Jeff_S

As to the spinner polish, Mothers works, but the stuff I swear by is Flitz which you can get from any aviation supply house...Aircraft Spruce comes to mind. Flitz is awesome because it requires almost no elbow grease. Just apply it and rub it in a bit, then polish off with a clean cloth. You'll be amazed at how much oxidation comes off. Flitz is also good because you can use it on oxidized paint to restore it.

David, you sound like a ticked-off donor. Otherwise why the vehemence? As long as the group is not fraudulently absconding with other people's money...and aside from one lawsuit that seems frivolous on its merits, I can't find any other evidence to suggest this...then what's the harm in searching? It's never been a crime to seek donations for any cause, even stupid ones, as long as the full disclosure is made. And wouldn't it be great if they actually DID solve the Amelia Earhart mystery? I choose to dare to believe it's possible.

I've read the history I can find. I'm not saying I know everything about this, but from what I can gather the irony is that a lawsuit has been filed claiming they actually DID find the plane and are covering it up. I've seen the video that purports to show the evidence, and it looks pretty benign to me. Never mind the fact that if they HAD found the wreckage, they would have money pouring over them in buckets for all sorts of media deals. So to assert that they hid the finding in order to raise more funds doesn't pass the smell test to me.

C'mon guys, let's dare to dream a little bit. I've read all the findings and I don't believe this group is sensationalizing anything. They describe their theories with the right mixture of facts and conjecture tied to what they've found. The evidence is certainly compelling at any rate, especially the artifacts they've discovered on land. The "suspect sonar signature" doesn't look anything like an airplane to me, but I'm no expert on reading sonograms so who knows. Wouldn't it be cool to put at least this one mystery to bed? Then they can determine who REALLY shot JFK!

It is wickedly ironic that the plane crashed into a Flight Safety International building. Hollywood couldn't even script that up. It will be very interesting to learn what details they can from this accident.

Let's not forget the "Mooney Campus" images that circulated a while back as well. I think a lot of people may be having concept discussions and something like this could really be floating around as an idea, but it would be a major change from the type certificate and would likely have to go through complete recertification. Now, if the FAA ever passes the Part 23 re-write to make it easier to do, perhaps it could be interesting. It reminds me of the plane that Pipistrel is producing with their Panthera...also a composite, high-efficiency 4-seater with good cruise speed characteristics.

Joe, I've got a question for you. Were you pretty loaded with gas during that takeoff, or was it extra hot that day? It just seemed like your ground roll took longer than I would have expected for a fire-breathing dragon such as the Acclaim S. I'm comparing it to what I experience with my O3. Admittedly I've got a few more horses to play with at ground level (before your turbo advantage kicks in) but I was just curious about that.

I agree it's cool...but also agree that the least they could do is tell you about it. Of course, once you put something out on YouTube it's pretty much fair game for others to use unless you specifically try to protect it.

If it were me, I'd go for the Hartzell 2-blade scimitar. I think they look bitchin' and they are supposed to give you some of the climb advantages of the 3-blade without the speed hit. I had the older 3-blade Hartzell top-prop on my J, which I bought that way, and like Hank I had no problems with it. Never experienced any vibration or anything, and the climb was certainly better than a 2-blade, but I probably did lose a few knots. I was toying with the idea of replacing it with the scimitar 2-blade but decided to upgrade to an Ovation instead. As the saying goes, there's no replacement for displacement!

I'm closing in myself, but I keep buying faster airplanes which isn't helping anything! I guess I just have to go farther now.

Count me in as John Wayne as well. I did choose the Spitfire over the F/A-18, mostly because I thought if I ever really did get in an F/A-18 I would probably throw up all over the place. And there's some part of me that says if Brad Pitt can fly a Spitfire, so can I!

This is good info...I may pay a visit to the TCM factory since it's pretty close by (especially at Ovation speeds!). Thanks for sharing, Paul. Still no takers on 51K?

So I got a reply from Frank Crawford at Mooney Support, and he acknowledged that the POH also points to the TCM owners manual for guidance, and sent me a copy of what we already knew, namely, TCM says to preheat below 20dF. He did also say they were looking at whether they should remove or revise that part of the POH. So I wonder if this is the first time anybody ever looked at it, or if they just forgot about it. Anyway, we have debunked the -13dF recommendation as a clerical error.

I have sent a note to Stacy and haven't heard anything yet. I will check to see if there are any updates to the publication. But just for the record, the calculation for F to C is actually correct: -13 - 32 * 5 / 9 = -25. So they didn't get their math wrong, but perhaps the whole philosophy is misguided. I will keep digging into this and report back what I find. Thanks all. Jeff

So here's one I just ran across, thinking about the colder temps coming eventually. Atlanta isn't a real problem area in this regard, but we do get the occasional evenings into the teens in the mid-winter time. The general guidance I've always seen is to pre-heat below 20°F. Some folks argue doing this even below 40°F. But the Ovation POH says, and I quote: "For engine operation at outside air temperatures below -25°C (-13°F), the engine and engine oil should be preheated to at least -25°C (-13°F) before the engine is started." Wow! Mooney is saying that it's okay to start these engines at sub-zero temperatures. Does anyone have an explanation why the POH would use guidance that seems much more liberal than even the engine manufacturer? Just curious...

