Cris

Well I certainly do not have a dog in this fight but this is a classic example of being a seller vs being a buyer. Depends on which side of the fence one is on. In my own experience I have not found Wass to be an overriding deterent to any flight I have made but then I tend to go where there are ILS approaches. If I were based at a field that only had GPSS then Wass would be a requirement for me. I do know that many people passed on my Screamin' Eagle before I purchased it due to the fact it did not have Wass. For me it made no differance as I'm based at an ILS field and I knew there were new WASS boxes in the pipeline. I counted it as a plus as I got to buy the plane at a reduced price and ultimately equip it with the latest and greatest Wass box. However, I know if I do not upgrade to Wass and want to sell it will become an "issue" for the buyer either real or perceived. Minimally it will be used to negotiate the price.

Check the STC attached to the POH. It should give specifics for the preflight.

The Cheetah was my first plane that I flew following my PPL and I put a100 hrs on it before transitioning to an Piper Arrow. Think of it as a high performance 172. It looks cool and is great on the ground. It has a free castoring nose wheel so you steer it with the brakes but once you know the drill it can be parked in really tight spaces. Best of all you can fly it with the canopy open. If you like the Mooney you should like the Cheetah. But I'd rather have the Tiger as the Cheetah is a bit a anemic in the climb unless it has the climb prop. It is also glued together so some have had issues with maintenance.

The POH will say to use the fuel guage on the wing as it is more accurate on the ground than the panal guage. However it is still a rough estimate and the best bet is to use a dipstick that is calibrated for your specific A/C. You can get one from any number of sources such as Sporty's or Aircraft Spruce. Once you do the calibration you can determine the exact amount of fuel at say the bottom of the tabs or a rivet half way up the restrictor so you won't need the dipstick. In some cases like my long body the dipstick will be zero with plenty of fuel left in the tank. It simply is dry at the fill point so the wing guage or fuel computer is the only alternative.

Just tie wrap a couple of those little ketchup pkgs to the truss like Norm Smith the Mooney miser used to do. He knew exactly who had overturned the nose truss.

Just to add my two cents remember as Brett pointed out that an aircraft WILL stall at any angle and at any airspeed. This is basic airmanship taught within the first few hours of flight. Maintaining a constant airspeed as bank angle increases will eventually result in a stall. Think accelerated stall. Maintaining wings level as airspeed drops does the same. The really big disaster in a Mooney is when someone decides to do straight and level stalls with their feet lightly on the pedals as opposed to making certain that the ball is centered. That Mooney will snap roll in a heart beat and you will be in a two turn spin in which you best know how to exit. Since spin training is a thing of the past many pilots need to understand that on a base to final (as Mike says) lower the nose to increase airspeed and do not touch flaps until wings level all the while making certain the ball is centered for coordinated flight. One final point take a few minutes with your POH and look at how stall speed increases as bank angle increases and weight increases and flaps increase. It's quite revealing. In my Screamin' Eagle at 3000 lbs there is almost a 30 knot difference between straight and level and 60 degree bank angle as in an overshoot from base to final. The only saving grace for many of us is that we fly light as I am reasonably certain few if any adds 30 knots to their airspeed. So go get those AOA's or go back to basics.

Mike- IFR currency, like most forms of both aircraft and pilot currency (with the exception of landing currency) is counted in "calendar months" or, as I like to think of it, as "whole" months without regard to the day within the month. So, for example an approach that was done any time in Jan., 2013 counts until the very last day of July, 2013. The second piece is that currency - all forms of currency - are "look backs." If you are going to fly IFR tomorrow, which is any day in May, you look back 6 months - to November - and see if you have at least 6 approaches (plus the required hold and nav tracking) logged between then and now. Lastly, as Allsmiles and others said said, if you look at the currency reg, you could look at it as 7 months if you did the approach on Jan 1st as the last day of currency assuming an additional 5 approaches is midnight on July 30th.

I'm having the decals made & will send them along to you next week.

Home Depot Plumbing dept

I know the original differences of engine power and panel avionics but is the airframe and/or the interior any different? In other words if the Eagle engine were upgraded to the Ovation configuration and the avionics were the same would the Eagle be an Ovation?

Well the plane as well as Bader Field are long gone but the control tower in your picture is now part of the Naval Air Museum located at Cape May Co. airport NJ. Just a little bit of trivia.

