Cris

Original equipment so I suspect it is required. With that said I seem to remember that there was an AD that required they be removed from some models.

Hi Does anyone have a couple of the rubber fuel cap lanyards used on the R/S that I could purchase? I recall a thread on this but can't see to locate any at the moment. My S is in annual and I need a couple ASAP. Thanks Cris

If you have the control wheel steering button option you can reset the altitude without disengaging the autopilot. I'd also think that pressing the Alt button on the controller head would cycle altitude hold on and off just like it does for the other modes like Heading. I do know that a separate button can be installed on the yoke for alt hold on/off for the Stec 30 so I'd assume it is possible on the 55X since the system is upgradable for the 30 to the 55x but I don't really know.

T &G's are a hot topic most recently discussed in this thread. Mooney Down- botched go around under the General forum

Oscar your dealer would have gotten the supplement for the unit from Stec when it was sent for recertification. it should be simple for him to request a copy from Stec even if he did not keep one himself.

Cliffy- I completely concur. Understand your physiology, fly the plane, declare the emergency and live to fly another day.

Oscar- I seem to remember these are either serial number or model number specific. I can't find the Stec 55x STC for the M20C but that does not mean it does not exist. However there can't be many C models with an Stec 55x installed. I'd call the new owners of Stec ,Genesys Aerosystems, to see what they have to say. I do know there was an S-tec flight supplement on the Mooney site under documentation but I recall it was only for the long bodies. I have been going thru a similar search myself as I intend to upgrade my Stec 30 with an Stec 55x from an M20R and to be legal you must have the supplement.

Last year I spent 5 hrs at 11000' on a trip from Gulfport Ms. To Atlantic City. I then made an ILS approach with a ceiling of 600'. My normal procedure is to fly all approaches by hand. On this approach I kept finding myself pulling up above the glide slope as if I was flying the localizer in spite of the fact that I had glide slope. I kept thinking I was below the glide slope when in fact I was above it. I landed without issue but was confused by my actions. Why did I not follow the glide slope indicator? After thinking it through I realized that I was suffering from the effects of hypoxia as a result of being at 11k for five hours and then being given a rapid descent which did not allow me time to recover. As a result I immediately started using O2 and a pulse meter anytime I flew above 8K. 9k seems to be the new normal for when my O2 starts to drop off probably due to age. In April I flew to Oaklahoma City courtesy of the US Coast Guard Auxilliary for high altitude and disorientation training by the FAA. It was excellent and taught me that I have no obvious symptoms just a general decline in brain computing leading to confusion. Lesson here is get the pulse meter and find out where your personal level of O2 starts to drop and plan accordingly. You might be surprised as I was to learn how low it might be.

Thanks all. I think it probably is either a bad ground/connection or thermocouple. I was hopeful someone else with the Moritz guage pkg had the same problem and found a solution.

Maybe its accurate? Doesn't the eagle have a prohibition about idle time w/ tailwinds on the ground causing high oil temp? Once you get some some air flowing it cools off?[/quote) I believe you are referring to this "PROPELLER LIMITATIONS - Propeller is restricted from static ground operation in rear quartering winds of 15 knots or higher at RPM settings above 1350 RPM." which probably does not effect this aircraft since it has a differant prop due to the 310 HP STC

Recently, the oil temp on my Moritz guage in an Eagle reads abnormally high on the ground. As soon as I start the takeoff roll it instantly reads normal and well within the green. Any thoughts as to the cause?

On the contrary, If you don't practice touch and goes you will not be able to handle a go around when appropriate or required. As an instructor I would not sign off a pilot who could not or would not demonstrate a go around including touch and goes.

Years ago I was in a similar position with an E model and partners. After the plane was sold I decided I would acquire what I wanted which was a J and then look for a partner. It worked out just fine and I got the plane that I wanted and a new partner. At the time I justified the expense as a golf club membership on an annual basis. As it turned out the plane cost nothing as it was a time of increasing values on used aircraft but I expected and planed for a loss.

Don't know what you have for avionics but it would be helpful to know. As an example if you have a PS Engineering audio panel one button might be for the Audio recorder that records the last few messages received so that they can be played back. A KLN 94 GPS will allow for frequencies to be accessed vis a vis it's "quick tune" system with an optional yoke switch. Some nav/coms also allow the frequencies to be switched with a yoke switch. King transponders like the Kt 76C also use a yoke switch to Ident. So what avionics do you have?

