mjc

On the subject of flow... the original plenum under the plastic headliner is also plastic. And it was full of some sort of hair-like filter material. Between the cracked plastic and all the junk inside it, I was stunned any air reached the original front vents at all. Patching all the cracks and rigging the front so that SCEET tubes direct air to the vents and nowhere else brings a massive amount of air to the front seats. I rarely had to open the scoop all the way. On the subject of legality... I signed off the work under part 43 appendix A owner maintenance: "Repairing upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit, or balloon basket interior when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure or operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the primary structure of the aircraft." Neither I nor my IA was of the opinion that the plastic headliner or the old vent plates were primary structures, so they could be replaced provided the new parts were appropriate (burn certified, that sort of thing) and didn't interfere with any primary structures or systems. I bought only certified parts from Plane Plastics and the like.

I'm fine riding in singles all day long, provided they're equipped for the flight. The times you really want this kind of service are on the days when traffic is worst. Which is days when weather is terrible. I said no for the parachute, but I think the answer really is "it depends." How much flying will these planes be doing in icing conditions? How many of them are going to be FIKI certified, or at least equipped with deice gear?

I was thinking of the Twin Otter or a Britten Norman Islander as decent options. Fixed gear, but I think on a trip that short it probably doesn't matter. That said, Cessna 402s work very well for Cape Air doing the same basic job.

I took my manager flying in my Mooney several years ago and when he went to close the door, the strap broke. I told him not to worry but he insisted on fixing it. He took it home and sewed washers on the sides (where it broke). It was very strong after that.

You should give Davtron a call, they may be able to tell you if something needs to be modified. They're the ones who sold me the "regular" M800 faceplate to replace the M800M faceplate, and they told me at that time it was the same clock.

Brake linings have been sent to Tom and the faceplate to John. Just to clarify, I don't want any payment for shipping or anything. Just please use the items.

I found two items left in my garage that I can't use anymore; perhaps soomeone here will find them useful: - Davtron M800M clock faceplate: this is the faceplate that converts the Davtron M800 panel-mount clock to mount in a older Mooney yoke... you will have to supply your own M800 clock - Bag of 66-105 brake linings and rivets If you can use one of these, PM me an address and I'll send each to the first person to PM about one. (It may take me a few days to get them out, please be patient.)

If I may be so bold as to comment... unless you're downsizing by a huge margin, like someone going from a Meridian to a Cherokee, I'm not sure this is really worth it. Neither you nor your family are going to be happy with a much slower airplane. Plus, downsizing often means less size as well as less speed. Your family may fit in an M20C or M20E, but it's going to be a very tight fit such that your passengers may no longer look forward to the trip. (I recently sold a very nice M20C because of that, and now that we have a bigger airplane, everyone wants to fly everywhere again.) Plus, you're in CA, so trading planes will involve a sales tax hit. Plus fixing squawks and making small or large improvements to whatever you buy.

Byron was the first to respond, so I've sent a PM.

When we were thinking of keeping the Mooney, I bought a kit from LASAR to add an eyeball vent to the passenger side NACA inlet, but never got around to installing it. It cost something like $125. I'd like to get $75 for it. It's in the bag as it came from LASAR.

Yep, I'm still here. The parts supply issue did give me pause initially, so I have spoken to the folks I know who own Trinidads. Both claim there is no issue there, since Socata is still making parts for them. The TB User Group forum response was similar. There was one response here a couple of pages ago that mentioned a friend who waited for five months to get a part. I requested to make contact to find out the details, since I found this worrisome, but haven't heard back yet. So maybe the Trinidad has parts issues, but probably not. I know the A36 definitely has an issue with parts in that they are insanely expensive. (My A&P recently showed me an invoice for an $1800 stall warning switch. Yes, that was just the part cost.) How much more will they cost from the reorg So I started thinking of the bigger issue. I have a feeling that every GA airplane is going to have parts issues. A few years ago, I needed new gears for my landing gear actuator. These two small 40-1 gears cost me something like $800, and not long after I heard that they were unavailable even at that price. Yes, it is nice to have salvage yards full of airplanes, but how often do you need to replace something that isn't a wear item (like those gears)? I suppose salvage is good place to go to get ailerons and gear doors, and so getting those for a Trinidad may mean getting them from Socata. Is that worse than paying Beechcraft prices for the wear parts I will need for an A36? I guess what it does is make the Cessna 182RG more attractive.

