Ned Gravel

Mitch: I bought my copy of "Those Remarkable Mooneys" through MAPA.

Tom: I was where you are now, back in 2004. During my hunt, I came to some of the same conclusions you have already mentioned. Pre-65 was a problem with the aileron links and the high roll forces caused by the curved ailerons used before that time. See http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/m20e.html. In 1967, Butler bought Mooney and they stopped using flush rivets on some parts of the fuselage to save money. Then two years later the empty weight went up for some reason (change in thickness of metal?) In the end, I came to the conclusion that the 65 and 66 E model years were the two optimum model years for E models. That is why I own a 65. Might also want to get the book called "Those remarkable Mooney's." It has quite a bit of good gen. If you want to talk to history - try and get a hold of Bill Wheat. He still works part time at Mooney and at Dugosh Aviation across the field from Mooney in Kerrville. He is Mooney history personified. He knows all the ins and outs of those years. He was one of the test pilots from those days. Hope this helps.

Someday to Lake Tahoe for us. Just not this year. Enjoy yourselves.

Well paint me un-whatever (in a friendly way of course). I do not want another bird. Just this one. But perhaps with a few more goodies than it has now. I love my girl, but our Mooney is the best tool I could ever have to fly - a thing I really love to do. This Mooney is most efficient, most comfortable, most stable, most capable (and also sufficiently demanding of my skills). Did it forget most bragging rights? Win the lottery? Oh yeah. Go to Town!! 201 winshield, LoPresti cowl, M20 Turbo normaliser, alternater replacement kit for the generator, rotate the brakes to the back of the wheels. Overlapping gear doors (comes with the Lopresti kit). Glass panel Aspen or G600. Redundant everything - Wx, Stormscope, radar altimeter, 430WAAS, SL30, KR 87, (already have the STEC 50). Find some other way to raise the step so that I can remove the vacuum pump. Gap seals and fairings everywhere. New interior. New paint (seen some interesting designs from our members here lately). But this bird and no other. Even all decked out with all the bells and whistles, it is still a 1965 E model, one of the two best years for that model. Still draws wonder from other pilots at the club when we fly in it. My girl is actually 8 years older than our Mooney, but she really likes what our bird does too. On cross country trips, from about 10 minutes after rotation and for the next 30 minutes, she is normally asleep in the right seat. Our Mooney puts my girl to sleep so she can wake up and enjoy the scenery for the remainder of the trip. Who can ask for more? ---end of rant---

OK Jolie: Responded to both of those for you. Keep it up.

Change to my previous post on the 3-bladed MT and the Top Prop for my friend and his '66 E model. He decided to put every worthy speed mod on instead, and keep the MT. Now it flies almost as fast as it did with the 2-bladed prop (1 or 2 mph below his previous numbers). In fact, this past weekend, he told me he was in level flight within 12 miles per hour or so of the 189 mph VNE at 4500 feet and 25 squared. I told him that was wonderful, I was at the same altitude over Ottawa, also at 25 squared - within 9 mph of VNE. Two blades are still faster. Er... ...assuming, of course, that absolutely everything else between our two birds is the same - which is not the case.

Which only goes to show - if you have a question about Mooney history, ask Bill Wheat. Still the most knowledgeable fount of Mooney knowledge going - and the first signature in my aircraft's log book.

One of the other options, and I think they advertise it as being allowed in our aircraft as Primary, is the Xerion Auracle. Anyone know if that is true or not?

Jolie: In my opinion, I am not certain that statement is entirely true or untrue. Al may have used some characteristics of NASCAR racing designs such as roll cages, but only if that organisation existed back in 1955 or so. If he did, he might have unofficially credited them with the design. I cannot remember if the books "Those Remarkable Mooneys" or "The Al Mooney Story" make mention of this. Not outside the realm of the possible, but not necessarily true either. Good marketing hype though. Just my opinion.

Russ: Not on the woodwings group, but I do remember directing a new woodwinger to others on the aviating.com list about six months ago. Was that you? As I recall, you woodwingers have to worry about different critters than the rest of the Mooney drivers I know - like termites?#@!

Philip: There are two others. One is from a company called Redline Aviation and it is essentially a handheld power saw motor attached to some method of transferring motion to a little drive wheel. They have models for most heavier GA aircraft, but they are not yet finished on the Mooney one. Go to http://www.redlineaviation.com/mooney/. Folds in half and weighs about 20 lbs. The last one is from a company that stopped making them about three or four years ago. I cannot recall the website or the name of the kit. All I have left of their work is a little flash video, which I can send you electronically if you wish. This one plugs into the aircraft battery through a little plug on the copilot side and weighs about 8 lbs. Comes apart in two pieces for storage. I guess your only options, if you want one fast, is to get one of the ones you have already mentioned.

