IFlyMooney

I too, know Mitch and Jolie personally. I have seen first hand their "highest moral character" at work and their selfless "motivation" as well. That is why I am concerned. Bernie Madoff's family and friends thought he had the "highest moral character". They have claimed the hard work of others as their own, and have been promoting themselves as the saviors of Oceano airport, when in fact it never was nor is at risk. I can produce proof of this. What threw me over the edge was when they claimed to be a non-profit organization, when there is no evidence that they are. They are pretending to raise money for a cause, that in fact does not exist. There is also, no evidence that they have spent any money on Oceano airport either. The only thing that it appears that they have used the funds for is to travel to events that gets them publicity for being the "saviors" of general aviation and Mooney in particular. I have not seen anything of real value come out of anything that they have said or published. Their "organization" does not exist. It consists of a husband and wife, who sometime pretended to be strangers, who find aviation events that others have organized, and done all of the work for, and publish a date and place for Mooney owners to fly to and socialize. If your into air shows and having strangers crawl over your airplane, then good. I have no beef with that. What I object to is the representation made that they were and are involved in the actual organization, planning and execution of these events. For most of them, they have nothing to do with them, other than encouraging the community to participate. I bring this public, because they have chosen the public forum. Also, this is a public issue since they are asking the community for money. They have publically stated that they are helping save general aviation. I would like to see an accounting of how. None of the things that they have suggested have they actually done that I know of. I actually have been very involved in the Mooney community at one time. I was behind the scenes, helping orgainize and coordinate fly ins. I did not care to be in the lime light and did not care who knew that I did anything at all. It was all for fun. I have no alternative motive, other than to make people aware that they might be donating time and money to something that is not what it is purported to be. Accepting donations under false pretenses to an organization that is supposed to be a non-profit is fraud. I hope I am wrong. I believe though, that I probably am not. If it is shown that I am, I will publically apologize

Interesting that Jolie has not responded to Phil’s question here. She did post on the AOPA forum and stated that Friends of Oceano Airport is a 501 ©3 organization. As such, it would be registered with the Internal Revenue Service, with public disclosure of the Tax . I was not able to find any reference to Friends of Oceano Airport on any official list. It is possible that it was registered under another name. Care must be taken in supporting organizations that cannot support claims made, and does not provide full disclosure. The public support of general aviation is tentative enough, without unnecessary controversy. It seems to me that all of the promotion being done with the Oceano Airport day is to buy tickets to the meal and show, and the selling of t-shirts, hats and other revenue generating items. Where are the profits for this going? I am concerned.

I don't think that having MAPA purchase this list is a solution to anything. I think that it is very telling that more new and potential Mooney owners join this list, not the MAPA one. It is an indication of the lack of real leadership at MAPA. It seems to me there needs to be a stepping up of resources for Mooney owners of parts and alternatives to keep our planes flying, not crying about how expensive it is to attend the major shows.

Prop is still available.

cq dx cq dx de wb6cnr

I don't believe that it wll. In addition, I do not belive that there is much if any benifit from a 3-blade prop on a J. It seems to be the consensus that it takes a 6 cylinder engine to get the benifit

Just replaced my Hartzell with an MT prop on my 231. Has just under 1400 hours since new. It has never been rebuilt. Send a PM if interested. Hub and polished spinner included.

I have been both. The fist 7 years I was a VFR only pilot. Went cross country many times. I only got held up for weather 1 time for a day and a half. The last 8 years have had my IFR ticket. I have been held up for weather multiple times. Which is better? I have also made trips many times that would have been commercial without the IFR capability as well. My take is that unless you are having to fly, that the IFR ticket might be a crutch that is dangerous. The level of proficency required to be safe flying IFR is significatly higher than VFR. I had a good friend and his wife killed because they were casual IFR flyers. So my take is that VFR pilots are NOT 1/2 pilots. I know many very competitent VFR only pilots that I would fly with with no hesitation. I also know some IFR pilots, who are current, that I would never get in a plane with if they were at the controls.

Forgot to mention that the prop is on a 1979 M20K

I have a Hartzel 3 blade prop that has about 1200 hours on it since new. It is about 4 years old. I am interested in selling it to put an MT on my plane. The difference is that the MT should give me slightly faster cruiese at high altitudes (above 15K ft) than the Hartzel does. The climb performance and cruise that I get with the hartzel is good. Avg 700 ft plus climb rate and I flight plan 170 Kts. If you do not go high, then there is no real advantage of the MT over the hartzel other than weight. I will be selling the prop and the hub, since the MT requires a different hub than the hartzel. If anyone is interested, let me know.

In my 1979 231, I get very little oxygen flow on the ground. Mine is supposed to be set at 6K feet. Once at altitude, the flow increases to the altitude mark on the meter. I have one that goes up to 25k feet, and can attest that it works up to 23K and shows full flow at that altitude.

"Bonus Depreciation" is a deduction for capital purchases that is beyond the normally allowed amount. For example, if you purchase an airplane for business use for $100,000.00, normal depreciation would be $ 20,000.00 assuming a five year life and straight line depreciation and a purchase date of January 1. With bouus depreciation of 50%, the deduction would be $60,000.00. This is 1/2 of the 100,000.00 plus another 10,000 of regular depreciation (50,000 / 5 years). There is no deduction advantage of putting your airplane in a LLC or corporation. The advantage of putting your airplane in another entity is that it removes the airplane from your personal return, which reduces the audit risk. It also might provide some protection from liability, but I would check with a lawyer about that. Hope this helps and is clear.

I am taking a business trip to Auckland, NZ next week. I am staying through the weekend, the 23 to the 25th, and would love to get together with a local Mooney pilot and see some of NZ from the air. I would of course, cover all of the expenses of flying. If there is anyone interested or know of someone that might be interested, please contact me at ksmith@aessi.com or my cell at 909-227-2567. Thanks

Dave, I have had my plane for 15 years and am still looking for a good, responsive, reasonably priced avionics shop in CA. So far, no luck. I had my panel redone about 7 years ago by Crownair in San Diego. They did a really good job, but they are proud of their work. They took about a week longer than they originally estimated. Not too bad as far as timing goes. I have heard that they are under new owners/management and that they are more competitive now. Might be worth checking out.

In reading this thread, I have to ask some questions. How is telling a story of an airplane crash promoting general aviation to the general public? Isn't the number one fear and misperception of the general public that our small airplanes fall out of the sky for no reason? It may get people's attention, but is it the right kind of attention? Also, how may of you would be comfortable taking off in a nearly maxed weight airplane, on a warm to hot day, on a relively short runway into rising terrain with trees at the end of the runway, with only 7 hours in a complex airplane with 3 generations of a family on board? I'm all for promoting and increasing awarness of the benifit of general aviation, but shouldn't we be careful about the message that is being sent? I'm also confused. I thought that the Forbes.com articles was to promote GA to the nonflying public. But the justification of using the story of a crash is to get other pilots to get more emergency training. If the purpose is to incent the general public an interest in general aviation, is talking about a crash the right approach in such a public forum as Forbes? If the purpose is to encourage pilots to get additonal training and learn from someone else's experience, is Forbes the right forum for this? Just some food for thought.