KSMooniac

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.

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.