Tom

Note that the Sandia Quattro has been certified. Attitude plus altimeter and airspeed. Spruce has them for $3400 currently. Don't forget that a Part 23 re-write may occur that would allow the use of non-STC'd equipment (more on this elsewhere). I didn't know this before, and not the point of this thread, but it seems as though you can replace your T&B with a second AI per this AC referenced in the Quattro marketing information.

I'm curious about the green/yellow/red markings on the altimeter. This is a very simple-stupid question, but what are they used for?

Mike Busch in the link that I provided above describes basically doing what you are suggesting. You can spring $20 for a 100amp load toaster coil or just do a little math with known loads off your bus.

The question to clarify is "what do we expect or hope that the battery test can tell us?" Here are some possible answers: a) "I want to know that the battery will start the engine and keep the radios on for a while if the alternator fails." "I want to know if the battery is nearing the end of its life, even if it's still right now able to start the engine and keep the radios on for a while if the alternator fails." c) "I want to get a sense if my battery will start the engine and keep the radios on for a while if the alternator fails quickly, without performing a load test." The required annual load test answers question A (though I think this is not routinely done). This load test in theory does shorten the lifespan of the battery, except that the batter doesn't live long enough to notice... Measuring the initial internal resistance and monitoring it over time can, without any damage to the battery, provide a means of monitoring the battery for potential problems brewing. Similar to the preceding sentence, measuring internal resistance while measuring the voltage while knowing the rated discharge capability provides a quick means, albeit not fully reliable, of getting a sense of the health of the battery and thus indirectly the battery's capacity to work. This is NOT to be relied upon, but it is a quick and non-harmful test to perform on the battery between annual load testing. *All references to "quick" above assume that the battery is not held behind a panel held on by 16 or so fasteners......

See the "AC Conductance" section on this website.

Mike Busch has a good write-up on this subject, including a DIY load testing (using the components in your plane like landing lights, pitot heat, etc): http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/191348-1.html The Concorde AGM battery maintenance manual: http://www.concordebattery.com/otherpdf/5-0171.pdf Concorde's ICA calls out only load testing and load testing indeed seems to be the only reliable way to see if the battery truly has what it takes to do the job. I'm curious, though, if resistance measuring, which is non-destructive (unlike loading) could be a good way to monitor the life cycle of the battery, help predict demise, etc. FWIW, Harbor Freight sells a carbon pile unit for about $50 and a digital tester for about $80.

Agree with 1/4" windscreen. Conversely, I like the idea of thin side windows because they're easier to break should someone need to (that's just me). Tint opinions: If tinting, always spring for the thermal blocking tint (or whatever it is called/marketed as). Clear windscreen. Tinted windows all around.

"My best friend's cousins' sister's brother's roommate's sister was in a car wreck. The driver wasn't wearing a seatbelt and was thrown from the wreckage and walked away. The sister was pinned in the wreckage by her seatbelt and died. I don't wear seatbelts because seatbelts can kill you!" “Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.” -George Carlin Some people just need to touch the paint.

For what it's worth, I've pinged AmSafe to see what it might take for them to develop and offer their product to the older Mooney fleet (to include a question about offering deposits from enough interested buyers to make it worth their while). I'll post back if I hear anything. If you're interested in doing the same, considering pinging them at info@amsafe.com .

Quite obviously the envelop for the C model is different than that for the Acclaim. I was recounting that the Engineers who have designed, developed, and received FAA certification of ballistic parachute systems (that have documented many legitimate lives saved in several airframe types, including in a new airframe that is beating the pants off your company) stated that the R&D associated with designing a system for the long-bodied Mooneys would, in all likelihood, be able to be applied to short and mid-length Mooneys. But what do they know, they've only been producing a successful product for a few decades that adds to safety. The cost for the R&D was suggested to be in the neighborhood of 500k, not $1.5M to $2.0M. If Mooney can't afford (or chooses not to provide) the R&D that its competitors provide, including the safety countermeasures that result from that research, I wouldn't go posting that all over the internet...

