jax88

Surprise, surprise . . . Looks like a late model 252 is going to run me at least as much as an early model Bravo.

I'm the same way with looking for things to brace my hand on in turbulance. The other day my co-pilot (wife) made me quit reaching for the panel, she said she was tired of the bumps and the only time she noticed them was when I was trying to change a radio. Now she keeps track of frequencies and transponder settings.

You probably forgot to pay your weekly update charge for the advance notice.

Not sure either was at the wrong altitude. I was VFR southeast bound at 11.5. The Saratoga was likely heading close to due south. Not really about laying blame, just a reminder not to get stuck inside our cockpits eyeballing all our pretty new toys.

The MSC I was referring to said the same thing, that it's simply a drop-in replacement.

I had an interesting experience while flying from Las Vegas to San Antonio yesterday. Cruising at 11.5 somewhere in the vicinity of Payson I get a call from ATC indicating a Saratoga at my 10 same altitude heading my direction. Next I hear ATC warn the pilot of the Saratoga that they have a Mooney at their 1 same altutude heading southeast. Within seconds the Saratoga responds that they have me on TCAS but can't see me out the window. Skies are clear but hazy and I had no trouble spotting the Saratoga, come right at me no less. (Now all this is happening in a matter of seconds mind you) ATC tells the Saratoga "If you can't see the Mooney I suggest you descend immediately." and when I hear this my mind starts racing. I'm looking at this Saratoga coming right at me knowing he still doesn't see me and the tone of the controller's voice indicates to me that we have a problem. I decide that if the controller wants the Saratoga to descend, I'm going UP, and I'm going NOW - so I get some back pressure on the control wheel, disengage the autopilot, and pull back for as much climb as I can get at that altitude without inducing a stall. By now, the co-pilot has awakened from her slumber just in time to see the Saratoga pass within a couple hundred feet below and slightly behind our tail. Moral of this story THERE IS NO SUBSTITUE FOR BEING ABLE TO LOCATE TRAFFIC OUT THE WINDOW. All these fancy avionics are great additions to our panels and will undoubtedly add to our situational awareness, but they are only additions to good pilot technique and constant awareness.

My Garmin 496 has a descent profile that works well. It allows me to tell it what altitude and what distance from the waypoint I want to reach said altitude. In addition, I use the techniques outlined above, cruise - pattern divided by 500 multiplied by miles per minute with 3 additional minutes and 5 additional miles added to allow for time to slow the aircraft once I get to pattern altitude. Once I have the calculations I create a waypoint for the descent in my flight plan. When flying I will typicaly start my descent at the waypoint and use the built in vertical profile of the 496 as a cross reference.

I called one of my local MSCs last week about my upcoming annual and when I asked what I could do about improving the nose bowl landing light, they recommended the Whelen LED. Hopefully they have the paperwork already figured out (this is one of the more highly regarded MSCs).

Anyone with a F model care to share their observed fuel burn during the climb with me?

Very nice, and welcome. The pilots, owners, vendors, mechanics, and friends here are an invaluable source of information and encouragement.

Quote: jlunseth This is the category I am in also, although I don't feel strongly about the aircraft being pressurized. What I have read of the specs on the Mirage, the pressurization does not help that much, max about 8000 feet difference between outside pressure and cabin pressure, so I think to fly in the flight levels you would still need supplemental O2. Having done a fair amount of cross country travel in my 231, I think FIKI is a must and a turbo is a must, or you are just too much at the mercy of the weather. You definitely need the ability to top out over icing. The Bravo and Acclaim are also great candidates, but the useful load could be better. As for the Avionics, the safety upgrade in flying with Sat WX, a good WAAS GPS, and a moving map of some kind is just to great to settle for less. The issue with cross country travel over long distances is that there is invariably going to be some weather somewhere along the way. If you are stepping up for the purpose of frequent cross country travel, the candidates would be the Malibu, the Bravo and Acclaim, and the Bonanza 36 TC series in my view.

