Earl

When I bought my Mooney five years ago I had around 210 hours but had not flown for 15 years. My initial premium was over $5K but now with 400+ hours and an instrument rating it is less than $1,500 per year for the same plane (I did drop the hull coverage to reflect the fact that I unfortunately bought at the peak of the market). Try Travers Insurance and see what they can find for you. Any way you look at it you will be paying a lot because with low time and a complex plane it is a lot more likely you may have issues and thats what drives rates.

Jack: How do you like your Encore conversion? I exchanged emails with Parker when he had his done and I have been considering it and then something comes up that takes away the disposable income I would use for the conversion. Who did yours, when and do you know about how much it cost? Sorry to hijack the thread.......

I also have an 86 252 and have never had that problem but it would bother me no end and I probably wouldn't fly the plane until it was fixed. To me it sounds like a problem with the fuel pump but what do I know. My mechanical expertise is limited to watching them work and writing checks.......although I do sometimes use a credit card........just to keep it interesting.

I got my IR over 400 hours ago using an accelerated program for the very same reason you are considering one. I knew with my busy business schedule, including lots of travel, it would take me forever to get the rating and I would be spending too much time relearning what I had learned too long ago because of schedule conflicts. It was much more practicable for me to take a week and a half off work and get my IR rating. I got my rating with PIC but there are a number of reputable firms to consider. Also, bear in mind that you need to unplug from everything during that two weeks. If you don't you will not succeed because it is in many ways like drinking water from a fire hose and you need to 100% commit yourself to the task. While I understand Dave's point, I have a somewhat different take. The downside with the accelerated course is you may not get much if any actual IMC experience unless you get very lucky with the weather for the 10 days or so you are training. Also, the more time you spend in the system the more you learn and experience different issues, etc. My suggestion is that if you go this route you initially have very conservative personal minimums for your initial experience in the IFR system. And always file IFR regardless of the weather. I have learned a lot in CAVU about routing changes, holds, miscommunication with ATC and all the stuff that comes with an instrument rating that are way easier to deal with in VFR conditions. And more importantly, if things get too hectic you always have the option to cancel IFR and continue VFR. And any IFR pilot, I don't care how they got their rating, should spend quality time with a CFII on a regular basis honing their skills. I spend 2 hours or so every 3-4 months with a CFII shooting approaches. Helps keep you legally current but more important safely proficient. You will hear from some naysayers that the accelerated courses only teach you to pass your flight exam. That was not my experience and I frankly don't believe it to be true in most cases. My CFII was determined to make me a competent IFR pilot that could operate safely in the system, which he was convinced was what I needed to also pass my exam. When I did proficiency training with another CFII in the years after I earned my rating he had no issues with the quality of my training or my abilities. I have not seen any statistics that would convince me that a newly minted IFR pilot using an accelerated program is any less safe than one that goes the traditional route. When you talk to vendors make sure you tell them you very much want as much actual time as possible. They will tell you they can't control the weather but if the CFII is on board with what you want at least he or she can modify your flying schedule during your training to take advantage of any actual conditions that might pop up. I know mine did and I loved it. So if you are willing to develop very conservative personal minimums and take your training very seriously this can be a safe and effective way to go.

Mine is a 252 which meets my mission parameters but has limited useful load and is not FIKI. Seems to me if you want to fly in Canada in the winter icing will definitely be your limiting factor and that doesn't necessarily equate to flying high. My only experience with ice was in the spring in the southeast climbing out of a cloud layer at 4,500 feet. In the winter ice can extend to the ground surface and can actually be less of a factor when you get higher. All that being said, if you are looking for a FIKI Mooney your choices are going to be limited. Likewise with a FIKI A36. There just aren't that many because it is so expensive to add to an existing airframe. What I think you need to do is to evaluate how you plan to fly plane, how much can you afford, with how many passengers, how far and in what conditions. That will drive your decision to a Mooney, Bonanza or my dream plane the TBM-850....... For sure my advice is to try to find the avionics you want for the long haul. Upgrading is expensive and unless you are going to buy and hold it will not make financial sense......but then again, very little about GA aircraft ownership makes financial sense. Good luck.

Likewise I don't do touch and goes any more either. While I don't think they are inherently unsafe they do add an additional element of risk to training with little to no benefit. But others do not see the added risk or feel they can properly manage it and I for one am not going to throw a stone at them. It's really a risk management decision and I am erring on the side of caution. We know there is added risk of an incident with T&G's because they happen. Never do them and you totally eliminate that risk. For me its an easy decision. But then I probably likewise engage in other operational tactics that others avoid and take on that added risk when compared to them. Its all about risk management and personal decisions and there is no right or wrong answer for everyone on this particular issue. Now flying into a thunderstorm, there is the same answer for everyone.

