KSMooniac

My '77 has a calculated useful load of 1021 lbs right now. I might get it weighed later this year to make sure, though. From what I understand, the 1-pc belly is a weight-neutral upgrade, but I bet the split rear seats are a weight increase. As to the utility, it depends on your individual mission. I know there are a few times when I wished for removable or foldable rear seats to carry bicycles or other cargo. I'm about to start working on an STC to convert the fixed rear bench into a fold-down option, so hopefully we'll be able to increase utility on the older planes without spending a lot nor adding a lot of weight. I think one reason for the higher empty weights is due to the vintage equipment. The older HSIs, flight directors, KNS-80s, ADFs, autopilots, etc. really add up quickly. A modern panel will be much lighter.

Just got this an email: Recently Issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin The FAA has issued the following SAIB: NE-09-21 titled Reciprocating Engine dated March 31, 2009. Introduction: This Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) alerts you, owners, operators, FAA Principal Maintenance Inspectors, and repair facilities of Porsche PFM 3200 series reciprocating engines and Porsche 678/4 reciprocating engines, that the Type Certificates (TCs) for these engines have been cancelled, effective January 1, 2009. Background: In a letter dated September 17, 2007 to the FAA Engine Certification Office, Porsche surrendered TC No. E23NE for cancellation. In that letter, Porsche informed the FAA that they no longer have the intention or capacity to support the PFM 3200 series reciprocating engines. Thereafter, EASA also informed the FAA that they revoked the TCs for Porsche PFM3200 series engines and 678/4 engines that they had issued. After review of Porsche?s request and EASA?s notification, the FAA has also cancelled TC No. 7E2, which is for 678/4 engines. Recommendations: With the cancellation of the Porsche engine TCs, we are alerting owners, operators, FAA Principal Maintenance Inspectors, and repair facilities of Porsche PFM 3200 series engines and Porsche 678/4 engines, that they should be aware of the following: 1. A TC for an aircraft with a Porsche engine installed remains effective. Approved type design and substantiating data remain valid for both engine and aircraft. 2. Existing aircraft can retain their airworthiness certificates as long as the aircraft meets Part 43- Maintenance and Part 91- Operation requirements. 3. We will not accept any new applications for standard airworthiness certificates for aircraft with either Porsche engine installed. 4. Production of the Porsche engines has ceased. Further, Porsche is not exporting any new or replacement part. Contact your local FAA Flight Standards District Office to determine what needs to be done when you no longer have OEM parts to repair these engines. 5. Existing engine ADs must still be complied with. New ADs against the engine may be issued to address future unsafe conditions. If replacement parts required by an AD are unavailable, the aircraft might be permanently grounded. For Further Information Contact: Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, FAA Engine certification Office, ANE-142, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7747; fax: (781) 238-7199; e-mail: jason.yang@faa.gov

Let's hope not! It seems we're both on here at the same time pretty frequently, though.

Billy, welcome. In the MAPA Log ads in the back, there has been an ad for www.porschemooney.com that someone put together to exhange info and learn about those birds. I have visited the site months ago, but now it appears to be kaput. If you're a MAPA member (we all should be!) you might be able to contact Trey Hughes and see if he could tell you the owner of the ad, and then you might be able to get to a treasure trove of info.

Ruh-roh! Looks like we might need to get a referee soon! (When I re-paint it will very likely be Texas Aggie maroon and white.)

George, that is EXCELLENT news! I'm glad you and your buddies are interested, and I'm anxious to hear what the FSDO has to say. Hopefully there are no beauacratic hurdles since it isn't really instruction towards a rating or an endorsement like tailwheel. In case you were wondering, I wouldn't expect this endeavor to be free for us either. Is one of your buddies Tom Bush by chance? I have already been thinking about an east coast trip this summer, as has another Mooney friend of mine from here. This could work out nicely.