I did consider the 182RG, and even the 210. The fellow who parks next to me has a 182RG that he likes a lot and flies regularly. He said (in agreement with what's here) it is a 150 knot airplane and that yes, the gear needs a lot of attention and parts on it get replaced regularly. The reason I cut them from the list is that I couldn't see why I would buy one of those instead of the A36 or Trinidad. Both the A36 and Trinidad are faster and more efficient than the 182RG. While the 182RG will carry more weight, it has less volume (as the wheels are inconveniently stored in the baggage area), and weight isn't my main problem. And maintenance costs are likely to be as high with the 182RG as with the other two planes, since while parts are cheaper, I will need more of them. I guess if the thinking is that Beech and Socata parts are eventually unavailable at any price, maybe Cessna will still make them. Edit... I should note that when I mentioned camping, above, I'm fine with places like Columbia, CA, Manzanita, OR, and maybe Johnson Creek, ID. I don't need to go into the 1500' dirt strip at 5000' elevation. Pretty much any airplane can do that as long as the camping gear and people fit inside it.

Agreed, we should look at apples-to-apples numbers as best we can. The stats for the Saratoga that were given are for the turbo version. I'm willing to believe that at 25k feet, a turbo Saratoga will cruise at 177 kts true. However, you can't compare that airplane to the normally-aspirated A36 (or any other normally-aspirated airplane). Compare the turbo Saratoga to the TN A36, and to the Mooney Bravo, and it'll be something like: Bravo, 208 kts. on 21.3 gph (source: http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20M%20Evaluation/m20m_eval.html) TN A36, 195 kts. on 16.5 gph (source from above) T-Saratoga, 177 kts. on who cares because it is so slow Interestingly, the Bravo may be fastest, but it is nowhere near the most efficient when run at max cruise. I would think that if a Bravo owner was willing to travel at A36 TN speed, and run LOP, the Bravo would probably beat or tie the TN A36. (Since I am still an efficiency fanatic, speed is only relevant when a fuel burn number is also provided.) If we want to copmare NA airplanes, compare the Ovation, A36, and non-turbo Saratoga. In this case, I believe the Ovation will win the speed AND efficiency contests. Unless you are taking five passengers, in which case the A36 is more efficient since it has to make only one trip. Ovation, 180 kts. on 16 gph A36, 165 kts. on 16 gph Saratoga, 150 kts. on again, who cares, it's slow Edit... it isn't that I think the Saratoga is a bad plane. But if I'm going to burn that much gas, I want to go faster than the Saratoga will allow. And with a family of just four, there is not much point to me to having a Saratoga instead of an A36.

I looked at the long body Mooney, and it is spacious enough for four, but many lack useful load, and in your case you need more than four seats. I think a six seat Mooney would have been sweet. The middle row of the A36 can face forward or backward. The only downsides of the A36 are the very high parts prices and according to my mechanic, the likely need for cylinder work before TBO. Trinidads will carry five, with three across in the back, but those three better be neither tall nor wide. I didn't consider any twins. I had my engine overhauled and wouldn't want to do that again once, let alone twice!

I've done some pretty extensive research on the low end of the A36 spectrum. One can pick up a 68-74 model, as Jim says, for $100k, but at that price or lower it will need or desperately want two of following: engine, paint, interior, or autopilot. Few at that price had much in the way of newer avionics, but I don't have those now so I didn't focus much on that. Also, I have found that the A36 is more of a 170 kt. airplane on 16 gph ROP, or 160 kt. on 13.5 gph LOP, as Jim states. Still, it is the most efficient 6-place we investigated. The Trinidad matches its efficiency, but won't carry six and won't make more than 160 kts. The Lance is as Jim says even slower. Not one can match an M20C for efficiency, let alone the gold standard M20J. Speed is somewhat relevant to me just to avoid that extra half hour of "are we there yet?" I'm sure will one day set in. There's not much difference between 140 and 150, true, but 160 or even better wouldn't hurt to have available if I have to get another plane.