Byron- Long body works the same but you do not need much of a flare as the A/C is already in the correct attitude for landing. I think the original OP was not actually landing the A/C but performing a go around before touchdown. I'd suggest he actually land as the tecnique will be more clear. And yes your are pointing out an issue with all of the extra steps. KISS- full power while triming down, positive rate, flaps takeoff or flaps up, gear up after obstacle clearance. Some will use two hands on the yoke for a bit more comfort.

If you are are using power for altitude and pitch for approach airspeed as you should then you will have up trim close to max at touchdown. This is a good thing as you will not have a prop strike as you reduce power to idle at about 3' above the runway and your airspeed will rapidly decay. The A/C is almost at the flare and requires very little back pressure to land correctly In the Ovation/Eagle and similar long bodies. Your approach airspeed will be 75 kts less 5 kts at 300 lbs under gross and full flaps. On the go you will have significant upforce which can be easily overcome if you are not surprised by the effort. Just try two hands on the yoke while triming down and you find it is no big deal. The only differance I might have with the above post is to leave the gear down until above any obstacles. One last point is that if you do not practice this there will come a time that you really need to do it for real as in landing long and that will be the time that one is "really surprised" . You can practice at altitude before commiting to a real landing.

I'm curious if you believe that you got the full cost of the overhaul out of the sale? If not how much did you lose? Also what type of overhaul was it ie nationally known engine mfg/shop. Reman. Factory new or field overhaul? Thanks

In general like Steve65e-nc points out people buy what looks good. New paint/interior will get a plane sold sooner as people look at that as an indication of pride of ownership and will often over look other discrepancies. Look at Vref for how an A/C is appraised. It starts with a mid-time engine so no way will one be able to recoup the cost of a factory reman. It will be necessary to fly it for awhile to get some return on the investment. At least that has been my experience. The same goes for the point often made for an A/C that has low time vs one that has high time but is regularly flown. Vref gives dollars for a low time engine or airframe as opposed to the high time regularly flown A/C. I know that is different from what many believe but that is the market reality. One can make the case that an allowance should be made "in case an engine problem comes up" but Vref does not support that argument and in fact takes just the opposite position. That is also the case with a low time airframe in that the avionics and accessories will look better and have less wear than the high time regularly flown bird. Just sayin....

In researching the Ovation 3 I found that the G1000 Wass upgrade can only be done thru Mooney at whatever price they chose to charge- 60 K? Garmin dealers can not do the waas upgrade on the Mooney G1000. Although I'm in the camp that uses the ILS there will come a time that wass is required due to ADSB etc. I'd pass on an O3 with a G1000 without wass and look for another Ovation. You can easily add the Midwest Mooney STC and get the same 310 HP. The Midwest STC allows one to use either the IO 550-G or N engine. which I believe is what Anthony was referencing but they use the fuel settings from the N version in either case. The baffling on the N is a bit differant but the real differance is the cylinders which come from the factory rated for 310 HP.

I do intend to go. This will be my 1st trip to SnF. I am hoping to determine what type of wass units will be available besides Garmin. Should be lots of hands on. Anyone know the closest hotel to the field? Preferably something like Comfort suites?

You might consider an Hoskins FT 101 which many of the early Mooney's had. They give fuel flow and total fuel used. I seem to remember putting a used one in a 78 201 and was able to hook it up to the factory transducer. Check in the parts for sale forum. There wear several available.

There have been a couple of these systems that have come up for sale from time to time. I spoke to cav to see if they would install the used parts but they were less than enthsiastic. I tried several times to get a quote to no avail, It might be like trying to get an STC from S-tec to install a used autopilot. It's possible but unlikely as there are lots of hoops and very expensive. In the end I decided it would be much more cost effective to sell what I have and buy another with the TKS already installed. Better yet keep what I have and don't fly in any iceing conditions.

Anthony makes a good point with the size of the new unit. In upgrading from a Gem 610 to a G2 I had to purchase a new 8' harness which I complained about. I think that has been resolved as the web site now shows that the "new upgrade" includes a new 8' harness but without the probes. In addition the probe analysis saved me countless hours of troubleshooting as it immediately showed which probe had a loose connection when we tested the installation. That feature also allows for replacement of a probe as it nears the end of its usefull life as it is constanly monitored.

