mjc

I have Hoskins FT-101 fuel flow system. I won't be using it since I scored a deal on an EI FP-5L. The Hoskins has a floscan transducer and a mounting bracket. I am told it was working when removed (from a Mooney), but I have never powered it up. Send me a PM if you're interested.

My 1969 M20C has a useful load of 1006 lbs. According to the posts in this thread, here are the following average useful load values: M20A: 1050 M20C: 991 (range 940-1018) M20E: 937 (range 917-955) M20F: 1031 M20J: 959 (range 883-1035) M20K: 890 M20R: 1051 The differences between the A, C, and E models make sense; the E's engine is about 50 lbs. heavier (see http://www.aviator.cc/aircraft_engine_weights.html). M20J weights are all over the map, due to their gradual bulking up, until the increase to 2900 lbs, which yields the highest useful loads.

Thanks. I found it. It's on the register page, not the events page.

Is there a schedule for the day's events posted somewhere?

http://www.donmaxwell.com/publications/MAPA_TEXT/M20-202%20-%20Eight-Second%20Ride/EIGHT_SECOND_RIDE.HTM

I don't see anything on that list on June 26th, so I'll mention that's when Reid-Hillview Airport Day is scheduled this year. It's more of a community-facing event than an airshow. There will be a pancake breakfast, a BBQ lunch, a model airplane airshow, a raffle, tower tours, and, not that it does you all much good, Young Eagles rides. We usually do have some pretty cool static displays and flybys. And the weather will probably be better than it was in January (though not necesarily... it even rained a few years ago).

Quote: flight2000 Jack Purdue has an outstanding reputation for aircraft interiors and he's on the West Coast just South of Los Angeles. I only wish I lived closer to take advantage of his services. http://www.recovery-shop.com/ Brian

It looks like the Wings Over Marin event mentioned in an above post is not on the Ambassador website. Do you know if it's still on, but just no longer an Ambassador event? We were hoping to have a neat fly-in to attend this weekend after having to miss the Oceano event. I did see the Paine event listed, but that's a bit farther than we were looking to go.

There are cheaper alternatives from Spruce: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/lg/wheel_hubcaps.html About halfway down, there's a section named "wheel covers" that includes several inexpensive options. I've got a couple of the "economy wheel covers" for the mains and they work well.

http://www.mooneyspace.com/index.cfm?mainaction=posts&forumid=2&threadid=1053

Quote: CJSmith My brother has the nicest Cherokee 140 I've ever seen. I'm still jealous of it but fear I would want to move up in a short while. I figure as good a pilot as he is he'll probably move up soon as well. Hope he can keep it for the young folks. The 28-180 was a compromise idea. I'd probably want a bit more sooner rather than later on that too. My concern is a maintenance hog or too much airplane. I don't need long distance or hard IMC. I get plenty of the high stakes stuff at work.

I have a covered tie-down for my Mooney. They call them "shelters" at my airport. It costs $240/mo., less than half what the least expensive hangar costs ($500), and twice what an open tie-down costs ($120). My insurance agent said the discount for a hangar is about $50/year for me, so that doesn't cover much of the $3k+ delta. In the shelter, I get the roof, a light, and electricity. We don't have it as bad as Vegas, but the Bay Area gets some sun, and it's great to be able to load and work on the plan out of the sun. The shelter has also noticeably cut down on the wear on the exterior, but a cabin cover is still essential, since dust and some rain still gets on the airplane. It's a small thing, but the cover will last longer under the shelter. I got mine from Bruce's in 2002 and it's still in okay shape, after I brought it to Bruce a couple of years ago to sew up some seams. Exposed rubber, like seals and tires, also seem to look better on the sheltered planes as opposed to the ones tied out.

Quote: DaV8or I have agreed verbally to buy (nothing in writing yet and money has not changed hands) a 69 M20E. Really good avionics and loads of speed mods. Clean hangered airframe and average appearence. The engine is old. An overhauled unit back in 1991. It has about 1370 hours. Even compressions about 72/80 no recent oil analysis, but frequent enough changes. The last three years hasn't flown a lot, hence why the owner is selling it combined with a new family. Seemed to run stong and well when we went flying in it though. Hopefully prepurchase will find anything horribly wrong if it's there. Otherwise, I'm crossing my fingers.

Quote: FlyDave My annuciator panel lights have exibited the same problem in both of my last flights in the last 5 days: They don't come on with the test button when on the ground but they do come on when you push the test button with the gear up when flying. The "Gear Down" stays on when on the ground but that's the only life in the panel with the gear down. I believe the "Gear Unsafe" light comes on when raising the gear but I don't specifically remember looking for that. I had to pull the glarsheild off last week to re-install the rebuilt attitude indicator so I'm not sure if I did something then. I asked my mechanic about it and he said we'll look through the wireing diagram to troubleshoot it but he won't be available until Monday. He also said that it almost sounds like it could be tied to the squat switch on the gear - sounds possible to me. Any ideas on this? Thanks,

Quote: DaV8or That's why I don't fly at night anymore. This guy got really, really lucky. I shouldn't have listened to this. I just agreed to start the buying process on a Mooney with a really old engine in it! Yikes!