Russ: If you travel over Ottawa, and a look at any Sectional puts you over Ottawa if you are flying between the Sault and Quebec City, drop into Rockcliffe (CYRO). While our friends to the South lost their DC 3 in the post 911 reality that grips Washington, we kept ours. Rockcliffe is a little jewel in the middle of our national capital. See the attached taken on the downwind for 27. Our club (airport management) motto is "Where Friends come to Fly." Send me a PM when you get closer in planning. We are leaving for Osh near the 23rd of July this year, but we are available anytime before that. We have a guestroom available for you. Won't be the first time a wandering Mooney driver has overnighted at our house.

My social director has decreed that we shall proceed to Osh this year. Woohoo!! I ain't never been. Three Mooney's from our field are going and it looks like we are all headed for the North 40. Looking forward to meeting a whole passle of Mooney drivers and seeing some of the faces associated with electronic conversations I have had over the last five years. Not ready for the Mooney Caravan yet. Maybe in a couple of years.

One data point - and anecdotal only. Take it for what it is worth (exactly what you paid for it) My friend owns a '66 E model and he owns an MSC in Canada. During my overhaul last year, he was trying out his new MT and wanted to figure out why he was not going as fast as he thought he should in cruise. So he took his new MT off his, and put my 15 year old two-bladed Hartzell on in its place. According to him, he gained about 5 mph in cruise. Ran comparison tests for a week. In the end, he decided to go with the Hartzell Top Prop. Just one data point.

Carl: Thank you for the kind words. I have been involved in only two purchases of aircraft (and only two houses too!!). The first time, I was one of 10 and I went along with the decisions/rationale presented by our group leader on a 1969 Piper Arrow. Notice how both of my aircraft are aimed at the same sort of mission profile? I had very little to do, or to say in the purchase of the Arrow - although it went very well. Just shy of $100,000 for our group which eventually included one more. When that group dispanded in July 2003 (based on the will of the majority - I was one of three dissenters) I learned two things. Avoid partnerships of more than 3 on any airplane I would own, and I wanted an RG aircraft that had a mechanical means of making it RG. Sort of limited the options didn't it? So I spent nine months or so learning about Mooneys - and then eight months trying to buy one. That's it. Met some really good people in the process, including the guy who owns the MSC that currently looks after my Mooney now. He owns an E model as well. Good luck in your search. I wish for you as much success in yours as I enjoyed in mine.

Maybe there is something wrong with me. My experiences in buying are very different than either Alan's or Nate's. I am not saying that one approach is better or worse than the other, just that each depends on who we are and what we want. I am an engineer and retired Army officer. You know the type. AAA approach to attain an entirely objective goal. Unlike the reputation of most engineers, I believe very strongly in the value that other people bring to our solutions. I started looking in the Spring of 2004 and signed the formal offer of purchase in December of the same year for the plane you see pictured to the left of these words. The search involved eight 1965/66 E model Mooneys. I knew I wanted a short body with thefuel injected engine for the sort of reasons that are alluded to below. Throughout the entire eight months of search, each of these aircraft remained under consideration for between one week and two months - such that no two were being considered at the same time. During opening negotiations on three of them, I ran into some information about the aircraft or strange behaviour from the owner or broker that resulted in dropping them before making an offer. I made formal offers (with deposit) on five of them and all of these went through a pre-purchase inspection (PPI) - y'all call it a pre-buy. PPIs were carried out in Calgary, Ottawa, Charleston, Joplin and Memphis. I only saw one of them with my own eyes before making an offer - and that one did not make it. So, for me, it was never the about the emotion surrounding any one of them being "The One" - and that is difference I perceive here. There is emotion - do not doubt that - but it is not that my bird looks good or is a show piece. My little E model kicks _ss. 150 kts on 9.7 gph. Beat that!! Fifth fastest airplane on my field of nearly 100 aircraft, including two J models, an A35 Bonanza and a Debonair. None of them came in a under $55,000. Beat that!! I know some fixed gear Piper Cherokee models on our field that cost nearly twice that. Beat that!! I know our club C182 has less useful load with full tanks than my E model, and less range. Beat that!! I know that my E model will ride out some light and moderate turbulence during cross countries because of its stability that create very bumpy rides for Cessna and Pipers whose wings are not laminar flow. Beat that!! I have an easy-to-operate manual gear which depends on zero electrical/hydraulic systems to operate or maintain. Beat that!! Each PPI I paid for was $500 invested that resulted in $50,000 in savings. A 1% investment. Each PPI identified between $14,000 and $20,000 of airworthiness issues that were presented back to the seller to consider. The first seller that stepped up to assume their responsibilities was the one I ended up buying from. I still put another $20,000 back into the airplane in each of the first two years of ownership (JPI, new generator, regulator, starter, intercom, engine heater, and four new cylinders etc,) for things that passed the PPI, but showed signs of wear thereafter. At 1941 hours SMOH last year, we listened to the engine and did the overhaul (reduced $ somewhat because of the new cylinders). So for me, The One is not just the model and how it makes me feel (although it does make me feel very good). The One was the E model that underwent review by five dedicated individuals (two of which were MSCs) and was being sold by someone who viewed their responsibilities in the transaction that same way I did. The whole process was only stressful when the last seller started balking at the PPI report. When he went to talk to the MSC and saw the results - then he understood. The One is defined by our passion, not only for flight and how Mooneys do that so well, but also for the characteristics we associate with flight. My most desired characteristics were those that best met my stated mission profile. "Get up - get over - get down. Safely, quickly, and efficiently." I applaud Nate for maintaining focus on the aim, and trusting his instincts when examining his options. Worry not, sir. The One will come. And for Alan: Good Luck!! I hope your diligence pays off for you sooner, rather than later.

