RJBrown

I used R/C fiberglass on the inside to reinforce the plastic. I used MEK to "melt" the fiberglass into the back of the plastic. I used SEM paint. A plastic powder solvent mix available at an auto trim supply shop made a good filler for bigger areas that needed filled.

I did not buy the plane. Someone on this forum now owns it. All I know about the corrosion is that picture. The plane was stored outside in coastal California.

I believe this is surface corrosion. This picture was shot during a pre buy on a TLS I chose to not buy. Shot from below looking at the inside of top wing skin.

A tire with a tube generates more heat than a tire without a tube. The "speed rating" of a car tire is directly related to heat. Radial tires flex more than bias ply tires. Using a tube in a radial is then more harmfull than in a bias ply tire. Going tubeless provides a significant advantage for the speed rating of car tires. Airplane tires are not run for prolonged periods of time at high speed. 30 to 60 seconds of high speed running wont over heat an airplane tire. Changing to tubeless airplane tires would involve compatible wheels and their certification also. The main disadvantage of tubes in cars is heat generation at high speed, this is not an issue for our planes. Run flat tires IMHO are a bad idea. Stiffer, harsher tires with a significant cost disadvantage. Sounds great in the showroom but car owners learn to hate them at replacement time.

Stupid can often be a destination. Fortunately for this guy it was only a journey.

AOPA is no where as jet oriented as Flying has gotten. But we cant turn our noses up at that segment any more than they should deride us. AOPA is the only advocate group we have support from across the board. There is a lot of good that they do. If you are a pilot and are interested in stemming the tide of government infringement AOPA is the only group that we have. We as GA, big and small, from flying lawn furniture to G650 are too small a group fight each other. NBAA is sometimes stupid in this area. Advancing a narrower agenda at the expense of our segment. Divide and conquer is what happens. Every pilot and every support group should look to protect flying at every level. There just simply are not enough of us to act selfishly. My NRA comment was clear. If you care about second amendment rights you support the NRA even if you don't agree with everything they do. They are the most effective group in the arena they operate in. Similarly if you care about what government calls a "privilege" to fly and not a "right" getting behind AOPA and ignoring the crap that bugs you is the best way to protect that privilege. PS I like the turbine version. All the regular articles plus about 12 pages on turbine planes. Whats not to like?

Video came back, that was odd? Nice video except at 3:46 it magically gained 2 cylinders but came back to a 4 at 4:05.

I dont have a POH to refer to but using the original settings most 231s got an engine by 1200 hours. The POH was written for the benefit of the sales dept not the longevity of the engine. With BOTH a wastegate and a intercooler AND a careful hand the life can be extended. The longest lasting,easiest handling engine for a 231 is a TSIO-520NB.

That particular plane (N777MT) has been for sale since the avionics were state of the art. It has been overpriced for at least 10 years. It was for sale in 2003 when I sold my Rocket and it is still for sale. Lasar lists it at $129000 http://www.lasar.com/w/id/114/new-plane-details.asp ASO lists it at $179000 http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?id=113627 Here its listed for $199000 http://robert5.com/aircraft/1980-mooney-other/?lang=en In 2008 it was on Aero Trader for $245000 http://books.google.com/books?id=jX0BLfK26cYC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=n777mt&source=bl&ots=ykgf5qwwAm&sig=wxVUOfg3hBIrwjSTH4vIG0vovB8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=irCHUcCXFqGSyQGZsoGwDA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=n777mt&f=false Trade a plane had it earlier this year for $159000. I am not sure if it ever was for sale. When I first saw this plane in Mapa log years ago I was a bit envious. Now I see it every now and then and think it is quite the joke. In this Ebay ad the owner says it is worth $280,000 but he "slashed' the price to $179000 for a "quick" sale. High time 5100 recent prop strike 20 year old paint and interior. Discontinued avionics. About $100,000 value....maybe....

Half way through "this video is currently unavailable"

We need representation in Washington. AOPA is the only advocate we have. I pay my share for that alone. I mostly read the magazine, my wife sends in the coupons for the airplane drawing and we ignore the rest. Kind of like the NRA. I may not agree with all the policies but. But we need the support vs the many government entities that place us in their sights.