I followed this up with BRS. The R&D to develop a system for the Mooney would cost a fair sum of money (obviously) thus developing a STC for the Mooney in all reality would need to require corporate Mooney to lead the way with BRS (unless private investors where willing to group together for the endeavor). It was stated that a BRS system developed for the long-body Mooney would very likely be able to be installed on the mid and short-bodied vintage Mooneys. It was further offered that, at least currently, FAA is playing nicely to help BRS develop a retrofit chute for a different certified airframe and that development is going easier/faster than with previous airframe developments (FAA apparently recognizing the utility of the safety device). It was suggested that any Mooney owners wishing to encourage Mooney International to work with BRS to develop a ballistic recovery system should contact CEO (Jerry Chen) or VP (Tony Parker) and advise them of such interest.

Better put, I think, you lost control for a brief period of time because of the dynamics involved in the situation and it was because of your good piloting skills that you regained control.

1. Flying more over hostile terrain increases risk. For some, the money likely needed to install a BRS into a Mooney isn't so much a concern, nor is more training. 2. Only if you're trying to make an argument to decrease the relative safety value of a BRS system? Why would you want to do this? In what other areas of design do we do this? Sorry to be testy, but does it make sense to run reports on motorcyclists who wear helmets to show that there's an intrinsic problem with helmets? Why not just agree that some people with helmets feel like superman and are more likely to be foolish and suffer, while others are self-described conscientious meek wimps who would be more likely to survive a mishap because of having the ability to use a helmet? Should we outlaw helmets because of the former group? I stand to be corrected, but Mooney has produced around 10,000 airframes. A NTSB search of "Mooney" and "fatality" finds 682 results (approximately 6% of the airframes produced resulted in one fatality). If training is effective at reducing fatalities, the combination of a chute AND a bunch of training on how 'not to take extra risks just 'cause you have a chute' would lower the fatality rate, all else equal, no?

FWIW a once-per-10-year repack on the 182 currently goes for $5800 per the BRS website (no reason to think that the Mooney would be much different, see below). Thus an extra $580 per year in maintenance reserves isn't much for the additional utility (I would argue). FWIW the 172 chute retails for $13,900 while the 182 chute retails for $15,500 (not including installation). I'd assume that a retrofit BRS system would sit in the baggage compartment on the pilot side with an exit fabricated essentially opposite the baggage door. As has been stated before, the skin over the Mooney forward fuselage is to "keep the wind out" thus I'd assume it relatively easy to do the sheet metal work to install the straps and make it easier to access come inspection time (particularly compared to a composite fuselage like the Cirrus). FWIW, I'm not affiliated with BRS. I simply have a Mooney but bought a twin for the typical reasons articulated in this thread (I had no interest in a Cirrus but am now considering one). The Mooney is now redundant to me but before selling it I reached out to BRS to see if they had anything in the works, and they don't. If they did, I'd install a BRS and keep the Mooney. The vast majority of my flying is out west where I assume that, best case scenario, putting the plane down on a road will likely result in a ding somewhere that will, in reality, total the plane. I thus have no concern that floating under a chute into a ravine will make the plane non-repairable. In summary, a Mooney BRS option would save me money given my interests, etc. The poll here was to gauge interest to share with BRS +/- Mooney to see if this might stimulate things somehow.

1) The chute would occupy approximately 1/2 the baggage area. 2) For those comfortable flying gliders at night, over water, over mountains, and in clouds with low ceilings, a chute offers nothing. 3) For those with a twin, or considering a twin to use in the circumstances described in #2, a single with a chute is a viable alternative. 4) Again, for those with or considering a twin, the $2k/year premium for a chute reserve is less than the cost of the engine reserves for the second engine, is also less than the annual cost of feeding the second engine, and is possibly the same or less than the insurance premium of a high performance vintage single vs a twin.

