M016576

Something to consider- the VK-172 is kind of a bad GPS antenna. It picks up interference from the onboard wifi in the raspberry. Most Stratux owners (myself included) go with the 162, since you can mount it away from the stratux and closer to a window. I put mine under the glare shield- and it has no problems getting reception there. if you check the stratux reddit page, some owners have posted DIY guides to building a shield for the 172, so it will work better with the stratux. They look pretty simple to build- you might need to go down that road....

It's too bad this thing can't drive an autopilot- I'd be all over it if it could.

The LAST thing I saw when you walked into the classroom was a "wet behind the ears young punk." Then again, I was a 19 year old freshman!

I don't think so, but I'll check the airframe log and see. You're correct- from what I can tell, it's just the serial numbers before 0764 that require the gear mod- but there is some sort of other structural mod and a different engine mount required for all the Missiles. Maybe some of the weight is increase piece is attributed to that?

I'll look in my airframe log to see about that mod. There are no pictures of it, as the packet is for the pilot, not the installer. Willmar did the conversion on this airframe... not sure if that's relevant data, but from what I understand, they deal (dealt with?) lots of mooney's. And yes- that's also a huge point- my max gross weight of 3200lbs is take-off weight. Max landing weight is less. But the max landing weight is still over the 2900lb max gross on the "stock" weight increased J's.

Correct- the engine mount is much larger than the stock J engine mount, and has 8 (eight) attach points to the fuselage, instead of four. But the motor is also much heavier.

More pictures- IRT the airspeed indicator and maneuver speed. The STC paperwork is over 30 pages long, so I didn't post everything- just what I thought you guys were interested in. LSS- Manuever speed is 123 at max gross. The airspeed indicator isn't swapped out... but does require additional placards near by (most likely due to the fact that there is no airspeed dial face that shows the speeds per the rocket STC. I believe Mooney could have chosen this option instead to requiring a new indicator... but they sell those indicators with the STC... so why not.)

Ok- the moment we've all been waiting for. Missile STC documents describing the modification requirements for the GW/envelope expansion. Straight out of my STC packet.... Edit: if anyone has questions on the Missile STC- let me know- I'll try to provide the DATA... as opposed to the speculation. this plane I'm flying has been modded since 1996... 20 years, and no structural problems. But who knows what the future brings. Judging by the engine mount and gear pieces though- is say Rocket engineering has a propensity to over-engineer if anything..., 2nd edit- I bet there would be a line around the block to modify J's with those gear parts, if it meant another 150lbs useful. Imagine- early J'a with 1200-1250lbs useful load...

Mine is 24-1302. the MSC'a and A&P's that have seen my airplane have not run across a single issue structurally with this mod or airplane. To imply that rocket didn't "do their homework" because of the higher max GW is a bit callous, particularly if you have not actually looked at the missile STC. first off- the stc DOES INCLUDE changed or modified structural parts. I believe they are landing gear parts from later K models. Second- The missiles DID NOT all start out at 3200lbs max gross. They were limited to 2900lbs based on J serial number.... just like all the other J's. at some point a new STC was released that allowed for a new envelope and increased max GW. I believe that was tied to either S/N and/or the incorporation of the new parts. I think some of this confusion stems from looking at the ROCKET STC and making assumptions on what the MISSILE STC says.... I'll go grab my logs and post pictures today a bit later. in the meantime- I'll make sure the nose gear hasn't splintered into oblivion and the wings fallen off my missile

I'll take a picture of the missile STC. It has additional parts that were added/modified in the landing gear. I'll snap a photo of those today and post- just haven't had a chance to grab my logs yet.

You can "turn on" tower locations in foreflight. That and the ADSB map on the FAA website, which visibly shows the towers (but doesn't list the lat/longs) is the best resource I've found for locations. Not exactly sure why they aren't published and readily available... maybe the FAA is afraid of hackers?

It doesn't look black and white to me- just bad weather. nice work! My only gripe with those cameras vs a GoPro is the Garmin tag in the upper right. Is there a way to get rid of that?

The STC paperwork for my missile shows some new parts in the landing gear. I'll take a picture and post it here... but I think, if an enterprising individual were to mod their older J with these parts, then DER test fly it for envelope expansion, they could create a STC for the 2900lbs increase... or maybe even more... on a stock J. Edit-the original missile STC only rated the max GW of "pre-24-xxxx" serial number Js to 2900lbs. A later update to the STC gave the 3200lb max gross. Just saw that going through my logs. Unclear if the later 3200lb update was enabled by the gear modifications, or if the gear mods enabled the 2900lb max gross. The current logs/STC paperwork are at the hangar, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow or Monday to find the exact parts listed for the gear in the missile STC. I'm fairly certain they are stock mooney parts from the K or maybe even a long body, just installed on the older J's. but I'll be able to tell you for certain as soon as I relook at the STC packet.

Sounds like you need a GTN installation manual.