On the Acclaim Type S, Mooney asks the Continental engine to deliver just 280 hp, this from an engine type that cranks out 310 horses in at least one other current airplane. Given the Mooney's sleek lines, 280 horses is plenty. The airplane is very fast, as fast as some turboprop twins, in fact. Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/pistons/mooney-acclaim-type-s#JAfU4J77UmQ2OkFB.99 You are right I misread.

Mooney claimed 242 kts @ 25,000' while Rocket claimed 238 kts @ 24,000' Not much difference in the real world. The only significant aerodynamic advantage is the cowl. While the Acclaim is slightly larger and heavier with less useful. Both engines are rated at 310HP. Rocket chose to turn the governor down 25 RPM on a 310HP engine to get the "305" for the marketing dept. A 310 Rocket sounds too much like a Cessna product. A "Lopresti" type cowl would allow the Rocket to exceed the Acclaim by few knots.

People hide repairs all the time. A 231, N1171J was underwater back in the 90s when the Mississippi flooded. It was sold as salvage by Avemco. It changed hands many times. Current owner re registered it as N30EV in 2006. There is "No damage history" on this one. Buyer beware. FAA was notified of Fraud and could care less. FAA is not your friend.

Listed to an owner in Calif. registered in May of last year. KRZEMINSKI PAUL A Street 1333 GENEVA AVE City SAN CARLOS State CALIFORNIA County SAN MATEO Zip Code 94070-4820 Country UNITED STATES

A Rocket can do anything any other Mooney can do and more. Most impressive thing it can do is climb, I have seen 1500 fpm @ 26,000'. Second most impressive thing it can do is lift almost anything you can close the doors on. Third most impressive thing it does is burn gas, flight plan 20GPH and 200 knots. You are right backed off you can get 231/252 speeds and fuel flows. The Rocket chart is conservative in its promises and well rich of peak, so there is some room to save fuel if you are vigilant. The way Rocket set them up they run cool even at altitude. Remember 55% on a Rocket is more power than your 201 (85%) can produce in anything other than a sea level take off. While IFR training/practice I would fly around at 15" of power for most of the time. Living in Baton Rouge you may not really "need" the altitude capabilities I miss now flying an MSE out of Denver. There are no mountains within the 500 mile radius you specify. But as they say "Power corrupts" and a Rocket will spoil you for anything less than an Acclaim.

15 years ago someone was trying to get enough commitment from M22 owners to do a TSIO 550 STC. There was not enough $$$ without prior commitment from almost the whole fleet to justify the STC. It was possible like Porsche/Rocket/Missile swap but it never got done. Too bad it would have been a great plane.

The alternator is driven by a ring gear on the crank inside the front of the case. If an alternator comes apart pieces will fall into the engine. When Continental built the original engine for my Rocket the person that did the assembly failed to bend over the tabs that keep the bolts that hold the ring gear to the crank from comming loose. The six bolts backed off causing the alternator to come apart inside the engine. At 80 hours Continental paid Rocket to install a new reman engine. So yes a bad alternator can damage the insides on a TSIO-520NB. Google a picture and you will see what I mean. You can see the alternator in the right cowl opening in one of these pictures on TAP. Done properly replacing a crank should take care of issue. 2000TT is quite low. A good pre buy is always a good idea. Looks good to me.

After writing a post hit "More reply options" in bottom right corner and add a picture there. With a good tailwind you'll see 300 promise.

The best thing you can do for landing/taxi lights is move them out to the wings like Mooney did from about 90 on. I did it to one side of my last plane and my current one came that way. Stock bulbs 2 in each wing are better than anything you can do in the nose.

This sounds so obvious till you hear about the kid who got expelled from school for wearing a NRA T shirt. We are giving up our freedom almost every day.

Early morning departures. Walk around, Load luggage, fuel as needed, oil level, prepare oxygen system, preheat on if needed. No electricity at plane so a generator must be left on for preheat. Do not like early morning surprises. Normal preflight next morning. If I cant make it out the night before then I use propane preheat instead of plug in. Then I have more time than I need for a preflight.

Not much weight involved, the seat back is very light. I am sure it is not on any required list. Taking it out temporarily seems reasonable to me.

Investigate how Rocket did it they are on a rack built further back in the tail. There is a row of rivets that you can see on the outside. They hold a shelf back there. Included with the Rocket is a battery board. It is a piece of plywood about 3feet long that is used as a slide to get the batteries in and out.

Where are the Bravo batteries? Rocket put them under and just in front of the leading edge of the stab. Batteries are the only thing heavy enough to make a big change.