Jump to content

M016576

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    2,672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

M016576 last won the day on January 12

M016576 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,359 Excellent

About M016576

  • Rank
    Won't Leave!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    : Goodyear, AZ
  • Model
    M20J 301 "Missile"

Recent Profile Visitors

3,823 profile views
  1. I have had multiple interactions in person and over email with Dana and Chief over the course of the 8 or so years I lived near Grants Pass. I found him, Terry, Noreen and Chief in general to be a stand up shop with top notch work at a highly competitive price. Their installs of my PFD, GPS and Engine monitor were all completed on time and under my allotted budget- and still are running strong and without issue (the PFD and engine monitor were installed in 2014). I couldn’t disagree more with Bob’s sentiment- I’m sure it’s just some sort of misunderstanding.
  2. She’s a thing of beauty- Congrats!
  3. But it’s not just paperwork- it’s also a swap out of some landing gear components for the newer parts... I’m assuming those parts are stronger to avoid a gear collapse.
  4. Hah! All “upgrades” are in the eye of the beholder, right? I will say this- while 3200lbs is probably not a good idea in a M20J... 2900lbs flys in all later model M20J’s right now. So why not extend that weight increase to earlier M20E/F/J/K’s through a strengthening of the landing gear? Have those late model J’s and K’s been falling out of the sky? Are they blatant safety risks? Of course not. So why not strengthen their landing gear and give them the extra 160lbs or useful load? *the other J/K’s are already flying with this max gross, and have been for ~35 years with no addi
  5. The parts list and description is in the STC packet I’ve got for my plane. I think I may actually have posted it here at one point... but I can’t remember... I’m away from my logs for the month, or I’d go back and look at the specific parts... but if I remember correctly- the list was only about 6-9 parts, all from newer Mooney’s, and all involving landing gear components.
  6. My reason for saying 2-3K is the small list of parts required to go from 2740 to 3200 on the Missile STC, plus the cost to do the required test flights, run the paperwork/certification etc on a previously certificated airframe. My guess is that they are *not* planning on an extensive retrofit... and most likely have assessed that they can/have/will be able to leverage the existing test data from the previous J/K GW increase, and/or Rocket/Missile test data. So the small number of parts (say $500 worth), plus the paperwork ($1500-$2500 amortized for data/effort)... could be a cheap, fast way
  7. Just as one in a C150 gets into trouble at a higher DA with terrain? I agree that my previous J didn’t like 100 degree plus days. My Missile doesn’t either. But I certainly would have liked an extra 150lbs in the winter at 40 degrees F, and at lower altitudes! my point is this- allow the pilot to make the decision, while showing the envelope...Otherwise, why not just limit all max useful in any mooney to.. say.. 500lbs... that way the pilot will always have excess power for hot, high DA days.
  8. Yes. I have a Missile. It’s a J that’s been modified and a STC that takes the max gross up to 3200lbs. They accomplished this by replacing some of the landing gear components with later model J/K or M/S landing gear components. I’m assuming for additional strength. The list of components is pretty short- I cant imagine they’d be too expensive to buy or install.
  9. If the “new, new.... ok, really this time... new” mooney is able to offer a gross weight increase of 100-150lbs STC for E/F/J/K models that is reasonably priced (2-3K?), I think they will probably sell around 1000 of the kits. not sure what they’d have to spend to get there, though, or if it’s even possible. I kind of hope that’s what they are talking about when they say “gross weight increase”... although an increase for the long bodies would be great for future sales, too
  10. After seeing a couple of “rockets/missiles are dangerous; the airframes can’t handle that power/mod!” Posts here on mooney space, I did a (very) cursory look into in-flight break ups of Mooney’s on the inter webs. I found 3. 2 were K’s, one was a C, if I remember correctly, one of the two K’s was a rocket. I think that’s where the idea came from that the rocket was “more dangerous” All 3 were in heavy convective turbulence (again, if I remember correctly)... I think the issue was not “what type of mooney” but “what were the conditions of flight.” jmho.
  11. I know for a fact that their is no fuel that far aft in the wing, at least not where the extended range tanks are installed.... and if there is, you’ll need to go see Paul Beck @ weep no more.
  12. I think the issue here is in the use of the term “aux” tank. I think the ferry tank (auxiliary tank) is what that document is referencing. Not the Monroy Extended Range tank. If only someone on this board could help us out @Piloto.... for your extended range tanks, the datam is the same as the regular tanks, correct. 48.43”.
  13. You won’t have to- they probably have already figured it out..... and possibly even work around to get access!
  14. I’m not sure you really understand the possible end state of this technology as dreamed up by Tesla... Because it involves nobody actually having/owning a car at all (let alone the skill set to “drive”). Just an automated fleet of self driving in perpetual motion. So the concept that our children would “want the keys” is not really relevant (when was the last time you saw an actual key and not a fob, btw.... very very soon it’s your phone that will allow for the car to start/go/move... but all that’s an entirely different conversation). Tesla is the leader in pushing their “beta” softwa
  15. If it’s a joint use field, and a military (ANG) controller is in the tower- he’s required By regulation to say that, regardless of if it’s a civilian or military aircraft. they are definitely still doing this.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.