That all depends on the shop/A&P; I'd say. there are those that think $5000.00 is perfectly reasonable for an annual, as this thread has exposed. And others that don't. my biggest issue in the past has been being billed $110.00 / hr shop rates by a "reputable shop", then picking up my plane only to find multiple issues... like spark plugs only hand tightened, and a condition lever rod bent, so that the prop cable would stick after engine mount shimming. Needless to say- my plane will never go to that place again. I honestly hope that my aircraft was an anomaly at an otherwise reputable shop. there are those that would rather have a big shop take care of their plane, or a famous MSC that does lots of business and are happy to throw money that direction. Personally, I like having a local A&P that I know, and trust. An A&P that has met my wife and kids, and can put their faces to my plane.... not just another "mooney in a string of mooney's.".... But I'm lucky to have found that kind of a person, and to have access to their skill set.

I have had worse. I took my first J to LASAR for its first Annual. "They are the best." That may be true- but they arnt the most reasonable. Double digits... well into double digits. Similar experience. Great people-know their mooneys... but they charge a HEFTY premium for that knowledge and reputation.

I can't find a certified light single that offers me the useful load to range capability that a mooney does.... and believe me, I've tried. my missile has TKS. 1010lbs useful w/ empty TKS tank. with 100 gallons (long range tanks... thanks Jose), that's 410lbs (me, my wife and 100lbs of baggage).... with that, my range is about 1000nm with reserves, assuming no wind. if I fill the TKS tank, I can only carry 40lbs of baggage. Or Leave my wife at home. with the kids (4&6), dog, wife and me, I can fill the entire plane with baggage and still not hit max gross, if I only take 64 gallons. That gives me roughly 700nm range w/ reserves. Someone... please... find me a more efficient certified prop. Multi engine or single. Turbo or not. I've looked... and I can't.

That's one take. But think about this- how do you disrupt the behemoths that hold a near monopoly? Undercut their price structure, listen to your customers, and provide what the others won't. 100 lifetime subscriptions a year won't sink the company- but it will buy 100 diehard customers... and those customers have friends. And I'm pretty sure we're all sick of Jeppesen's price gouging..... here's to hoping Seattle Avionics continues to innovate.. and maybe cooks up some NavData for IFDs/GTN's.

Service ceiling on the M20R is 20,000'. so on a standard day, by definition, a M20R should be able to climb at 100fpm. To me that implies that the IAS at 20K is at least 100kts. So that would be about 160KTAS... maybe a little faster. ive got a picture somewhere of my missile (300HP instead of 280) at 17K. 15.6", IAS is 122. I think I could have got her up to FL210... but it would have taken a while. Edit- added photo Second edit: got to love a mooney- can hit the FL's without a turbo charger.

My wording was poor- by "take it away", I meant the airspace goes cold. I agree about ALTRV's. when I was in the Navy, we never used them. Now that I'm in the air force, we (the royal we... I've only used one personally once) use them any time we move jets with a big wing tanker. The big wing tanker guys, and a flight planning group, schedule all this stuff and do mandatory planning / briefings for the fighter pilots. Again- personally, I'd rather do all the planning myself (which I do, on top of the briefings), USAF regs, though, get tons of "extra" people involved. That's part of the reason why, when I was flying Hornets, we (again, the royal we... Naval Aviatior style) had the distinct impression that USAF pilots were "spoiled."

I think the whole point of the turbo charger isn't to allow motoring around in the icing, but to ensure you can get through them. I agree- Fiki or not, icing is not a place to "hang out" in.

Some verniers have a friction lock that adjusts friction on the mechanism. If yours does, turn the lock about a quarter turn and you should be able to "tighten" the control.

the only times I've ever had an ALTRV for refueling was a transit between Iceland and Oregon. If it were up to me, I'd go for the simpler option of just refueling wherever we please. These days- with the big wings, I'm mostly tanking in a FAA-designated AAR track. That's a fairly useful piece of exclusive airspace, as we tend to join 10-15 fighters on 1-2 tankers in a relatively small area. As posted above- with fighters, we tend to be in the mid 20's for refueling. all the "military" airspace, ATCAAS, MOA's and restricted areas is actually designated and approved by the FAA. As a military entity, we just request what we would like: it's the FAA that takes it away or gives it to us.... and also activates it if we request the airspace- which, if we don't activate on a certain timeline, we as military members can be denied operations in "our own airspace" (although that is rare).

Lifetime subscriptions are being offered for FlyQ this Black Friday. I jumped on this 3 years ago and couldn't be happier with the product, and it's capability. $400 for a lifetime subscription? That was an easy decision for me... I've already saved over 200-300 bucks on a foreflight subscription... and I'll have this product for at least another 10 years. Great deal... but they only open this up for the first 100 people to pounce! Download the trial: you'll see the value. Here's the link- https://conta.cc/2g3IwAe Edit: also- if you have chart data for an aspen setup: lifetime subscription to chart updates for $750 bucks. If only Jepp would be that reasonable with their NavData.....

Honestly- thank you for the questions. Sometimes I forget that the world of military aviation can be kind of a black hole to other pilots. Once we all understand what the other guys are doing; it tends to clear up confusion and bad or ill conceived perceptions (and the door swings both ways: I do spend time in pilot meetings at work describing GA concerns when they arise, as not all military pilots actively fly GA). I'm happy to help answer any questions and maybe fill in some of the "why's": knowledge helps make us all safer, and better pilots.