KSMooniac

Ronnie, thanks for joining up here and chiming in for the factory! My opinion is that 16.5K is competitive with Tejas, but still quite a bit higher than all of the other paint shops in the region. My 201 just went to a shop on Tuesday with a price substantially less...I'm very confident I will be pleased, but I suspect it won't be identical to a Tejas-quality job if someone went over it with a magnifying glass. We'll see.

Wow...$20k is hard to believe, even for them. I thought their interior renewal prices were unrealistically high, but the paint price is even worse. I fail to see how it costs them anywhere near that much (for either service) in an old facility that should have been paid for long ago. They are also in a low-cost labor area too. There cannot be much of a liability concern either for cosmetic work, so there should be no need to jack up the prices for extra insurance costs IMO.

Sweet! Mine went into the shop today, and I cannot wait to get her back...it is gonna be a long few weeks!

I'd think carefully before putting the ELT under the dorsal fin...I had the same debate since I've got a new dorsal fin from LASAR too that is going to be installed at the paint shop this week. I know Mooney put out a SB or something showing how/where to install an ELT antenna, but if you go read the specs for the antenna, it says it must be oriented within +/-15 degrees of perpendicular from the ground plane (tail skin in our case). If you put it under the dorsal, it will be bent and run essentially parallel to the skin, and that will all but ruin it's transmission capability. That is obviously not what you want if you crash somewhere, so for, it is better to leave the antenna outside. I'd bet a dollar that Mooney did not test the radiation patterns/strength of an ELT with the antenna under the dorsal...

Welcome, Bob! I'm glad somebody finally bought that great F-model! I've seen it listed for a long time and thought it would be a great plane. I learned to fly Mooneys in a '75 M20F as well and recognize the unique yokes and pistol-grip throttle. Enjoy it!

No problem Bill...he has just written that within the last week, and I had saved it to put in my "keeper" folder of useful tidbits. It sure sounds like wiring to me, too. Perhaps your mechanic doesn't relish doing the trouble shooting since you have to root around inside the interior/wings/tanks a bit...

Jim, I sent you a PM. I hope to post some nice pics in a few weeks after the transformation! I'm going with a custom/modern scheme in white & maroon metallic with black and gold metallic accent stripes.

I don't think you'll be disappointed! You might even talk yourself into some more mods before you get to the paint shop too. I got a box full of goodies last week that are going with me to the paint shop on Tuesday...

Good to hear. Too bad their unit had you do all of those earlier gymnastics and head-scratching.

There is some fairly simple trouble-shooting that can be done with the sending unit wiring, and that should be your first step. I suspect your problem is there, and not the gauge. From a recent post by Don Maxwell on the email list: ****************** If I recall you have an F.The full reading says you have an open circuit. You can check quickly by grounding the wire that goes to the center of the inboard sender. If it goes to empty, the gage & wiring to it are OK. The inboard screws are insulated and the inboard gage is grounded at the outboard sender. Wire goes from gage to center of inboard sender. Inboard sender is insulated by gasket and insulators at each screw. Wire leaves one of the mounting screws of the onboard sender to the center of the outboard sender. Outboard sender is not insulated and provides grounding for both senders. The two senders are in series. The outboard sender is accessible thru an access panel under the wing. Ground the center screw on the outboard sender and the gage should read empty.If it read empty when you grounded the inboard sender but does not when you ground the outboard sender then you have an open in the wire between the two senders. Then he sent a quick correction: Sorry, the wire goes from a mounting screw of the INBOARD sender to the center of the outboard sender. ************************* I suspect the wiring is the same or nearly so for the Bravo, but you would have to check the wiring diagrams of course. Before spending $850 you should have a go at the wires IMO. Good luck!

Always fly the plane! I've had a door pop open on takeoff, and while alarming, it is quickly recognizable and most planes are quite controllable in that condition. Don't panic, and just fly the plane normally to traffic pattern altitude, then fly a normal pattern and land.

You might need to lubricate the yoke shafts too with some triflow spray.

Jose, I agree, but it is impractical to get a ferry permit every time you want to take your friends on a weekend trip, and in fact it is probably not allowed with more than 1 or 2 folks on board for a particular mission. My 201 at 2740 lbs and 200 hp has a 13.7 lb/hp ratio. An Ovation at 3368 and 280 hp = 12.0 lb/hp. To get a 201 equivalent lb/hp ratio on the Ovation it could go 468 lbs over gross! Quite remarkable, but still not allowed on a routine basis. An O3 or Screamin' Eagle conversion at 310 hp would be even more impressive!