What I took exception to was "If you really want to make the buying mistake of your life, the Trinidad will sate your desires." Per wikipedia, "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." You can probably see that "mistake of your life" can be considered inlammatory and intended to produce an emotional response. If that's not correct, my apologies for having misread your message. If it helps to know, I am the original poster. The decision right now is between keeping the M20C, getting a Trinidad, or getting an A36. I really do appreciate the good suggestions I've received. I have considered every one, including the six-place Pipers, but some just aren't going to work for me. (I disregarded the one about the 747. I hope that doesn't upset anyone.) We did both like the Trinidad, but it is true that it is a lower-volume airplane than a Mooney or Beech. If Mooney stops making parts, someone else may step in. If Socata stops making parts, the line is probably more in doubt. I have considered that and it is one reason the decision isn't yet made. (On the other hand, who's to say that there will continue to be support for the now 40 plus year old M20Cs.) Mostly not made. The A36 is a currently the third place option. If all I wanted was to make breakfast runs, we'd keep the M20C. In fact, all four of us piled into the M20C just this morning for a beautiful flight to Half Moon Bay for breakfast and it was great. But that isn't all I want to do. When I was little, my family took car trips all over. I'd like to do that with my family, but with an airplane. I'd like us to go camping, visit relatives, and see national parks. I would like to believe that having an airplane will make it easier, not harder, to bring the family to Glacier Park or the Grand Canyon. Maybe I'm delusional, and as a couple of folks have suggested, my family won't want to do that in any plane. Or maybe they just won't if the plane is too small or too uncomfortable. This is what I'm trying to figure out. The only reason I discounted the M20J (which is, by the way, one of my favorite airplanes ever and if I could have afforded one ten years ago I'd have bought one) is that there is a significant cost to getting a different airplane (e.g. sales tax, first annual, improvements). The M20J fixed costs are about the same as the Trinidad's or A36's, so I figured why take that hit for a 5" space gain. At 75-100 hours a year, the difference in fuel costs are less than $1000 a year. But again, a decent suggestion since it would fit the budget.

I had the rotary ones in my 1969 M20C when I bought it. A few years ago, I bought new headliner pieces and installed eyeball vents in them where the rotary ones would have gone. The vents were surplus airliner vents. The vents are connected to the plenum using SCEET tubing. The job was a huge pain and took quite a while. It was necessary as my headliner and vent deflectors were badly cracked, so I had todo something and figured I might as well upgrade them. The new setup is much better, but... it was a huge pain. Edit... I didn't get rid of the scoop on the top... I just directed the air to eyeball vents.

Wow. That is a bold, somewhat troll-like claim. Thing is, I'm not able to tell if the buying mistake part applies only to the Trinidad or to every airplane other than a Cessna. Beech parts have always been expensive, but a Beech owner will say they rarely need any. Now they're being reorganized. Mooney is not exactly a vibrant enterprise. So yes, Cessna has them beat there, but then, so does Socata. I should mention to some of the other posters that we had to supplement our baggage capacity this summer by shipping some of our stuff each way. It worked, but was an annoying time out from the vacation. Another issue is that it restricts us to one day trips where we know exactly where we're going. Finally, my beef with Piper. I owned a Cherokee before the Mooney. I bought more Piper parts in two years than Mooney parts in ten. It was almost like everything was designed to wear out.

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. To answer some of the suggestions... While I'm no longer obsessed with efficiency, I don't think I could handle a twin's fuel burn. Or overhaul two engines, even on a Twinkie. I have some experience with Pipers. The build quality is just not there, especially compared to a Mooney, Beech, or Socata. As for the Bonanza, when we looked at all the contenders, the only two that made sense in the end were the Trinidad and the A36 Bonanza. I liked the Bonanza a lot, but my wife and daughter didn't. It is pretty narrow, and the back moved around a lot in turbulence, so they just weren't very comfortable in it. Prices for Beech parts are also quite a bit higher than Mooney or Socata parts. For my flights in them, the Bonanza is the fastest, 165 knots on 15 gph LOP. The Trinidad turned in 160 knots on 14 gph, so efficiency is similar. Neither can touch a Mooney... both did about 120 knots on my M20C fuel burn. Socata does still make parts for the Trinidad. They even make parts for he Ralleye series. I'm frankly more concerned about getting new Mooney parts. I did see that Ovation. One, it is listed as sale pending. Two, hail damage. Three, 860 lbs. useful. Four, it still costs more than a 1970s A36 or 1980s Trinidad. So while I think an Ovation would be ideal, I don't think it's going to happen.

