jetdriven

I bet is was shiny and has NDH logs.

It srtill gets more MPG, and that is less lead and combustion products in the oil per hour. Sure, a 2100 hour engine adds zero value to the airplane, but fly it to 2400 hours, find somethinig wrong, then overhaul it. the 400 hours past TBO are free, thats 5K. if you run it LOP from a fresh OH thats a free engine altogether.

Too bad VFR GPS doesnt have its own equipment suffix. We can navigate with the KLN-89B to anywhere but cannot do approaches.

Put some ice on that Mooney, and some heavier clouds. That will invoke images of some of my Christmases over the past few years.

Sometimes ATC will give a clearance such as "be out of (or cross, or below) FL180 within 3 minutes" or "cross 12,000 30 NE of XYZ. IN those cases, a "we're out of FL180" call works well. Quote: rob I use "climbing" or "descending" instead of "leaving" or "out of." It's how I was taught and I figure a little extra description can't hurt. The difference between an M20T and M20P as far as ATC is concerned is 500fpm climb, 200fpm descent, and a different LAHSO category. See this link: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/acdesig.html

Its all paperwork. The airplane was not likely weighed at the factory, it was determined from a sample of airplanes off the line. Then, anything less than one pound is not required to update the weight and balance. Over the last 30 years how much can that be? The airplane is, on paper, legal. Safe, Legal, pick any one, sometimes two. It flies. It is within the CG envelope and most lilkey a few pounds overweight. If yo want to cost yourself some useful load, and are really concerned about it, reweigh it. You can spend 200$ while simultaneously reducing your useful load by 75 pounds and at the end of the day nothing changes. Given the responses here about losing 27 lbs of useful load due to a bladder installation, and claims of full-fuel-plus-1-pilot Acclaims being overgross, I can say there will be no takers.

You can be "out of" 12,000 for 10,000. Quote: Hank In my opinion, runways are more serious than aircraft type information. I will cheat and say "em twenty papa slant golf" but I will always state the runway number clearly in a readback, and that means 36 = "three six". But perhaps I am to particular? I also avoid saying "for" to connect actions to runways. I will not say "cleared to land for three six", for example. I will say "cleared to land three six". And when IFR, I readback, "3 thousand climbing 5 thousand", because my J model won't climb to 45 thousand, no matter how long I climb! -dan

ICAO codes for the PA28 are even more complex than a Mooney. P28A - All fixed gear PA28's up to 180/181 (the fixed pitch ones) P28B - Fixed Gear PA28's with a wobbly prop (-235 Dakota etc) P28R - Arrow 1, 2 & 3 P28T - Arrow 4 Turbo Quote: PapaPapa From what i know of air rules in France (and probably JAR airspace) the ATC enters a "in-air FPL" when you transit in controlled airspace. For an FPL, you must enter an ICAO aircraft type, so you should reply with an ICAO aircraft type. Dunno what they are for mooney, but from waht i've read i guess M20P and M20T :-) And as i say "pee ay twenty 28" for a PA28, i'd certainly say "em twenty pee", although neither are good phraseology

Nope. Never. Thats just used for IFR so they can tell your capability (M20P/A) Of course, I put "VFR GPS" in the remarks of our IFR flight plan, and the first thing they asked off CYAM (Sault Ste. Marie, CAN) was "are you able direct Colehill". "affirmative.' Cleared Direct Colehill" Quote: 201er Do they really care if you're slant whatever if you're strictly VFR?

they know what you mean. Or you can say "off Blairstown for Somerset".

"N201ER off 1N7 for 36N."

Check the wiring that goes to the field terminal and the output terminal. If the output is loose, it arcs there and displays as an intermittent low voltage, until it melts the output post off. The field terminal wire can break at the crimp terminal or the wiring can break under that shielding. The alternaotor goes offline. Both of these have happened to me, immediately after a superstar mechanic charged me 500$ to install a new Plane Power alternator.

be very careful with tractor and towbar. You cannot feel the 15 degree limits being exceeded but your wallet will at the next annual inspection!