I agree with you it is a violation of the FARs but how or why am I going to be "a accident waiting to happen"? Sure its breaking a FAR if I operated it this way but it dosent increase my chances of crashing anymore than anyone else's flying a newer MSE at 2900lbs. Sure all the published numbers change in the POH, but they don't change significantly and I'm not cutting it that close anyway. I also have the newer MSE performance data as a reference. Ok This is really silly " Sure all the published numbers change in the POH, but they don't change significantly and I'm not cutting it that close anyway. I also have the newer MSE performance data as a reference." If you actually do check the performance chart for a 2740 lb Mooney at 20 C, 2000' pressure alt and a 6 kt headwind you will find it needs 1850' +- to get over a 50' obj. while the 2900 lb Mooney with similar conditions requires 2850' +- which means you need 1000' or 54% more runway than the lighter version. And yet you think the numbers "don't change significantly"? Really?

Chris, As for you, I certainly think your rant is a bit numerous especially coming from a industry pro. The FAA can come ramp check me anytime they want. I just went though one, and if I'm over weight then I'll suffer the consequences and won't ask you to pay the fine or deal with whatever comes, does that sound fair? There are so many areas of judgment that come into flying that aren't illegal but are down right dangerous that were allowed as pilots to use wise judgment. The only reason our early m20Js dont have a stc available is because it would cost and excessive sum of money to create the stc to bring previous "J"s upto the higher gross weight which would only be a change of airspeed indicator,a slight revision to the data in the POH and a weight in the elevator. I also don't put myself in situations where I need to cut it that close where the 50' obstacle clearance data would be needed. I don't cut it that close and if I do push the published 2,740 number I start looking at a variety of factors and exponentially increase runway length obstetrical clearance, DA ect. I fly this bird 250-300 hours a year and have never put myself in a position that didn't have what I would consider acceptable margins. Every pilot chooses how to operate his or her aircraft and has to be prepared to deal with any consequences resulting from such operation. I have evaluated mine and in no way telling any one else how to operate there aircraft with relation to gross or over gross weight. I think you should choose more wisely about what events you try to tie together. I don't remember asking you to judge anyway. The issue that I have is simple "FLY SAFE" 1st and last. You are clearly in violation of the FAR's. Part 91.9 states in part "You may not operate contrary to any limitations specified in that(POH) manual". The limitations section in your 1978 POH is 2740 lbs. Anything above that is not a "technical violation" It is an actual violation unless you have gotten an FAA waiver for some reason. Part 91.13 states in part "You may not operate your airplane in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of others". I am not judgeing. You have judged yourself and you have been found wanting. I am stating for the record that you lack judgement and you are on a path to disaster. I only hope I do not have to read how your quibbling as we used to say in the military has gotten you into serious difficulty or killed innocents. Here's an idea. If you think this is so trival and within the scope of your authority as a pilot, why not call the FAA up and ask them how they might comment on your behavior. In the years I've been part of this blog I can not recall anyone that has publically shown such disregard for the FAR's or for safety in general. You are truly an accident waiting to happen.

Thanks to all! Now if I could only find someone who wants to sell an S-tec remote gyro..

Really? Why not just send this off to the FAA so they can do a ramp check next time they see your N number. Just maybe we might have one less statistic. What you are doing is flat out wrong and smacks of very poor judgement. Sorry but this is an area that really should not be advertised on this forum as acceptable behavior. Next I'd wonder if you were equally comfortable in trying to take off overweight over a 50' object using the standard POH figures. Seems we had a death last year on this forum (who took several innocents with him) with someone trying to do just what you are subscribing to as acceptable. Knock it off!!!

Attached are a few pictures of an S-tec pressure transducer. At issue is the tube extending from the transducer. Should it be attached to the static line or not? In diagnosing an issue with the HSI I got under the panel only to find that a static line near to the pressure transducer is capped off with a temporary fitting. I'm thinking this occured as a result of a pitot static IFR cert. last year. It would seem that it never was replaced and I have been using inside cabin pressure to set the altitude on my S-tec 30. But as I am not sure that the static line should be attached to this transducer I thought I'd ask if anyone knows the answer? Separately I have an S-tec St-180 HSI compass system. The compass system part is not working. I need a St-6444 or St-6444-01 remote gyro. Does anyone have one that they have removed for upgrade. Thanks.