The short version: I'm pretty sure I'm going to need another airplane. This is probably a surprise to the folks on this board who know me, since I really like my airplane. The longer version: I bought my Mooney M20C years ago, when my buying criteria were, in order, safety, efficiency, and low costs. The little Mooney delivered on its promises and has been a great plane over the years. However, in those years I added a wife and two children to the mix. A recent family trip saw the little Mooney stuffed to the bursting point with people and clothes and toys. The airplane has to suit the mission, and as much as it pained me to discover, my mission has changed. Comfort must displace efficiency, and volume now trumps low costs. (Safety will always be first.) So about the next airplane… it must have four or more seats. It has to be as fast as what we have. It has to carry as much weight as I can carry now (700 lbs. payload for 600 miles). It has to carry more volume and be comfortable to fly in. Of course, it has to be well-built. We looked at larger Mooneys (M20R and M20S), but they’re too expensive. (The 201 is just not bigger enough.) We looked at Bonanzas, but my wife doesn’t like the way they feel in the air. The larger Pipers are out; I owned a Cherokee before the Mooney and we’re not getting another one. I don’t trust the Cessna RGs and the other Cessnas are too slow. Navions and Comanches are a bit older than I’d like. Commanders are un-maintainable. Which as far as I can see leaves the Socata Trinidad. Well, maybe the Cirrus, but I’ve flown a few and… no. So we crawled around inside a local Trinidad and flew in a Trinidad. It was the first airplane (other than, of course, a Mooney) on which my wife and I agreed. Maybe we’re only willing to consider airplanes with unusual vertical tails. It also had a very stable, Mooney-like feel in the air (except, of course, for the somewhat higher fuel burn). That said, the baggage area alone has four times the volume of mine and the rear seat fits three across. So that problem would be solved. There may be another M20C on the market in the near future. It feels strange entertaining that notion and even more strange thinking about flying something that isn't a Mooney.

Wow, Jesse... congratulations on finding a new career that suits you! From the times we've crossed pays, it's been obvious that aviation is a passion for you. I'm sorry to hear that you won't have a Mooney, but the way I see it, you're always a Mooney flyer. Just don't forget your GA roots when you're wrangling the big iron! This is a great Mooney for a great price. Michael

What are the gross and empty weights?

To answer the questions that i can answer... About the 496 vs. aera 510. If the screen is bigger on the area, it isn't bigger by enough that it matters. What makes the area better is: profile view on the terrain page, no more arrow buttons to enter waypoints, and of course, support for ADS-B weather. It really is a lot easier to use than the 496. It isn't all unicorns and rainbows, though... the 496 does have a brighter screen. In my airplane, it doesn't make much difference, but I imagine in an RV-6 or something with a lot more direct-sun angles, it might be a problem. I don't know if you can wire together the area, the GDL 39, and the XM antenna, and hardwired to stuff like a fuel computer. If you use the cigarette-lighter cable, you get the area-GDL-XM-power connections, but no fuel computer. If you use bare wire cables, I'm not sure if there is a connector for the XM antenna. I have never used the Stratus. The GDL 39 has no issues with heat.

Sold.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do next. Like you, I'm looking at other airplane options. One note... I don't know of any Bonanzas that will get you 170 kts on 13 gph. If you know of one, please let me know what model. The ones I'm familiar with will do 170 kts, but on 15 gph (F33) or 16 gph (A36). At Mooney fuel consumption, the A36 turned in 120 kts. Have you considered the Socata Trinidad at all? It seems like a reasonable choice that will get you 165 kts on 15 gph as far as Aviation Consumer and others report, and I'd think it wouldn't be hard to get parts.