Don't hate me just because I'm beautiful!

My fuel warning lights always seem to come on with 8 gallons remaining...at least this was true in the J. I haven't tested it in the Ovation, but I seem to recall that's what the POH says. I'll have to double check. But are you sure your POH says it would come on with only 2.5-3 gallons left? That seems awfully low...almost like that's the unusable fuel in the tank. You might want to check that again. And then... Well, just checked the POH and here's what mine says: "RED light indicates 6 to 8 gals. (23 to 30.3 liters) S/N 29-0170 thru 29-TBA of usable fuel remain in the respective tanks. Switch to fuller tank."

Yes, that's the last estimate I got when I was looking into this a few months ago. There's another thread about this where I mentioned my discussions with Paul Keener at Mooney. They know they have an issue with a fairly significant number of G1000 planes that are in this dilemma. So for now we just keep pushing.

Hello Folks. I am refreshing this thread because we are just one month away from the final AOPA Fly-In of the year at KSSI, St. Simon's Island GA. We're always looking for folks to help out with the Mooney Ambassadors booth, so if you are interested or planning on attending the event and want to help out please let me know. Drop me a PM and make sure to give me your email address so I can put you on the list. So far we've got four people total signed up, so getting a few more could help spread the work a bit and give everyone a chance to enjoy other activities at the event. And Richard Simile from Premier will be sharing booth space with us showing off an Acclaim, so if you've got dreams of moving up this is your chance to see one up close and personal. (Although I'm guessing this one won't have those new fangled winglets I saw on the give-away bird...those look cool. I wonder if there's a retro-mod for Ovations!) Jeff

It is true there is an STC. And it's currently the only way to bring WAAS and the potential for ADS-B into these birds. But that STC costs around $70K last time I checked, so this airman is waiting and pushing Mooney to do the WAAS certification for the G1000/S-TEC combo for these planes, which they are currently exploring.

Thanks all for your thoughts. On my plane, the sight fuel gauges will definitely show the fuel past 30 gallons, but it doesn't have any calibrations beyond that so you're guessing a bit. But as it stands right now, the sight gauges both show 25 gallons and yet the G1000 gauges are showing more like 30. I need to keep testing it to get some empirical data. I do know that the sight gauges are supposed to be accurate only on the ground. And of course the POH says the G1000 gauges are only guaranteed accurate when empty...how do they get away with that in this day and age!? Oh well, it's always something with an airplane...even one with all the latest fancy gewgaws. (Perhaps ESPECIALLY one with all the fancy gewgaws.)

For those folks with a G1000 setup, here's a question for you. It seems that my sight fuel gauges on the wing and the G1000 fuel gauges aren't matching up that well. The sight gauges are registering a more conservative opinion (e.g. lower levels) than the electronic gauges. Anybody have experience calibrating those so they are more in alignment?

I'm selling this Zaon MRX traffic detector which has served me well in two different planes. It detects transponder pings off other aircraft so it works to detect any plane that has an active transponder. Included are all the original equipment as well as the optional external antenna which mounts with suction cups to a window. This greatly improves the range of the device. There is one listed on e-Bay right now with real bids going to $256. Before I try that route, I'll give anyone on Mooneyspace a chance to get it for $200 plus shipping. Let me know if you're interested. Thanks! Jeff

I'm no mechanic, but it does seem to me there are burrs on the lobes. You might want to look up Mike Busch at http://www.savvymx.com and send him the pictures. If you offer to pay him for his advice he may be more willing to help out. He may be concerned that any advice he gives could open him up to legal liability, but he offers phone consultations to many of his clients and works with them to get repairs done.

I weighed this at length before deciding to purchase my O3. After discussing the situation with Mooney and others in the industry (including Garmin) I decided that it was worth the risk. As Robert has noted, there was a marked price differential between the S-TEC and GFC700 equipped planes so there is room for upgrading if needed. Having flown the plane now and tested several approaches, I've determined that the lack of LPV glideslope capability (which I did have in my J) is not really as big a deal as I thought it would be. The A/P will still track horizontally all the way through the approach, and with synthetic vision and the altitude preselect feature it's actually darned easy to program in the descent altitudes at each point in an approach and hit them easily. So I give up a few hundred feet of altitude by not going to an LPV, but I'm not a "hard" IFR flyer anyway so if the ceilings were that low I probably wouldn't be in it...or I can go find an ILS somewhere. That said, we still do have the ADS-B requirements hanging over our head, but I'm confident this will get resolved.