Not being an engineer, I am not sure about how to get a better gross weight or more speed/efficiency. However I have heard that the airframe is pretty close to its max ability to be tweaked. Thus I'd vote for a new fuselage/design. Although I'd not buy a fixed gear A/C that might be an answer to an entry model esp. with an automotive style cabin. How often do we hear how "small" the Mooney cabin is compared to others and I'm talking about the long bodies! The seating/entry position is the issue and many will argue with measurements but as they say perception is reality. Throw in the two doors and parachute and yes it is now similar to the Cirrus/Cessna products but with more speed/ efficiency. However the wing is the thing and perhaps new engine combo's like diesel & TN provide the product differentiation required in the market place. Since the parachute sells I'd emphasize the almost unbreakable Mooney wing which would provide another safety feature. I think one could give up on the steel roll cage if the fuselage was somehow designed like a car to provide crashworthiness and increase useful load. Maybe composite panels for the wing would also reduce weight to increase the useful load? Over time I have become increasingly concerned over the obsolescence of the glass panels. It is like computers but with a somewhat longer life span. The glass is determining the value of the airframe! Think of the issue of Wass and the G1000 panels on the Mooney. While some orphaned avionics can be repaired, as time goes on there will be fewer parts and techs not to mention mfg.'s to fix this stuff. So I vote for simple panels with glass options or maybe better glass such as the new rule rewrite. We will see.

The bottom of the filler on the S is 75 gals. and on the R 89 gals. The 310 STC for the S allows for the fuel capacity to be increased to 89 gals. but needs to be measured from an empty tank. There is a Mooney drawing which allows for the tanks to be filled to the top of the wing which gives 100/102 gals. I use a manual fuel tube to determine the actual quantity before flight between 75 gals (bottom of the fill baffle) 89 gals marked on the baffle and and the top of the wing skin.

Mike Very well done! Safety first through out the process. Kudo's to you

Nope It required a new governor don't know why.

The info above is correct and is what I initially had on my Eagle. However on the day of purchase I flew it to Midwest and had the 280hp upgraded to the 310 hp version. It required a new prop governor and tach as well as the paperwork but much cheaper than an a initial upgrade from the 244 hp version due to the fact that the three blade prop was retained. Depending on serial number you may or may not need a new prop gov. The cost at the time was 5k which I thought was a bit pricy but they were the only game in town and are great to deal with. I understand that the original STC developer/holder Bob Minnis of Minnis aviation (678-398-9781 cell 678-361-5696) who sold Midwest Mooney can also do this upgrade so maybe the costs will be less. And yes the performance difference is dramatic. Coming out of a J I did not want less T/O or climb performance not to mention the increase in useful load (1122 lbs) in my case and range.

In thousands of Mooney hours I have had but one baggage door opening which happened on takeoff as a result of not fully latching the door- my bad but no damage just need to slow down and land. Personally I subscribe to the possibility of a Good Samaritan helping out through the baggage door which would need to be unlocked. I like that better than worrying about possible damage to the A/C due to an inadvertent opening. Just my opinion but I put this in the category of safety first.

The 12 years to TBO really grates on me as it is such an obvious attempt by the engine mfg's to drum up business. There does not appear to be any metrics indicating safety issues nor has the FAA issued AD's on engines with more that 12 years of service. If one has a seal problem or any problem you will repair it before you fly. This is not an issue with commercial flights as they fly so much that they never hit the 12 year mark. Like Hank says you are unlikely to find someone pricing an aircraft as if it is runout based on time alone. Nor might I add is that reflected in the A/C blue book on pricing.

I'd respectfully suggest that the jury is still out on this. In my own case I have been taxiing and pulled the throttle back to slow only to have the engine die. That was due to the throttle linkage being maladjusted but maybe something similar was in play in this incident. With that said a steep turn from base to final with low fuel might have caused loss of fuel flow similar to the POH again in my case that prohibits turning take offs with less than 12 gals. of fuel per side.

And finally....Cris...the screamin eagle seemed to be the worst of both planes, but I am admittedly not up on the eagle. The eagle has the extra cylinders but not the hsp, so it seemed to cost more but not do much more. But I haven't thought of the screamin eagle upgrade. Does that Upgrade have basically the same charactersiks as an Ovation? The Screamin Eagle has the same 310 hp STC as the Ovation 3 but better performance since it is generally lighter. Search the thread for info. In terms of cruise speed even the base 244 hp model will beat a J. In terma of the Moritz guages I had mine repaired when I purchased it three years ago and no problems since. Essentially the Volt/ Amp switch did not work but the factory repaired it including new lights for that cluster guage for under $400. As KSMoniac pointed out the Eagle is a great value and is the best of both AC as opposed to the worst assuming you find one with the 310 HP upgrade. Some early conversions had a 280 hp upgrade also.

Having owned several J' s and my current Screamin' Eagle I would say the cost to own the Ovation look-a-like is certainly no more and probably less than the J. Part of the reason is that the Eagle has simpler and latter model systems than a well equipped J like the autopilot. Also the Eagle in my case is a latter model airframe with lower TT so things seem not to wear out and I like the fact that it has benefited from the j upgrades over the years. I guess the answer is to buy the newest and best airframe you can given ones budget.