KSMooniac

There are some inspection criteria spelled out in the maintenance manual, but I don't remember them off the top of my head. One check I think is to jack up the plane and see how they respond once they're unloaded...they should expand and not leave any "slack" in the assembly. They very well might be 45 years old, and if that's the case you should replace them! I don't remember the "normal" prop clearance either, but 8" sounds very low. Also, the 3-blade props STC'd for Mooneys are the same diameter as the 2-bladers, except for the MT.

I don't see how you could fit, much less lift, 4 guys and 4 sets of golf clubs in a Mooney. Maybe if you only go to the next county?

Last year at my annual owner-assist annual I jacked and leveled my plane, and took some measurements of flaps, ailerons, and elevators with a digital protractor since I didn't have the travel boards. The most glaring thing I uncovered was the elevators were rigged differently! In December I had Maxwell's shop go through the rigging (with the boards) and we ended up adjusting one aileron and one flap. That made it fly very wing heavy, so Don massaged the trailing edge of one aileron to correct the problem, but then the ailerons did not "sit" correctly in trail while in straight and level flihgt. After getting the boards back out, he finally determined that one of my ailerons was *twisted* due to a re-skin at some point. The other (also re-skinned) was fine. I don't think it is possible to figure that puzzle out without a set of the travel boards, so keep that in mind if you are chasing rigging issues.

Where are the aileron horns/counter-balance while in S & L flight? Are they flush with the wing tip?

Excellent, long-time Mooney shop with a great reputation. They maintain a good inventory of used parts and have developed many STCs to improve our planes. They broker and/or list planes for customers and I have no idea how they involve themselves in the selling process. I would not hesitate to work with them in buying a plane.

I agree completely with all of the above! I've taken a 450nm trip with 4 adults and weekend bags in my J. It is very doable.

Always a story behind the low price. FTW97LA357 On September 20, 1997, at 1053 mountain daylight time, a Mooney M20M, N9140Z, was substantially damaged when it collided with terrain while landing at Broomfield, Colorado. The private pilot and two passengers were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an IFR flight plan had been filed for the personal flight conducted under Title 14 CFR Part 91. The flight originated at Tulsa, Oklahoma, at 0845 central daylight time. The following is based on a telephone interview with the pilot, and his accident report. The pilot said his approach speed was between 80 and 90 knots and he used full flaps, then deployed the speed brake. "Ground effect floated us to the point that airspeed was too slow," he wrote. The airplane landed approximately 2,500 feet down runway 11L. The pilot said the airplane "bounced on the main gear two times." The pilot applied full power to abort the landing. The airplane stalled, landed on the nose gear, and veered left off the runway at taxiway A-13 before coming to a halt facing south. According to a Mooney Aircraft Company spokesman, normal approach speed is 80 KIAS (knots indicated airspeed) with 10 degrees flaps deployed, and 75 KIAS with 33 degrees (full) flaps deployed. The spokesman said the airplane is equipped with "speed brakes," not "spoilers," and may be deployed during the landing approach.

Thanks for the tip, Jim! I'll add them to the list, and I might get the "opportunity" to upgrade sooner rather than later. I just noticed a crack on the alternator casting where the bolt that holds belt tension goes thru... I'm going to keep flying for now but check it carefully at every oil change, and especially check the belt tension and alternator position every flight.

I think the problem is simple...you chose Kelly alternators. Kelly has a reputation of putting out CRAP with lots of infant mortality issues. I would get a refund and try to find a different brand, if that is even possible anymore. I still have a Prestolite on my J and plan to send it out for overhaul when my time comes instead of doing an exchange and possibly ending up with a Kelly.

Jim, I thought about that possibility and looked up the serial number...it is 200-something so I'd bet a dollar it was originally equipped with the square-tip prop like mine. The later prop is an improvement, but I'd like to know why and when it was changed, that is all.

We'll see. I don't think I would ever add TKS to my 201, even with a TN kit. Mine is great right now as an economical XC ship that can carry 2 guys and 2 girls (of reasonable size) and some light baggage on a 400-500 mile trip. I don't want to eat into my useful load so much that it turns into a 2-person traveler...not to mention the 40 AMU+ cost of TKS makes even less sense on a 100 AMU J than any of my other pipe dream mods. I have been stranded due to ice and had a few other drips delayed or canceled, but not enough that would convince me to add TKS to my plane. If I lived further north I might sing a different tune...