I'm hearing you guys, all of you. While I tend to have the opinion that any damage, if repaired properly and proven over time, is something than can be overcome, I also understand that should I try to sell the aircraft, a potential buyer may not feel the same way. I'm also catching on to the bang for the buck argument. Why should I drop more on a J than it would cost me to bring the F I currently have up to peak performance and comfort? Is the following aircraft an example of one of those in the same price range that offers more bang for the buck? (rhetorical question). Anyone know anything about its history? http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/MOONEY-M20M-BRAVO/1994-MOONEY-M20M-BRAVO/1192573.htm?

fantom : that's the rub, I'm not sure if I'd be better off with a 252. I don't have any experience with either, and not knowing what speeds, fuel burns, and maintenance costs to really expect for both models makes this a difficult process.

We should probably continue this discussion on the Possible Trade Up Options thread I have going in the Modern Mooney Discussion forum. I think that's where I'm headed, trading up.

K's certainly offer more speed and the ability to get up high and take advantage of any helping winds . . . but . . . the maintenance cost . . . yikes! $40,000 overhauls, and they come around quicker, . . . I don't know. Should be an interesting couple weeks/months figuring out which direction to go and then finding an aircraft.

The J wouldn't be so much for a speed upgrade as it would be for the avionics upgrade and interior upgrade. It could be a tough, long wait while I watch for the perfect J to become available, but I'm okay with that. I've got money in hand and I already have a very servicable aircraft. Because of where I think I'll be professionally in a couple of years, I may need to look toward the K model, something with more speed to get to and from Texas to either coast and back.

Got my eye on trading up and looking at an aircraft I looked at last year before buying my F. Any opinions from you experts would be greatly appreciated. I'm living in San Antonio and trips are typically Houston, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Florida. My future use likely will include using the aircraft to travel to and from "job sites" across the country. Went through the logs of this aircraft last night. Gear up (non-pavement) years ago - repairs done by Mooney factory and engine rebuilt by Mena. Last annual at Dugosh that showed nothing major (new main tires, new batteries, light bulbs, the such). Most oil changes in 25 hour intervals. http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/MOONEY-M20J-MSE/1994-MOONEY-M20J-MSE/1187215.htm? Thanks

yeah, I'm not a member

Anyone got the Jimmy Garrison M20J valuation handy?

My current F is wonderful, not without its peculiarities, but is a joy to fly and always dependable. Co-pilot wife wants new seats, I want new avionics. My flying is mostly cross country, 6 - 7 hour trips. The J model should lop an hour off those travel times, and a K could take another half hour off the times. Nothing to sneeze at. At least I'm in a good position as a potential buyer: current buyer's market and I already have a good aircraft I can use until the perfect match comes along.

Leaning that way, trading up that is. Beating myself up over it though. The '75F was everything I had hoped it would be for the year I've had it, so much so that I wouldn't hesitate to spend more on a on a newer, faster Mooney.

Would anyone care to share some real world cruise numbers for the M20J MSE with me?

Not sure it's gonna happen now. I can pour $30-$50k into it to upgrade the avionics, add an engine monitor, and replace the front seats (co-pilot wants something with a headrest). In the end, it is still just a 140 knot aircraft. When I consider that my total investment would then be approaching $110k, I begin to wonder if I shouldn't just trade up instead.

I have one simple wish to add to your list: build them in San Antonio.

Obviously some of my avionics are dated, and I've had some minor issues with the TKM radios, but everything DOES function. In past discussions with my local avionics shop (happens to be my FBO as well), I've been advised to leave well enough alone. Their two main arguments for retaining the existing avionics have been that my current equipment meets my needs and the newer, digital equipment comes with its own set of drawbacks (displays go bad, more complex repair). In my more frugal moments I have tended to agree with them. I haven't started work on my instrument rating, but I intend to do so this year. One concern I have about my avionics is my ability to use instrument approaches at ALL airfields. Without a certified gps, can I make instrument approaches to fields that only offer gps approaches? I thought I had read somewhere that VOR and/or ILS approaches could be phased out as satellite/gps technology advances, and I wouldn't want to be "locked out" of using any field. Of course, I don't suppose there is any harm in waiting until the need arises to equip my aircraft accordingly.