Nobody knows for sure, but adding a 25k parachute system to a $60K plane might make it a $85k+ plane, at least in the short-run. I generally think that this could be true, at least in the second-hand market where the cost vs utility of the Mooney with a chute would compete heavily with used SR-20s and make a used DA-40 that much more harder to swallow. On the other hand, newer pilots seem to be afraid of older airframes, though maybe the chute could make up for that? I think BRS's base price for the retrofit 182 chute is something like 15k, with everything atop that being the install (around 30-50 hours in the 182). FWIW.

Pretty much as the title states, I'm interested in a current snapshot of owner interest in developing a BRS system for the existing Mooney fleet. It sounds as though BRS has been trying to encourage Mooney to assist in developing a system at least for the existing fleet, but Mooney International Corporation has other priorities. Depending on owner interest, with enough interest, a system might be able to be developed independently. Currently the BRS system for the 182 goes for something like 18-24AMU installed. What's the interest currently?

"It has the ability to handle high stress loads with some lubricity, and the ability to have tighter tolerances with great heat transfer. Manganese bronze works great with higher valvetrain speeds and offers great corrosion resistance. The material make up of manganese-bronze guides generally consists of 55% copper, 40% zinc and 3.5% manganese." From: www.enginebuildermag.com/2013/04/valve-seats-guides/

For those interested in obscure aviation history stories... "My Mom had recently purchased a 16mm film camera, to which we owe these fascinating images of an earlier time, when a person could hitch a ride to Finland from Las Vegas on a twin engine plane during Christmas break and be back in time to teach their high school class on Monday morning after New Year's."

This post is for anyone interested in, for whatever reason, placing their aircraft into an LLC. I've recently gone through the process and will share a bit about what I think that I've learned and am posting the process I went through. I am by no means an expert and what I have done may be wrong. Maybe comments can clarify this. This post is only addressing an LLC for a private owner who will operate the plane privately and not for hire; it has nothing to do with LLCs that have anything to do with making money. Why an LLC? To summarize much, there are practically no reasons to go through this for tax reasons. It is for anonymity reasons and potentially risk mitigation. If you are in a partnership, it makes sense to form the LLC (or limited liability partnership (LLP)) as one extra hurdle in the search for deep pockets. Of course if you are flying the plane and have an accident, it doesn't matter if you are in a LLP, LLC, or and INC plane--you're the operator and you're liable. It can make sense to ease people buying into/out of the aircraft if a partnership LLC. There can be some benefit when it comes to selling the plane, but my purpose was just for anonymity (notice a theme?) in an ADS-B tracking world. I'm a sole owner so my options were generally a LLC or INC. LLCs generally have much less administrative hassles and fees to pay every year, so it seems most people go with the LLC. In which state to form? I chose Montana. It seems that several states have been in a war of "who can offer the least expensive LLC." Delaware incorporation is expensive and not in the running. Until recently, Nevada has been a popular place to form though now Montana seems to be the least expensive option. L3 and some other theoretically smart people have formed in Montana to registered their aircraft, so, if you're the type that follows the presumably smarter people when you're in don't know what you're doing, Montana may be a good choice. _____ The Montana process. It can take as little as 20 minutes and $90 to form. After this, you must file an annual report and pay $15 per year to the state of Montana (this is the lowest fee of any state I could find). In addition, Montana (and most all states I think) requires that you have a registered agent located in the state that the LLC is formed. You can be your own registered agent if you are forming in your own state (for free obviously), though the benefit of using a registered agent is that in quick online searches the registered agent is the name that comes up, not the LLC principles (though for a small fee or hurdle jump the enthusiastic snooper can still find your owner information). There are several "Registered Agent" service companies with whom you can use. Basically you pay the registered agent whatever fee they charge to act as the registered agent, typically $40-50/year. The service I used cost $45 to enlist that company as my registered agent. I simply filled in an online form that took about 2 minutes, then paid via credit card. Immediately I had access to a series of .pdfs that included the choice of "Articles of Organization for Domestic Limited Liability Company". This form is also found here, and this is the only form that you need to form the LLC. You will note that you must sign the bottom and that the Registered Agent must sign in the middle of the form. With the registered agent company that I used, after I paid the $45 and had access to the .pdfs, when I opened the AODLCC document, the registered agent's signature and address had been put on the form. Then I typed in the remaining few items, printed the form, and signed it. I then went to the Montana Secretary of State office and paid online the $70 LLC registration fee as well as a $20 priority fee plus a $3 credit card processing fee. After paying this fee on the SOS website, I was given a receipt. I then took the receipt, the AODLCC form signed by me, added a cover sheet, and faxed it to the SOS office. The next day the LLC was registered. If all goes well, I'll just need to pay Montana $15/year, file a brief report (nothing fancy, examples available online), and pay the registered agent $45. Notably, several registered agent companies will file the documents for you for a few hundred dollars, but there is no reason to do this unless you need the LLC formed in the next hour, and, it seems that faxing the documents in plus $100 extra (not $20 extra priority service) to the SOS accomplishes the same thing. How to convert the plane from private ownership to LLC: FAA provides guidance for registering aircraft into an LLC (see attached) A helpful individual on the web created a document that satisfies the current FAA requirements (see attached) 8050 forms (I've only submitted these, waiting to hear back if I screwed it up, and remember must be on original forms, no typos, no corrections): 8050-2: in the "Name and Address of purchaser" one writes "Whatevername Limited Liability Company" and the address of the company. 8050-1: Type of registration is "3. Corporation" [even if LLC], and "Name of Applicant" is "Whatevername Limited LIability Company" with appropriate documentation regarding the LLC as cited in the FAA guidance on the subject. Hope this helps! easy faa llc.pdf faaLLC.pdf

