jetdriven

Apples to apples comaprison re: autopilot. Your 231 came with it and you got a discount on it because it was already installed. But saying the 231 is cheaper because it didnt cost 20K install it is like saying a 201 is cheaper because you didnt have to convert it into a Rocket. You would have just bought a Rocket instead. Later 201's were offered with KAP 150's and even the early ones had KFC-200s as well. I wil agree than 231's are generally better equipped than the same year 201 but on engine overhaul reserve alone coupled with the tendency of the TSIO-360 to require a few cylinders sometimes to make TBO increases costs significantly. I would agree the 231 is overall more performance especially climb where a 201 cannot compare. I know your 201 wouldnt run LOP but most will if given some attention to fuel injectors, ignition and the like and the average is 9-10 GPH. I haven't flown a 231 but from most reports here its a ~12 GPH plane down low and maybe less up high. Above 10K hands down, the 231 is it. My original statement was a 231 is more airplane for more money and I think that bears out.Just make sure you will use it. Do you agree? Quote: 201-FLYER Having owned both a 201 and now a 231 I would argue this point on several fronts. Here is one example….I could not operate my 4 cylinder lean of peak in the 201 and in my 231 I can operate the six cylinder engine with stock injectors lean of peak which to me means 9 gph at pretty much any altitude I want. I was burning on average 2 gph MORE in the 201 and going a bit slower below 10K at comparable power settings. Also with regards to performance my 231 could out climb the 201 hands down even below 10K. The higher you go the bigger the difference of course. My K has been MUCH cheaper to own in my opinion and here is one example of why….I wanted a good autopilot and if I kept my J I would have to install a 20K STEC 55X to do the job I wanted. I pretty much got that capability for FREE with the KING a/p already installed in my and most other 231’s. You really can’t find a stock a/p in the older 201’s with that kind of capability.

I think a Rocket is a lot more expensive, and significantrly faster as well. Your garden veriety 201 such as ours is a 24$ an hour reserve for engine, prop, gyros, vacuum pump, tires, plugs, etc. all in. Fuel burn for us is averaging 9 GPH over 100 hours but lets call it 10. Ours goes 145-150 knots on 9 GPH but it will do 10 GPH and 155. An F is really about the same just subtract 5-10 knots. Lets just call the insurance the same as well though our hull value is quite a bit less than a Rocket. Low time partners bring it back up So average early J= 155 KTAS 10 GPH 24$/hr + 10 GPH (x 5.25/gal) = Direct operating cost is $ 76.50 per hour or 49c per nautical mile. Rocket = 190 KTAS 17 GPH 42$/hr + 17.2 GPH (x 5.25/gal) = Direct operating cost of $132.30 / hr or 69c per nautical mile. That is right at 40% higher direcrt operarting costs per mile. I dont have useful load figures but ours with bladders is still 974 LB. 600 NM of fuel and 640 LB in the cabin. I dont think anyone can argue with those numbers. Of course you have an airplane that can fly damn near 200 knots and go to 20K feet, even have TKS as an option, and I respect that. Just remember it costs significantly more to have that capability. Yes I agree a 231 is less expensive than a Rocket and slower as well, but when the clock stops on the engine its 40K instead of 20-25K for a J, so that is something that is significant as well. We just went through the whole cost analysis and figured it up at 30% more per mile. I'd love one, it just wasnt justufiable. Quote: Mazerbase My variable costs for my Rocket are about $45/hr (reserve for OH, reserve for prop, oil, etc) + fuel. Fuel is running $5.00/gal and my typical cruise is 17.2 gph. That comes to $131/hr. Adding a bit for fudge, say $140/hr total variable expense. Now the tricky part, ground speed, or TAS and assuming zero wind, at what altitude? I usually cruise at 185 - 190 kts below 10,000 and about 200 - 205 in the mid-teens. On the conservative side that would be 140/187.5 = $0.75/nm or $0.65/sm. A 231 will be less for each variable (reserve, fuel, and speed) but I don't know the proportionality. Fixed cost is difficult to add to the equation as the number of hours/year so affects the cost per hour or mile that I just don't include it in the calculation and I just know it is a lot. Quote: Mazerbase Jetdriven, don't know if you are correct about the comparison between the Rocket and a J but, I have included a reserve and the difference is only a few pennies per mile between the Rocket and the F now that gas prices have risen so much. A couple years ago the comparison was a wash.

I saw that artic air at OSH and it was pretty impressive. It uses recirculated water through a heater-core like heat exchanger to really blow cold air, and NO humidity from evaporating ice. Its a nice system. My neighbor uses one and he freezes ice into blocks in pie pans, then loads up stackas of them in the ice chest. According to him it lasts twice as long. He fires it up, and when the preflight is done, its nice and cool in his Bonanza.

Given th cost of the 252 vs the 231 its more plane for more money. I dont know much about Rockets but the fuel burn and the overhaul costs there is no way it can beat a J or F on a cost per mile basis unless you ignore overhaul costs on the engine and prop. However, it is super fast. You get what you pay for.

Below 10,000 feet the 231 performance is the same but it costs 30% more to fly a mile. Or around the same as a Bonanza.