That prop pulls your airplane with 600 LBS of static thrust and pulls your airplane through the air at 160 knots. It will also do so for 2,000 hours. Just be careful with the spinner Quote: allsmiles I wouldn't winch from the tail or anywhere else as I will never push or pull from the prop. It seems natural and easy to push or pull on that prop. I got in an argument one time with an airport person who insisted it was safe to push on the prop because he was too lazy to bring over the tug.

I have done both and the aircraft climbs positively with takeoff flaps. With flaps up, any bump or yoke movement sets off the stall horn. It also has an anemic rate of climb for the first few feet until you get over 80 MPH. Laminar flow wings just have high drag and low lift at low speed. I feel in the flaps up configuration and a rather high takeoff weight, the aircraft can settle on the back side of the power curve and never accelerate, just like those A36 Bonnazas can.

I am with you guys. 16 GB is likely fine. If you hav a large amount of music or movies, the 32 GB may be needed. We have 3K songs, foreflight with tons of charts, jepp FD, and other stuff its not nearly full. If you have bored kids, movies may be something you are interested in. About 1 GB per movie.

I could make an argument that an early 201 has a lot of bang for the buck.

How do you vote an airplane to be "sexy?" wouldn't that imply invoking someone to want to do something sexual to it? Which strikes me as kind of strange. I can understand the "sexy pinup girl calendar," the "sexy fashion show", or even the "sexy fireman" stereotype. I cannot understand the "sexy 3-blade and chrome spinner", the "sexy Cardinal RG", or a contender for the "sexiest plane ever."

I dunno? perhaps this? Who we are We're simply a group of Pre-201 vintage Mooney owners and enthusiasts that share a devoted passion for the most incredible aircraft of its class and category. We strongly believe that the vintage M20 Mooneys are the most incredible four-place aircraft ever manufactured. When you compare speed to economy, nothing beats the early Mooney designs! Even Mooney's later designs can't give you more bang for the buck!

An Acclaim is hardy a Vintage Mooney!

Far and away most engine failures are fuel starvation and fuel exhaustion. Something like 90%. The possibility of actual mechanical engine failure is pretty remote. Yes, when that happens, low IFR or night is going to be more serious consequences as Ross points out.

At the annual we are likely going to install the cowl fix kit and apply anti chafe tape from Aircraft Spruce to the boot cowl, the gear doors, and maybe the fuselage where the tail pivots.

I think they mean keep the key pushed in to keep the advanced mag from firing.

Ours does it too, the top cowl rides up onto the boot cowl. Speak with Robert at LASAR. They make a cowl repair kit for 120$ for the M20J. Basically, they replace some top boot cowl camloc receptacles with fixed instead of floating mounts, put screws and nutplates instead of camlocks in the 4 spots behind the spinner, and add a riveted piece on the bottom of the cowl to rigidly fix it into place with some screws. The cowl cannot ride up any more and chip your boot cowl paint. Then you can epoxy the worn holes in your cowl where the camlocs go and they won't wear anymore either.

The first two were the Galveston air race. The last was the Cleveland TX air race. I was not present for either, my wife flew these. The Galveston photos are 1000' and all knobs forward at 160 KIAS and TAS. The Cleveland race ends in a dive to the runway and full power, sea level density altitude. IIRC I think the KIAS was 200. Halfway up the yellow arc. With new igniton timing, profiled and balanced prop, and a new Donaldson air filter, we are shooting for something more in the 190 MPH TAS range. There is more to do as well, the gear doors are not rigged proper and the flaps ands ailerons are improperly rigged. Quote: takair Good photos. Were these see level max power? This is turning interesting. Like many Mooney design decisions, not sure we will ever really know. My 64E model at max cruise (about 152KTAS) at altitude, has the elevator weights exactly the opposite when looking out the window. My elevator is still biassed with UP elevator, where these photos show down elevator bias. My theory is that the bias was a bandaid. I wonder if the early Mooneys just did not have enough jack travel for the stab to move to give enough up elevator. Will have to try a flight at high power, down low, to see where my trim ends up. It looks like by the time they got to the 201, things were getting better and soon after they were able to do away with the bias. Perhaps teh longer fuselage helps. Will ask some of the flight sciences guys at work to see if they have a theory. Too bad the Mooney brothers aren't around to grill with some of this stuff. I often think they locked somebody in a closet with a pile of parts until they came up with some intricate design.