Yah! I forgot to mention that my voltmeter is part of my JPI 700 and I also have the newer Zeftronics regulator. Both of those significantly enhance the safer use of a generator, until a decision is made to change it out for an alternator.

Scott: Thanks for the pics of your panel. I think they may be the same as Lyle posted in his gallery under Mooney65E.

Oops

Doh!

And I posted a second time.

If I understand it correctly there are four considerations affecting your decision; 1. A dead battery will not allow an alternator to work. A generator does not care. 2. A generator does not charge well below about 1000 rpm on an IO-360. An alternator does not care. 3. The current set of alternator replacements almost all weigh less than the generators they are replacing. 4. Alternator replacement kits can provide up to twice the charging current than most of the generators they are replacing. I still have a generator in my Mooney and consideration number 2 notwithstanding, I do not see a real need to go for the change. If I was upgrading the panel and needed more juice to run things like a G500, plus WrWx, plus speedbrakes, plus TKS, etc. I would consider it. Besides, I have already saved a good amount of weight forward of the cg with the change to the Skytec NL starter. For me, the generator is still good enough. Maybe.... if I win the lottery and have to consider the power drain of the L3 backup because I have removed my vacuum pump and the standby instrumentation for my G600 needs to be only electric........

I have a bit of a weird system. Strobe on the wings and tail and another belly strobe with the front half of the large pot light red and the back half white. While it is not set up this way, it is supposed to also be able to act as a single belly beacon with a very slow pulse to the lights instead of a fast strobe. The nav lights switch on the panel really only turns on the recognition lights in the wings and the tail. The strobe light switch turns the remainder on, wingtips, tail and belly. No middle ground. I would prefer to get the belly one working as a beacon while on the ramp and prior to taking the runway, especially at night. The other unmet desire is to change the belly light (strobe) for one that is more aerodynamic but those are only made in the 28 volt model. They are also LEDs and should draw less from the system.

Lew: I have had mixed success with mine and it was on the engine when I bought the aircraft in 2005. I started by trying to keep the oil up to 7 qts. Always had a greasy belly, which only really slowed down when it was decided that the oil level could be OK if held between 5.5 and 6 qts. Oil consumption changed from 1 qt every 4 hours to 1 qt every 8 hrs. Air/oil separator did not really help in that situation. But I kept it. After the overhaul last spring, it was decided to put a condensate bowl in the return line, and that is now collecting the condensate from the air/oil separator. Kept our engine shop guy happy because he does not trust air/oil separator. The new bowl does collect condensate and I empty it every oil change (25 hrs). The air/oil separator also has some finicky placement requirements so that it works properly regarding bends in the lines and height of the device itself with respect to the engine. One argument I have not been able to resolve is whether the differences in volume (capacity) of Bill Sandman's M20 device and the Air Wolf one (http://www.airwolf.com/Products_AirOilSeparators.htm) actually make a difference in operating capability of the device. Don't really care (I am going to keep my M20) because there is not enough room inside the cowl for the Air Wolf device. But it would be good to know. BTW: Yours is the first comment I have heard (from another Mooney driver) that our Lycomings do not like to hold on to more than 6 qts at a time. Interesting. Hope this helps.

Just saw this on eBay. In case someone wants a bit of this nostalgia. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/MOONEY-301-INAUGURAL-FLIGHT-LITHOGRAPH-VIDEOS-1983_W0QQitemZ190364422851QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMotors_Aviation_Parts_Gear?hash=item2c529a92c3. I don't remember the whole story behind the 301, but we do know it today as the TBM 700, TBM 750 and TBM 850. Mooney's foray into the world of turbine designs. Not for me. I am just a 4-banger guy.