triple8s

I have AWAYS been one that all too often sees the glass half full. Sometimes this is good and other times it may not be so good; that being said since MAC is not producing anything anymore these old aircraft are definately worth something as parts but the longer that they set out in the weather the fewer parts that will actually be useable over time. There is a vintage "E" model wasting away on tie down at my home airport and it pains me to watch it rot down in its tracks.

I would do lots of research on that one and to tell you the truth I would look as it as a parts plane, I have a homebuilt I have been working on for several years in my garage right now and it is wood. It is forsale because I found my Mooney. Would I trust my work? Yes I know everything about the wood, the grain count, the direction, where the wood came from the type of glue, the conditons when it was glued, the brand of the glue, AND I had help with my spars from people with experience. I believe wood is a fine material to build an airplane with, it's one of the best, look at the Mosquito built in the U.K. during WWII, however, those aircraft were built in factories that made musical instruments, because of their experience in working with wood. Do you trust the fellow who repaired the wing on the wooden wing Mooney to be a skilled wood craftsman? A licensed IA or AP with FAA credentials wont be worth a dinkers damn when you are ashes in a smoking hole. IF and its a big IF I had my heart set on a wood wing Mooney, it would not be because of price because there are metal birds out there that are as cheap as any, but IF I had to have a wood wing bird I would talk to the Mooney gurus and also talk with the Bellanca folks and some on their web groups. If that wooden wing was not repaired properly irregardless of how the AC 43.13-1B says it's to be done, if it fails, you will be flying in the clouds for quite some time with St Peter!

I guess there will be lots go by the wayside in the future. I use Skyvector and NavPlan along with AOPA.

My CFII has some caps ordered with his ad on them (of course) but they also have four small LEDS embedded into the bill. I plan on getting one and building a small dimmier circuit and a more substantial battery pack.

I have really been wanting a shoulder belt, I hear lots of the injuries from off field landing are head injuries.

If one were to aquire restraint system from a later model Mooney is an approval/stc/337 or some red tape required for the change?

I will fly up there today and check to see if it is still there and get a contact number for you. I was interested in it myself as an upgrade to my 65 C model but for all trouble of buying and then reselling my current plane it didnt seem worth all the trouble. I'll have the number tonight.

I did know of a J model for sale that needed a PSI and a prop. Had old radios, old GPS, but GS and DME. Think it could be had for upper 30's to mid 40's but that was several months ago, the airframe looked really good. I can check and see if it is still available this weekend, will give me an excuse to fly someplace. If the FWF has been replaced or had PSI and prop I am sure the price will have gone up but who knows till you ask.

I had the same problem and re adjusted the belts using the flat piece near the attach point its a small flat steel piece where the belt loops through and makes adjustment. There is one on each side of my seat. I would like to change out the whole thing for a restraint with a shoulder belt just haven't looked into that yet.

Here is a link that has the history and photos. A very odd thing is the designer name was also "Al". Personally I perfer the Mooney, better economy and MUCH better looking. http://www.meyersaircraft.com/Meyers%20History.html

Mooney isnt the only one. The Meyers 200D has never had an in-flight structural failure and has never had an FAA mandated Airworthiness Directive (AD) issued against the airframe. The 4130 chrome-moly steel tubular roll cage and understructure act like a race car protective cage during a crash. Several Meyers aircraft have been forced down in the trees and off airport runways with documented instances of the occupants walking away with only minor injuries or a broken bone. And I do believe it was for strength.

Whether it be vehicles, boats, horses, or planes; if you pay next to nothing, expect very little and get a pleasant surprise that's one thing. The known negatives are: 1. out of annual for more than a month or so 2. 20 years of unknown history (missing logs) 3. runout engine Ok the positives: 1. Radios??? 2. Paint??? 3. Interior??? I guess my point is without logs, FWF @ TBO and an unknown history, you have what could very well be an expensive project. I would rather buy a plane with "known" damage repaired properly that is IN annual, has ALL the logs (airframe engine & prop) and know what I'm buying. I would be hard pressed to buy ANY Mooney that wasnt hangared and is over 10 yrs old without pulling off interior panels. For what its worth something you ought to consider; what are you going to use this airplane for? There are many different models each fill a different mission a little better than the other. Ask yourself how many SOB for most trips, how much baggage for most trips, average trip length and so on. Two SOB and bags on the east coast a nice J or an E is hard to beat.