George, would you by chance be interested in putting on some sort of formation flying clinic? I would suggest that the military training is the best there is for formation work, so you might be qualified to help us civvies learn the craft. I'm interested in some training, but haven't really found anything out there in my searches, but perhaps I haven't looked hard enough. I'm not sure of the FARs in terms of formation training...ie is a CFI required? I would think not since the respective pilots are already qualified and there is no "rating" for formation flying. You might have no interest in trying to put something together, but I thought I'd throw it out there as a suggestion. In my mind it could be combined with a Mooney fly-in somewhere, a ground school for an hour or two to brief procedures, and then some flying. Obviously the more ex-military or otherwise formation-savvy pilots to assist the better, too. I'm interested because (a) it is something new, ( I would like to take some air-to-air pics safely and © might want to fly in the Mooney Caravan to OSH this year or next.

The fuel smell can come into the cabin from the leading edge cavity of the wing...you could have a leak near the upper portion of the spar that vents into the cavity (and the cabin) without leaving an easily visible stain. You also might notice the odor in flight once you put your gear down too.

I agree with Seth. I have had no contact or dealing with Zef but appreciate his background. If he is willing to contribute here with his knowledge, then I think that is great. He might even attract a customer or two...I'm sure there are many owners or prospective buyers that don't have either the inclination or the time to delve into the details of Mooney shopping and maintenance, but might come across this site and his own and choose to do business with him. That is how it should work IMO. We don't need any poo-flinging here, though! This forum is growing nicely and I'd hate to see the need for a moderator.

docket, I had Aero Comfort cover my 201 yokes a couple of months ago and they turned out wonderfully. 1 week turn, and great craftsmanship. I'm afraid buying new yokes from Mooney will make you gasp for breath when you see the price.

The fact that the Mooney is a low wing with the landing gear attaching to the wing mean that all the ground loads get reacted through the wing structure. Add to that the short and stiff landing gear with rubber donuts instead of oleo struts and you end up with a lot more load going through the wings. Rough landings (and bad taxiways) mean lots of force to flex those sealed joints, and eventually the sealant bond will break down and start leaking. Keeping the gear donuts fresh, landing smoothly, and not abusing it during taxi will go a long way towards long fuel tank life. There are plenty of birds from the 80s that are still on their original factory sealant and don't leak...perhaps some from earlier as well. Cessnas with wet wings (maybe the 210 and perhaps the 177?) don't suffer from as many problems since the wing is insulated from the ground/gear loads for the most part.

I believe there is some verbiage in the POH that specifies that the rings should be removed for flight. Silly, but it is in there.

At my first annual we did not change the oil either.... I had just changed it 10 hours or so prior to the annual and there was no need to do it again so soon.

I'd like to see the squawk list, and then offer more detailed advice. If you like the engine, avionics, and paint, then there really can't be too many trouble spots that are impossible to rectify, IMO! If you could point to an ad or otherwise list specifics, especially the squawks, then we could probably give you a better idea of what to consider. If you like the cosmetics and especially the panel, then those are great starting points. Consider that avionics & cosmetic upgrades only return 50% of the investment...you can buy a lot more plane than you can buy + upgrade on the same budget. Fuel tanks are fixable...I'd recommend the full-meal-deal strip & seal from Willmar ($7200 & up) and George will recommend bladders. In fact, I would perhaps rather have them discount the sale price to include that work on your schedule so you get to "baseline" the tanks for your ownership tenure and not have to hope or worry about whatever previous owners did. Bottom line, make sure there is no major damage history (or it is old & correctly repaired), no corrosion, and then trust your gut as George suggests. Assuming the airframe is sound, engine is recent (with documentation AND recent use), panel has what you want...then that just leaves tanks and a lot of little items that can add up in a hurry like gear donuts, engine hoses, engine control cables, rod end bearings, etc. The little things are easily corrected...even the tanks are easy if you take it to a good shop and can write a big check.