In my instance, we were looking at ~680 lbs of people and 65 lbs of bags. 450 NM IFR at normal cruise speeds...not super-economy cruise at 120 KTAS. To be fair, an Ovation couldn't do that mission at normal Ovation speeds either...I think an Ovation would have to throttle down to 201 speed and fuel burn to carry that load in one trip, and maybe then it might not still be possible. That is my biggest single complaint about the modern Mooneys (and every other brand for that matter)...they cannot carry 4 adults and some baggage any reasonable distance at normal cruise.

Take notes please! I'd love to hear what their development/release schedule looks like, especially in light of the G500 surprise. I'd be especially interested if there might be some upcoming price competition on satellite weather modules for the MFDs. If those prices come down, I would really consider a PFD + MFD w/Wx. Currently I'm only interested in a PFD since my other avionics provide plenty of situational awareness.

And I'll further stir the pot by saying I rarely take off with full fuel since I have a totalizer and enjoy the better performance flying at lower weights. I only tank-up if I find cheap fuel and can spare the weight. I've done a few XC missions with 4 folks when I only needed to have 42 or 45 gallons on board or similar...so I either fill up to that amount or go fly a little bit to get down to that. Then I can take 4 people and some luggage on a 450 NM trip. If I had bladders, I would need to make an en-route fuel stop, so I'm thankful I don't have them. Personally, I think "full-fuel payload" is a ridiculous number for comparing planes, especially across different brands. We should always be talking in terms of a specific mission such as how far can I carry XXX lbs of people and bags with YYY plane. The fuel totalizer systems aren't horribly expensive and allow partial-fueling and much more mission flexibility beyond the flight school practice of topping off after every flight.

I don't remember exactly, but I think the original quote was $7200 for both. I ended up needing a new sending unit, and they added the wing sight fuel gauges at the same time for the cost of parts only ($500) so my total was right around 8 AMU out-the-door.

That might be a fair "subjective" addition on the short-bodies IMO since (typically) those would not see a frequent 4-up trip and thus might have a lower likelihood of max gross operations where the weight penalty would really impact the mission. On the F's and J's, though, I'd still argue that the weight penalty can *really* reduce the utility of those planes, especially if the bladder-buyer only opted for the 54 gallon installation instead of the full 64 gallons option. YMMV as always.

While we're on this topic, I'd like to add that a huge safety/survivability improvement that should be made to all of our older planes is the addition of shoulder harnesses, at least in the front if not all 4 seats. We sit relatively close to the panel with hard protruding bits, and an otherwise survivable forced landing might end with blunt-force trauma to one's face. The cost of these belts vs. the benefit is trivial, and we should all have them IMO. The new AMSafe airbag belts are available as an STC retrofit (or will be soon I think) and their cost isn't too horrible either if you really want peace of mind.

Jim, it can absorb energy, certainly, but it could also breach the fuel tanks if they get ripped out... (even if you have bladders. ) It is most definitely a judgment call depending on circumstances, and I think it is best to be mentally prepared to leave them up or put them down as the situation warrants, and none of us will know it until we're looking at the spot we're headed for, I'm afraid.

If it is muddy or not very flat I'd probably leave the gear up too, just to prevent a nose over or other drastic change-of-direction when the gear digs in or snags something.

I don't think we have nearly enough users here to collect any meaningful data, sorry. At least we have the option to go two different routes on the pre-M20K airframes. I made my choice for a Willmar reseal and would do it again. A plane with bladders is a huge deduction for me due to the useful load hit, and if I liked everything else on it I would offer accordingly to remove the bladders and reseal. YMMV If you never fly 4-up, I suppose you don't mind losing useful load. Not me...losing 35 pounds is the difference between some luggage and no luggage on a weekend trip. That removes a decent chunk of utility that I'm not willing to sacrifice.

I would try LOP cruise, and leaving the mixture alone for landing, unless you need to do a go-around. Perhaps you mixture setting is fouled-up somehow, and you end up much richer than you think you are, but I'm not sure. I also leave my electric fuel pump off except for takeoff.

Too lean? I thought a backfire was due to un-burned fuel passing through the cylinders and igniting in the exhaust?

Where do you have your mixture set when landing? If you go full rich, you might consider leaving it leaned out from cruise, and see if that stops the backfiring. (I cruise, descend, and land LOP and don't touch the mixture until it is time to shut the engine down, or unless I have to go-around in which case the mixture goes forward with the throttle.)