I havent had a problem with Gills lasting, I have however had a problem with them puking acid all over the place! I just replaced a G-35 that lasted 5 years, but I have to remove it at EVERY oil change, scrub the battery box and wash it with baking soda. I have a buddy that told me AFTER the fact to buy a Concorde, he had a Gill puke in the nose of his Jet Ranger and said he will never buy another Gill. My next will be Concorde.

I am not ruling out a Garmin, I have a 496 and love it, BUT, I dont think a company places much value in its customers who spend 10 - 20 K for GA avionics and then say "oh, we have a new model out now so we arent going to support the old one anymore sorry". I guess its who you trust, never had a problem getting Bendix/King stuff fixed, I trust them.

What is the alternative to a Garmin 430, 530 or GTN series for LPV app ? I will have to upgrade soon enough,and I hate the thoughts of being FORCED to buy Garmin. If I buy something I want it to be for its performance not because it is the only game in town.

While on this subject I have to throw this out there. WHY on earth has the aviation, heck even the automotive industry for that matter, why have they settled on a cigarette lighter socket for a power supply connection. It's huge, the socket is big and could hold many things that could cause a short circuit. Why cant industry come up with something better than a cigarette lighter socket? It's ridiculous!

Adding sand bags to the baggage area GREATLY reduces the strain on the tail.

Other than the Medical Card Issue, I dont see the point either. I told my wife that she better be thinking about lessons so when I do get to "that" point on the Medical Card that I'd still be able to fly. I have been really on her about this, (her learning to fly) two pilots in the front would greatly improve safety and make for LOTS more fun for both. I do wonder though if she would tell me what I'm doing wrong like when I am left seat in her G-35. Maybe Jetdriven will chime in on this one?

The best method is to fly often enough so that the oil never has a chance to drain down or cool more than 10 df . If this guideline is used then you never have to worry whether you check/add oil before or after a flight because there is no difference. I however have been unable to do this as family and work keep breaking the cycle.

I was looking at a C model that is for sale at Lasar and was wondering if anyone had flown a C model with a turbo. Would a turbo give more even fuel distribution? I know the non injected engines seem to have a broader range of EGT's cylinder to cylinder, also I wonder what kind of performance one could expect at cruising altitudes. I cant see it would be economically feasible but I am still curious. Mike

I cant remember where i read it, but, I did read an article that a Mooney test pilot had written about his experiences. Seems he did a spin (fully developed) in a Mooney (dont remember the model or other variables) and in his words he was very close to bailing and finally got it to recover. Mooneys are not supposed to be spun, they were designed for transportation, Mooneys are a point a to point b machines. I have a friend who has a Super Decathalon, if i get the urge, he and I go up and after 15 or so minutes I am finished, its all out of my system. Moral of the story? One will more often get best results when the proper tool is used for the job it was intended. If you want to do aerobatics get a machine that does them well and was designed for doing them, otherwise you may end up with a less than desirable outcome.

I am just to the west at DKX. I arrived a bit late to the gathering but it was nice to see all the Mooneys there. I sometimes fly up to the north to LOZ because there is a resturant on the field there. The food is pretty good and in the summer you can set out on the patio, I love the eating trips.

Guess I found the answer to my own question..... the answer is.........MONEY! http://www.turbinebonanza.com/

I recall seeing a single engine Beech for sale, maybe an A-36 that had a turboshaft FWF, how did they do that? Did they have all those restrictions on that aircraft? (Just wondering) Would seem to me a small turboshaft would be excellant for a newer long body.

THATS IT! BTW Hank, did you go to the Mooney gathering @ KGKT last year???