Welcome Parker! If you have a leak getting into the cabin, it should be quite noticeable as an avgas smell when you open the door after it has been closed/sitting for a day or two. Leaks can be from transducers at the wing root (behind interior plastic) or along the wing spar leaking into the leading edge cavity that is essentially open to the cabin as well. It might be noticeable right after putting the gear down in flight, too. You can inspect the wheel well areas for leak evidence, and peak behind the interior plastics or look for stained carpet.

Last word I had was they were preoccupied with a facility relocation, and had no Mooney cowls in stock. I doubt it is becuse they've been selling like hotcakes either! They don't really seem interested in selling a bunch.

It looks pretty nice to me too. I would never buy a plane as a "normal" ebay transaction...in other words just consider the auction an advertising vehicle and then make sure the due diligence is done in a normal fashion. My concern would be with the presumed lack of recent activity and the location. If it were sitting in the desert, that would be better than some place more humid. I would ask for current oil analysis results, or get it done during a pre-buy to see if there are any unusual amounts of iron (ie rust) in the oil. I would also want to check the condition of all the various hoses and tubes firewall-forward. Hopefully they were changed with the engine. Any idea who did the fuel tanks? There are only a couple of shops that specialize in the work, so if a generic A&P just added more sealant on top of the old then it might be a negative instead of a positive. I'll also point out that is not the original prop for a '77 model. Originally they used square-tipped McCauley props and switched to the round-tip (like on that plane) in '78. The round-tips are better performers (I believe) but there must be a reason it was switched since the original could not have had much time on it! Perhaps a gear-up? It also looks like they might have painted the corners of the windows to get a little of the later model rounded corner look...I wish I could see some close-ups! Looks pretty nice from afar.

I installed my new LASAR boots a couple of weeks ago using some weatherstrip adhesive at the base per their instructions, and also with some heavy duty duct tape. I suspect it will do the job for many years to come!

Minor nit-pick IMO with buying older vs. newer to save MX costs...if we're debating 20 year old vs. 40 year old planes, what is much more important is the recent use (last few years) and MX history than just the sheer age of the plane. A 40 year old plane that has been flown regularly and maintained well will absolutely cost much less to maintain than a 20 year old plane that has flown little and had MX deferred for years. Same goes for high-time airframes...there are some that have had the wear items replaced (like actuator motors, rod-ends, etc.) that will be in much better condition than a low-time airframe still using original parts. There are just too many variables in the equation to make blanket assumptions IMO. I do agree turbo will cost more to own and operate than a non-turbo. Some missions really call for a turbo, though. The best compromise IMO is a quality turbo-normalizer kit on a Lycoming IO-360.

No, Mooneys are not really that different. The biggest "risk" in terms of corrosion is if your windows leak and allow water to get in and be absorbed into old insulation (which should have been replaced by now) and then hold the moisture next to the steel tubes. You should check for water leaks at annual with the side plastics off to make sure nothing like this develops into a problem. While washing you should probably avoid spraying high pressure water into the fresh air inlets and the cabin exhaust vents (near the trailing edge of the wing roots) to minimize the chances of water getting into the cabin. I would not worry about flying in rain or leaving parked outside while on a trip.

I use an intermediate solution in my hangar since the EPA made our airport turn off the water long ago. I have a 6 gallon water jug that I keep in the hangar, along with a bucket, sponge, chamois, etc. I use a product called "Protect All" that was originally developed for RVs. One gallon of water plus some of that solution is enough for me to clean my plane with a sponge....simply wet the sponge, wipe & rinse the sponge as necessary until clean, and follow up with the chamois. No rinsing required on the plane. I also use a Protect All spray-on polish/wax product from an aerosol can that works great and makes the cleaning much easier. I probably "wash" it 6-10 times between applications of the wax.

I have a '77 201 with the fixed rear bench seat, and am planning to modify my seat so that I'll be able to fold it flat for more cargo volume when flying solo or two-up. I'm especially anxious to be able to easily carry full-sized bicycles among other things! I'm going to do this via a 337 Field Approval, and possibly even make an STC for the modification. So, I'm wondering how much interest there might be from other Mooney owners with the fixed rear seat to make such a modification. In my past searching it seems the old Mod Works had a mod to convert the rear bench but they charged a couple thousand bucks (not including reupholstery) and of course buying later model individual bucket seats is an option at much greater expense, if they can be found. Would you be interested? How much would it be worth to you? I haven't priced/estimated yet how much my new parts would cost, but I'm quite confident I could make a kit that will come in *well* under the Mod Works option, and possibly not require any upholstery work. This is something I plan to start working on very soon, and it could be available within a couple months (I think).