Surprisingly lots to forget besides altitudes, air space, etc. You don't need to remember all the distances from clouds in which class airspace, you don't have to worry about MOAs because ATC will direct you around them when they go hot, you don't look at VFR charts except in rare occasions, fuel requirements, etc. I suppose even if I were VFR some of that would also be dusty after two years but when you are always in the IFR system a lot of the VFR stuff gets forgotten because it is rarely if ever used.

It is very rare that I have a truly bad experience with ATC. I also think that most of the negative experiences happen during high traffic or challenging weather situations where they are busting a hump trying to keep all the metal apart and not bust separation requirements. Controllers in the northeast corridor are notoriously abrupt but given the high demand and stress it is probably necessary. And like others have said, we all can have a bad day and take it out on others. But I have had many more pleasant experiences, nice conversations (albeit brief) and friendly hellos and goodbyes than even remotely unfriendly. I also enjoy it greatly how often they have to ask me to slow down during an approach for other traffic (I know the jet-a crowd gets them all the time). Love the Mooney speed.

Clarification on the steep turn as my wording was imprecise. As I said I "completed" the steep turn in IMC but the turn started in VFR conditions and entered clouds for a portion of it. I made a complete left turn in VFR and then probably a third to a quarter of the right turn was in IMC. It was not intentional and I am of the opinion that it was indeed good experience and not a reflection on the CFII. For sure it convinced me that steep turns and other maneuvers in IMC are very challenging and obviously to be avoided. Apologize for the imprecise language....if this were the red board I would have my aviation attorney review my post. All the remaining maneuvers were in VFR above the clouds.

Spent 1.1 hours in the plane and 1.3 on the ground. I will say this. Since I almost always fly IFR (even in CAVU) I am really rusty on VFR rules, etc. I even skimmed through the most recent AIM before to be a little more proficient. It is amazing how our knowledge base erodes when we don't exercise it. He gave me a tour de force on the ground and it was really good to relearn some of what I have forgotten. As for the air work, it was IFR here today with a 900 foot base and 2,600 foot ceiling so we climbed up to 4,000' and requested a block altitude and airspace to do the air work. Actually completed a steep turn in IMC which as the CFII stated as we were entering it, "this will be good practice". Also got to shoot a couple of approaches along with emergency procedures, off field landing, stalls, etc. All the rest of the air work was in VFR conditions. We finished the air work right outside the IAP for the ILS so I was busy getting set up and actually shooting the approach. Few chases of the needle but not bad hand flown. Then flew an fully couple ILS to the miss on my return to KRYY. All in all good stuff except I noticed after landing that my fuel tank drain had a slow drip. Tried to clear it but no joy so the A&P is going to fix it today as I have a trip tomorrow. Planes, boats, cars.........ugh on the maintenance!

Hmmmmm.....I will need to speak with my A&P. I fly in the Southeast and unfortunately I can't fly every week so my plane sits. I have always used 15W50 with a cam guard additive but maybe I need to switch on the next oil change to 100W.

I took the online course when they only allowed you to look at each section once. It was a great course and extremely informative. I wish I had taken it before I bought my Mooney because I have no doubt I put a lot of hours on the engine that were not managed very well. The best thing to do is take the course live but absent being able to do that the online course, particularly now that they have modified the online course to be more user friendly.

Well I have stalled my 252 numerous times including power on, power off and have never noticed anything unusual in terms of tendency to spin. But after reading this when I do my BFR next month I am going to insist we do the stalls at 5,000'.

Mine came with the plane and I use it regularly in conjunction with XM weather. What I like is it confirms for me the presence or absence of lightning in an area of heavy precipitation that I see on XM which tells me to stay far away. You do have to regularly clear the screen, especially if you are making turns to avoid weather. It is definitely a strategic tool but not tactical to the extent that on-board weather radar can be.

Wow, I've been away from this thread for a bit and it sure took an interesting turn. While I think some of the posts were a bit harsh as more facts have dribbled out there does appear to be a trend of poor decision making that originated from your training and the mentoring you got during your training. That has apparently translated into poor decision making which you have pointed out and seem to understand. But you have to understand that for those of us out there flying IFR, VFR pilots that punch holes in clouds for fun and/or inadvertently get into trouble scare the heck out of us. We just don't want to share the airspace we are in legally with someone that shouldn't be in the same place at the same time. This is especially true in non-radar environments where there may by no warning. I am glad you are pursuing your instrument ticket but I think at the same time you need to also spend some time with a good CFI that can help you with your decision making and risk management strategy. In the meantime, as you build experience and better decision making skills you should probably refrain from carrying passengers. But I am here to tell you, if you take the same decision making approach to your instrument flying that you have taken with VFR flight you are in for some serious trouble. Develop some very conservative personal minimums and stick to them religiously.