Quote: DaV8or Well, when I posted that, I wasn't talking about CorrosionX, I was talking about treating surface corrosion with paint. I fly out of Oakland, CA and it is right on the San Francisco Bay, elevation 6', so I've watched the planes that are always tied down and what inevitably happens is surface corrosion forms and bubbles up the paint. My undersanding is, that as an owner, you are allowed to sand that spot, prime it and paint it with spray cans. The results aren't that great looking, but it keeps the corrosion from getting worse. This is why I say go for the crappy paint job. I have seen new paint jobs start to bubble up in less than a year's time without frequent waxing. It's fine to suggest that one should just maintain a good wax job (and by wax I just mean any kind of polymar sealant like Rejex, not necessarily traditional wax.), but waxing an airplane is probably a good day's work and I suspect most people won't do it anywhere near enough to prevent any possible corrosion from happening.

I would approach a restoration project in the same way I would approach the idea of building an airplane from scratch. Either way, it's going to take a time and, in all probability, more money overall than it would cost to buy a working airplane. To me, the decision would be between building "my" ideal airplane versus being able to fly right now. If what you really want is to fly, I don't think a full-on restoration is the way to go. You might be better off buying an airworthy airplane that needs a little TLC so that you can restore it a bit at a time while still having a flyable airplane.

Quote: mooneygirl If we have a clear day, we are expecting a bunch of planes. Parking is limited. For those wishing to camp overnight we are suggesting that you come mid-day on Friday. Otherwise there will be a ground boss on 123.45 once you land to help you find a place for your bird. CTAF 122.70

Quote: DaV8or I don't have a plane yet, but I looked into what it's going to cost me. For me, it depends on where I base it. At Oakland, the rate is 1.3459 percent of the assested value and at Hayward it is 1.07 percent. So a big savings to go to Hayward, but it's further away from my house and I don't know yet if there are any hangers there. I have found two at Oakland.

Of the three aviation events on May 8th of which I'm aware, my wife is most excited about the Oceano event. It's now on the calendar, so there's a good chance we'll be able to make it. The other two events that day are the Wings of History Museum open house at South County Airport and a Poker Run that starts in Petaluma, but neither could match the allure of the beach. Is there a website with pilot info about parking, prices, and such?

Quote: carusoam Is there any possibility of using the mooney in Japan? Sounds challenging, but the possible future experiences shared on MooneySpace sounds great to me. My hopes for Your mooney. Take it with you to Japan. Fly it up and down the Pacific rim. Share your experiences with the MooneyWorld. Sell it when you leave Japan.

George, thanks for clarifying your thoughts; I see now we agree. Also, I found the source of the 60/80="low compression" data, in Lycoming's Key Reprints (http://www.lycoming.com/support/tips-advice/key-reprints/pdfs/Key Maintenance.pdf): A loss in excess of 25% of the 80 lbs., or a reading of 60/80 is the recommended maximum allowable loss. (Page 13) Mike Busch isn't a fan of Lycoming's guidance and explains his thoughts in http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_56_before_you_yank_that_jug_197497-1.html. As for all cylinders turning in similar compression readings, I've also heard that if one is widly different it may be an indication of a problem (especially if the compression loss is due to a valve leak). I don't know if any one tends to be more problem-prone than others. Problems with different areas of the baffling will affect different cylinders.

As I have a 69 M20C, I have the electric gear. As others have mentioned, it is electro-mechanical, no hydraulics involved. The gear on the 69 models uses a Dukes actuator with 20:1 gears that move the wheels quickly. There is an AD on it that involves essentially lubricating it every 100 hours, which means removing the belly panel. It does not have the no-back clutch spring issue. Like the others that have electric gear, mine has not been without issue. The motor had to be rebuilt in 2007. (I did have to crank the gear down, with my wife in the airplane. She was fine with it.) At that time, I opted to replace the gears with 40:1 gears that move the wheels slower but should wear less. Total cost for both was around $1600. I still like the electric gear.

Quote: GeorgePerry Usually Top Overhauls are performed because the compression on one or more cyclinders has dropped off. There are exceptions to this rule but for brevity sufice to say that "Perfect" compression is 80. So good compression for a Non Turbo charged piston aircraft engine is typically in the mid to high 70's. Anything in the mid to low 60's is not so good and anyting in the 50's = park it. Just as important as the compressions is oil analysis. If an engine has a cyclinder go from high to low compression its probably making metal. Having the Oil looked at will verify this.

My understanding is that most of the 1969 models were actually built under the ownership of American Electronics Labs, and the quality of them (mine included) is quite good. They did eliminate some of the flush rivets, but differences in rigging and mods between planes make it hard for me to know if my airplane is much slower than earlier models. Butler came on the scene later. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_Airplane_Company for details. To my mind, the big differences you'll find in the 1969 models are the instrument panel (see my gallery pic), standard electric gear and flaps, and split/removable rear seats (though 68s may have had those, too). My airplane does have the zone chromate treatment and PC system, but the step is fixed. I agree with Jim, though. A good 69 available when you want it is better than the 65-66 you may never find.