100LL right now. The Swift Fuel development looks very intriguing as a biofuel that sems to be economical, and most importantly is NOT derived from food stocks like ethanol, which has screwed up the markets royally IMO. Hopefully they can scale up to mass production while keeping the price very reasonable. It seems to be an easy replacement with no hardware changes on our end. On the hardware side, the engine OEMs are working on FADECs and the GAMI folks have their PRISM system going thru the cert hoops currently. That system looks very promising and will work with unleaded fuel in any aircraft engine. It will come with a price, though. I'm not losing any sleep over the issue. I really hope the Swift Fuel turns out to be as good as it looks.

The Advanced Pilot Seminar guys preach that fuel injectors should NOT be cleaned regularly, since they're in a solvent bath (fuel) all the time. They should only be cleaned "on condition" which is recognized with an engine monitor reading or roughness in flight. Flying LOP will expose such a malady very quickly too, whereas ROP might mask the problem. They said the most common debris found in the injectors is red lint from shop rags...from mechanics cleaning them. I've cleaned mine once in almost 3 years of ownership, and only because I had them all out for cylinder work.

I've had sustained 201-205 knots before, and it was quite nice. Last year on a flight from Wichita to ABQ I had sustained ground speeds <100 knots too, and that is just brutal. What should have been a 3:15 flight turned into 4:30 or so. It still beats driving and airlines though!

Scott Cutler hit a goose in his J a few years back: http://www.mooneycaravan.com/mooneycaravan/goose.aspx The M20F that I flew in my last year of college had a similar goose strike in 1990 or 1991 and needed a new vertical stab. Last Saturday I was on final to KGOP (Gatesville TX) on a warm, gusty day and there were several hawks or large birds thermalling and hunting, and one was coming directly at me for a short period, so I was prepared to pull up when at the last second he tucked his wings and dove below me. That is about as close as I've come. <knocking on wood>

IIRC the metal 3-bladers STC'd for our vintage Mooneys are all the same diameter as the OEM 2-bladers, so you will not gain any ground clearance. 3-blade features are: sexier ramp appeal, more weight/less useful load (and fwd CG), possible vibration issues, better t/o & climb, slower cruise. Only improved t/o & climb are positives on that list, and not worth the extra weight and slower cruise for me. I would love to have an MT 3-blader, though, on my 201. It is lighter than a metal 2-blader and runs smoother.

Bodie, yes I deleted my ram air system when I had the plane painted. The shop filled in the cowling hole prior to paint, so it looks like it was never there. Back home, I removed the rest of the system and riveted a close-out panel onto the induction box where the ram air intake used to reside. Simple task, but it took a long time to R&R everything since the air box had to come off the plane to rivet the plate with regular "smash" rivets. Apparently you're not supposed to use blind rivets on induction components. Removing the ram air cable + microswitch assy was a PITA due to tight access under the panel, as usual.