Given this response, with due respect to others, I'd ignore the advice to install an audio panel now and would strongly suggest to go ahead and use a switch. The cost of the switch experiment is next to free and it will probably serve your stated purpose. You can always dump 2amu in a new audio panel install if you find your needs are not being met (I do agree with the 'buy once cry once' approach to dealing with audio panels). .

What is the goal? A bare-bones CB solution would be to install a $10 toggle switch to designate the transmit radio. Just an idea.

It's curious to see these posts repetitively come up where someone regurgitates a find and asks everyone for analysis. The ratio of "trash" to "favorable" comments is no better than 10:1. Frankly the trash talkers don't seem at all experienced (or, experienced but only in reciting mantra), have been lucky, or are hesitent to admit that they themselves didn't pick the prom queen and had to put some money into their planes (i.e. had a typical purchase experience). When buying a plane you need someone who can be trusted to tell you that the plane has good bones. I appreciate the shout-out to see if anyone knows this bird, but I wouldn't for a second discount this plane (if I were in the market) based on the input a bunch of cackling hens. (apologies to the cackling hens, but feel free to post your purchase price, equipment lists, receipts to date, and a clean bill of health from Don M or Paul L)

Welcome to the current market. 48k is a good price for a LASAR maintained F given the seller's stated particulars if the plane is as represented. This plane is otherwise relatively close to the PNW, as is the buyer. Doesn't make sense that this plane isn't considered under the circumstances, but what do I know. This situatiuon does not seem to be unique. I'm reminded of a BT thread where a buyer was repetitively quite vocal about either sifting through the "garbage" on the market or about the "over-priced" presumably quality planes available.(insinuating collusion between sellers, brokers, and the like). If you're a buyer looking for a smoking deal (e.g. a significantly underpriced bird)...and you genuinely anticipate and hope that every low priced bird is going to be "the one" then you will be left sorely disappointed.

Indeed, what is wrong with one of these? A 250 SMOH F with no damage history maintained by LASAR for $48,000?