I agree with Parker. You will feel the turbo kick in when you are departing and it is especially useful on those hot days in the summer when density altitude is an issue. Quicker climbs means sooner to cool temps and low-power settings. I usually fly in the low teens and while that doesn't take full advantage of tailwinds when heading east it works for me and gets me above the haze in the summer.

When you look at accident stats you will see that VFR inadvertent into IMC happens more often than it should and it often doesn't end well. The fact that you had this experience and it obviously is not one that will give you more "confidence" the next time to do the same thing is very good. I say "confidence" because I sometimes wonder how many pilots out there whose last flight didn't end well had gotten away with similar decision making in the past and mistakenly thought this would just be another "adventure" for them and their passengers. You certainly don't seem to have that attitude and in my experience that is what makes someone an old pilot as opposed to a statistic. The more you fly the more opportunities you will get to learn new things which is what it should be about. My suggestion is that you seriously consider getting your instrument rating. You have probably already had the most harrowing actual time in IMC and when you are doing it on purpose you will wonder why you ever put yourself through the stress of inadvertent IMC. I'm glad you shared your story and I would not give up on flying.

Don't know one but maybe you can get a ferry permit to bring it to an airport with an A&P. H&L at KRYY does my annual inspections. Also Cole Aviation at KRMG is an MSC and does very good work.

Our company has had a national contract with Enterprise for a number of years. We had a litany of charges from them for dents and dings and when we renegotiated our contract we included insurance in the daily rate. Since then believe it or not we have had far fewer allegations from Enterprise of damage since they are responsible for the costs, not us. It did not add that much to our daily rate and has been well worth it. I make sure when I rent from at an FBO that they have our company account number.

Here's how I was instructed to do my mag test with my EDM-730. I lean while taxiing and do my run up leaned. When I switch mags I look for a ~50 degF increase in EGT temps on all cylinders. No 50 degF rise tells me I have a bad mag. And of course if it is dead altogether wouldn't the engine die when you are on the bad mag? I hope I don't have this wrong but I was told this was a more reliable test for a bad mag and also can identify bag plugs or blocked injectors and on which cylinder. Was given this instruction from the MSC that put in the 730. What am I missing? This is what Mike Busch recommends and is probably where the poster got the term archaic. "To begin with, most POHs instruct you to note the RPM drop when you switch from both mags to just one, and give some maximum acceptable drop. This archaic method makes little sense for aircraft that are equipped with a digital engine monitor (as most are these days), because EGT rise is a far better indicator of proper ignition performance than RPM drop. You should focus primarily on the engine monitor, not the tachometer, when performing the mag check. What you should be looking for is all EGT bars rising and none falling when you switch from both mags to one mag. The EGT rise will typically be 50 to 100 degrees F, but the exact amount of rise is not critical, and it's perfectly normal for the rise to be a bit different for odd- and even-numbered cylinders. You should also be looking for smooth engine operation and stable EGT values when operating on each magneto individually. A falling or erratic EGT bar or rough engine constitutes a "bad mag check" and warrants troubleshooting the ignition system before flying."

Also might want to check the fuel selector valve as they occasionally crack and the leak might run to a place along the wing root where it can get out. Had that problem happen to me not long after I had my wing leaks repaired. When I saw the fuel dripping and the odor I got very depressed that the repair didn't work. Then when the A&P discovered the crack in the fuel selector valve I again got depressed because a new valve, if you can find one, costs several thousand dollars. Found a used valve at Lasar for about $1K with shipping.

I just bought a new iPad and installed Xavion. Haven't added the numbers yet but hope to get out and test my book numbers from the POH. Any 252 drivers out there that have used this and can share their numbers?

Fuel selector valve for modern Mooney. Manufactured in October 1995 by Airight, Inc. Cart No. 36100-5. Serial No. 1319. Cost for new part if you can find it would be around $3K. Asking price: $800.00 (similar part a Lasar sold for $950.00). Send email to ehscott@s2management.com. Part is sold as is with no warranty.

I always thought no alcohol within 8 feet of the airplane, not 8 hours! Dang it...... Not that I've ever done either......I personally have a 12 hour rule and never to excess.

Had a similar experience flying into BNA except I went flat on roll out and could not get off the runway. Fortunately they had three parallel runways so I only closed one. Glad it happened when I was going slow because it really pulled to the right when it went flat and did not sound or feel good. Of course the tire was kaput and they did not have a new one on the field. Luckily the FBO had a serviceable one that they put on right on the runway. Messed up my lunch plans with a client and cost me $400. And then I had to replace the one they put on with a new one when I got back home. Airplanes and boats........money soaks.......