I'd be curious to see the entire squawk list itemized, including any items that might be "discretionary" and not "airworthy" items per the shop's opinion. Is the shop an MSC, or at least very familiar with Mooneys? If you like the plane enough to get it into pre-buy, I wouldn't give up on it easily. If the seller is willing to get it up to spec on his nickel, then it could end up being a good plane in the end...maybe. I'm not familiar with the details of a Monroy installation, but it is entirely possible that drilling a hole in the web of the spar is part of the engineering, so don't dismiss that as a squawk unless the shop knows specifically how it is supposed to be installed. George's observation about the character/behavior of the owner either deferring MX or being too clueless to know what is going on with the plane, or worse yet intentionally misleading is also a huge concern. Your dealing with him/her should give you a feeling as to whether he/she is a good, responsible owner. It certainly is a buyer's market right now, so you could likely find another plane in better condition if you keep looking. It is just a matter of time, patience, and logistics...

They screw into a threaded attachment outboard of the gear doors about halfway back from the LE of the wing. If yours are missing (check the hat rack area...perhaps they are loose there) then I'd recommend a set from LASAR that includes the jack-point & tie-down ring together.

Pitot tubing drain. Similar to the static drain near the aft edge of the wing.

Unfortunately I didn't take any notes....going from memory I was somewhere in the 120-130 KTAS range at 7 GPH or perhaps a bit less LOP. I have not done any flight testing per se at altitudes in that range...I just climbed up and cruised.

I have a 530W/430W combo and a 496 for WX. This year at annual I added the Garmin power/data cable so that the 496 can run on ship power and get flight plan data from the panel mounts. It was a relatively easy install...power and ground wires connect to the ship (at a circuit breaker and existing ground) and a third wire connects to one of the 430 multi-pin connectors to pickup up one of the RS232 outputs. It required getting a tiny pin for that wire, and splitting the 430 connector to install that pin & wire, but not impossible. Now any flight plan data entered on the 530W/430W is pushed downstream to the 496. You cannot push anything from the 496 upstream to the panel mounts, though. The 496 can also display traffic info from a GTX-330 xponder, or a Zaon box by using other wires in the Garmin cable. I have neither, so I cannot tell you how well it works.

Nice find, Dave! Those look *very* nice, and if they are a plug-n-play upgrade without having to re-plumb the probes then I might jump on that this summer.

Cruiser, by leaning to maintain 1275 in the climb you did not end up on the lean side of peak up high. Perhaps you leaned too quickly for the JPI to "keep up". I've done a few flights at 16k over CO and keep WOT, 2700 RPM, and lean to best power. You cannot hurt our 201 engines up that high with the mixture knob since they're not producing much power, so don't worry about that. All that you need to do is watch the CHTs because the thin air does not cool them as well as at lower altitudes. I would start by trying to find 40-80 ROP or so up high, and if the CHTs creep up above 380, then lean from there until they cool down. If your engine ran rough at any setting leaner than 1275, then perhaps you have an induction leak. If it is very slight, then it is possible that it would not manifest itself as rough operation when you lean at higher power settings, but could show up as a rough idle or when leaning at high altitude (ie low power). If you suspect that, then I would suggest repeating the GAMI lean test at a low power setting (say 50%) and at a higher power setting (say 70-80%) and see if you note any roughness. Recording the data should point to the cylinder(s) that might be giving you trouble. I recently R&R'd all 4 of my cylinders, and ended up with an induction leak from one of the rubber o-rings on an induction tube that got misaligned during installation. The engine ran fine LOP at 80% power, but idled poorly. Fixing the leak fixed the idle problem.

Yeah, that pic makes me envious. My mains are showing 32 years of use and muck, no matter how much I clean them. I hope when I get the plane painted they end up looking like new again.

Those Aspen quotes sound good...last year I was quoted 12.5-13.0 AMU to install one as well as remove my entire vacuum system. It would be great if they come down a bit more!

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?