I cant believe someone would change all 4 cylinders because one went bad. He should have subscribed to Mike Bush's columns or webinars and saved himself a few grand. Our agreement is much the same as the AOPA or APA version on the web. When one wants out, the other has first right to buy it out for some agreed market value. If a value cannot be determined or one partner cannot buy the other out, the plane is to be sold and proceeds split. So, yes, you effectively lose control of your plane, but not as bad as when you are a 1/3rd owner, you might then find yourself without a plane altogether. Having someone to split the enormous fixed costs is nice. PM me with your email address and I can send you a copy of our agreement if you want ot read it.

I just wired up the collector, emitter, and base to the wires that came from the old transistor. I was unter the idea a 2SC5200 was a MOSFET but im glad it isnt.

I havent! But I would try spruce or chief. Maybe google it for an AN bartb fitting.

another thing is you spent the time and bore the risk of buyign the airplane from someone. Then likely had to put some money into it as soon as you got it. Half of your purchase price really isnt 50% of the plane's value. IE he should pay you some for the money you put into the deal buyign the plane as well. AOPA and others have a sample partnership agreement. Basically you each own a share of the plane, split all the fixed costs, pay an hourly charge (on our J its 24$) for consumables, tires, engines, props, vacuum pump, gyros, radios, etc, and then fuel. We then "bill ourselves" a wet rate based on gallons burned from the totalizer * the average fuel rate we pay. Quote: rbridges I've only owned my plane for 10 months, so I'm new to airplane ownership. Anyway, I've had someone look at my plane, and he's very interested into buying into it. He's willing to pay 1/2 of what I paid last year. So here's my problem. I have no idea how to do this correctly. It's a pretty nice '65 C model. Manual gears and flaps. It has ~800 SMOH and 200 STOH. I don't see any major future maintenance with the exception of a reseal in the right wing. I assume most people put money in an account to cover operating costs and then put the plane back full of fuel. I have a guesstimate of how much it costs per hour to fly, but nothing concrete. I'm pretty lost on this whole thing. It may not happen, but I want to be ready if it does. Any suggestions?

Mike Busch refers to this as a MIF, a maintenance induced failure.

Here's a question. Are they charging you shop labor rates to disassemble and reassemble the carb again after they messed it up and then caused you to land dead stick?

OK it acts strange and it finds its position with wifi on, but turning it off, it gets lost. I did not know that. With bad elf it locks on all the time. Thanks, Greg. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2769338?start=0&tstart=0 Quote: Greg_D

Barry do you have a better part number for replacing the 2N2016? Mouser said it would work fine. Those old ones get warm in use as well, they had thermal paste under them.

Our iPad 2 has a GPS chip and it is wifi only. The GPS sucks without cell tower assist, however. I think in the plane its all the same. We bought a bad elf anyways. Quote: danb35 Maybe a dumb question, but do you have a 3G model? The WiFi-only models don't have a GPS chip.

At OSH the only PMA'd wingtip strobe was a Whelen unit that cost 1200$....per wingtip. It looked like something off a Citation. It may be a while before we see some reasonable options there.

Drapo that is a really nice looking Mooney! Classic paint scheme.

JR I think you need to find a new mechanic before they get you killed. Seriously, they shouldnt touch that carb without the proper manuals etc. Thats the wildest story I have ever heard. Quote: jrwilson The mechanics thought it was the carb float rubbing/sticking on the side of the bowl, so they soldered it and moved one of the floats. I did the test flight and the engine quit at three thousand feet, luckily I was close to the airport, so no problems but did need the tug to get back. Seems when they soldered the float it opened up a hole, which they didn't find when they soaked it in gas (pressure may have opened it up), which caused the float to sink. They've ordered a new float (an overhaul kit actually) and that should fix that. No idea if the original problem is solved or not. They rerouted a fuel line which had a sharp angle, which could have been a problem too. They're saying they've never seen this type of problem before, which isn't very comforting...

4 grand more than a reseal patch job gets you bladders and loses 30 pounds useful load. They never leak again. Its been discussed ad nauseum on here, but have a look.

Does it look like this? Mine is going bad too.

Still, 6900$ for the 430W, 2-3K for installation, and 1500$ for a GI-106 thats 10,500-11,500$ for installed used 430W. I had a frined had one installed for 12K new including the indicator. Am I missing something?

The big wire going to the side of the alternator, check that for tighness at the end where it bolts to the stud. While you are there check the small wire going to the back as well. What happens is the nut on the stud gets loose, and the wire arcs to the post causing the alternator to intermittently not charge. Finally the wire or the post burns through and no more charging. We had a mechanic who installed it and didnt torque the nut. It started acting up (low voltage light at idle, going out during runup) after about 3-4 hours. It failed completely in 32 hours.

is that the one with two screws holding the cover on?

That schematic is from a 1976 M20F Service and Maintenance Manual. However the note on the schematic says its effective from SN 24-0071 and on, whihc would be a J model. Mine is configured just like that one, wire numbers and all. Its a 77 J SN 24-0162. I think yours will be very similar. I swapped out the transistors with MOSFET transistors, soldered them up and heat shrinked all the legs, then bolted them in and connected the wires. It takes a couple hours but worth it. Here is a better screen shot of the schematic. Holler if you need additional or more info.

The water in the tanks at that point is already frozen and may precipitate out. The only danger I think is clogging a screen with ice crystals. This brought down a 777 in London.

Check your output post nut on the alternator immediately. Ours did that and it melted the post and the wire off in flight.