I'm tentatively planning on attending the June course here: http://www.coloradopilots.org/

I got Leadville in the logbook last October on my way back from Rifle. I was solo, half tanks or so, and maybe 100 lbs of stuff. Density altitude at takeoff was 11,200' and I used a lot of the 6000' runway. I won't go there in the summer! My avatar pic is from there.

Mooney makes perfect sense for my mission...efficient XC work on a budget! 2 years ago I couldn't even consider a Cirrus or other newer aircraft just from the budget standpoint. I also did not want to buy anything that was still depreciating since my use is 100% personal. The engineer in me can tally up the features and benefits...and the Mooney wins hands-down! I'm also leery of the brand-new technology a little bit...not necessarily the structures but the avionics and integration of all the stuff on the panel. It will be interesting to see how well they hold up down the road. At the end of the day, Mooneys are relatively easier to purchase, and much easier to maintain IMO than just about any other XC plane, at least right now.

The airframe time limit will be extended or eliminated by the time any plane approaches it IMO. The composite airframes have a much higher chance of infinite life, practically speaking, than any metal plane, including our beloved Mooneys. (my day job is composite aircraft structure) That aside, Cirrus prices have plunged due to the continual improvement of the line and large volume of them on the market. I think they are or will be good value purchases for those that want one. The CAPS certainly adds some cost to the ownership since that system does have a time limit, and I have no idea how much that costs. I also agree that the support costs and issues of the older first-gen glass panels will likely be an issue going forward. As we're now suddenly seeing with the Apollo GPS line, when a vendor exits the business it will eventually create a problem. Who knows how long those screens will last, and if they will be repairable down the road. I wouldn't be surprised to see forced obsolence either, requiring owners to buy complete new glass systems, as a way to keep revenue up. That might be a scenario that allows other companies into the market like Chelton with their system that is not an OEM to any plane at the moment. Perhaps our older planes might have an advantage...we can run on 100% "steam" gauges, or a single Aspen unit, or two, or a G600, or.... you get the idea. If a G600 takes a dump in 10 years then an owner could downgrade back to steam gauges if he/she didn't like the cost of repair or replacement. I doubt any of the new planes could do that easily!

With your current panel, I would retain just the KX-155, and ditch the KNS-80, KR-86, and KY-97. The KY-97 might have some residual value to re-sell (or trade-in at a shop) while the -80 and -86 might get you perhaps a few hundred bucks each...someone that has a balky unit and doesn't want to upgrade yet might buy one for a spare. I've never seen a GNS-400/500 installed anywhere and wonder who uses them. I would rather have fewer boxes installed in the panel to save space and reduce weight. You will probably recover several pounds of useful load by losing the KNS-80 and KR-86 in case you haven't thought of that yet! You also might consider ditching the KMA-24 and Sigtronics intercom for an integrated GMA-340 audio panel/intercom, or a PS Engineering unit. (It is fun to spend other people's money, isn't it?) Regarding the 430 vs. 430W antenna coax...the older 430 can use the better coax (I don't remember which spec it is), so if you put in a non-WAAS box you can string the right coax for a future upgrade and not have to do it again. The antenna swap is pretty simple, and the new box would just plug right in. Another future cost-saving tip would be to have the wiring harness pre-wired for an autopilot, or an engine monitor, etc. I have the STEC-30 and a JPI EDM-700 with fuel flow, and both of these of course are wired to my Garmins. It would cost just a little more while the shop if fabricating the harness to leave you those options, so when you add more later, they can essentially plug in and the shop wouldn't have to go digging around back there. Believe me...it is a PITA to do so! The 430/530 will meet the regs to install without a separate annuciator if you put it in the center stack of a Mooney, so put it there even if you have to move stuff around. Sun n Fun is coming up in about 8 weeks, and there might be some good specials from shops or Garmin, and it would be worth asking your shops that you contact if they foresee anything coming down the road. Good luck!

So did Cessna! When I worked at Lancair (and formerly at Cirrus) we all thought Cirrus would never get there...too many "issues" inside that place. But, lo and behold they worked through things and in spite of the owners they got certified and into production while Lancair/Columbia struggled mightily even with the superior plane due to their own issues.