M20F

What is the AD requiring the fuel hoses to be replaced every 5yrs, not familiar with that.

ROP/LOP, real men just fly PEAK!

Not having long range tanks cost me @ $3000 last year. Your mission is your mission but we need to understand they buyers mission to give them effective advice.

Pressurized pistons really don't work which is why you really don't seem them today (the Malibu isn't exactly setting the world on fire and there is no piston twin being made that I can think of). Time to climb into FL's unless there is a hell of a tailwind the climb time eats all the TAS speed gained unless you are going a very far distance. Most GA flights aren't long distances and burning 24+ in the climb limits range. I can get 160-170kts TAS between FL190-210. I fly a lot of GA long haul (mostly KDPA<->47N). Rarely does the math ever work to go high and I am looking solid west to east. If it does it is usually 15-30mins of savings to be on O2 (which is additonal cost but a bottle cost is a lot less than maintaining a pressure vessel and its acccessories). You also have all the bootstrapping, mag, no heat, 1hr of 100% power wear, lousy CHT cooling issues to deal with.. Money, time, fuel, reality is it just doesn't work to fly pistons in the FL's consistently thus no reason to be pressurized. While one can say Mooney could have made a turbine single in the 60's it sort of falls into the same issue as the M22. The engines available at the time just didn't work. Look on FlightAware at turbo Barons, super charged Tbones, turbo Senneca's, turbo Mooney's, turbo Bonanza's, etc. and they are all 9-11k feet.

Believe the M22 was 5 not 6 seat.

Engine had a lot of issues, didn't really live up to performance expectations, expensive. The engine was probably the largest issue though and had that been right might have changed things. There is one flying around KFME that a co-worker knows the owner of. For various reasons I haven't made it out to see it yet. Believe there is one in SD as well.

There is a lot of variability in battery life depending on how it is treated. Airplane batteries tend not to recharge after being totally killed, rapid charging hurts them, etc. Somebody with more electrical engineering skills can probably explain why but they don't work like car batteries.

About 1kt faster in my F with seat all the way back. To the OP would see if the issue repeated itself a couple of times before I got to crazy. Could be fuel, you aren't actually level, etc.

If you are coordinated it would be the same. If not though it would be a wild ride. My control surfaces don't work very well at FL210 up. It definitely isn't the same flying 110KTS IAS at FL250 as it is at 1000FT. There is a video of one of Bill Kershners former students took a 150 to 17500 and spun it down. I seem to recall a 210 getting to something like FL370. Absolute altitude if your patient is pretty high for most airplanes.

No pressurized mags. It gets a bit cranky leaning that high up mostly due to bootstrapping. Mostly though you run 1-2GPH richer than normal to keep cylinders cool.

I am in the pull the cylinder crowd. You can see if the cam lobes are worn, pitted, etc. which if you have a corrosion issue that is where it is going to show.

The Executive model offers many fine accessories such as a cigar lighter and a retracting step. Truly the best of all the Mooney Models. Spend $700k on an Acclaim and the step doesn't even retract, forget about having one ashtray let alone two.

I have only taken my F to 25,000 feet it took about 56 mins. It was cold :-(

The one gap there is there is no redundancy to the electricity itself. So a fire or some sort of electrical catastrophe and you are SOL. Vacuum is a separate and non-related back up system. Having both provides the highest level of redundancy and it is cheaper to boot.

If the goal is redundancy then vacuum and electric provides the best option. Personally I am not a fan of all vacuum or all electric set ups.

All the rivets on my F are smoking rivets, because it is so fast.

Can confirm speeds are correct

I guess my take is if half flaps is most lift than that is what I would want departing or doing a missed. I don't really see a compelling reason not to. I generally don't use full flaps for landing though unless the runway is really short.

Half flaps for take off, thus I like having half flaps for the go around. I always fly with the intent of a missed, not a landing. My thoughts on the topic.

The FAR's do the same

99.9% of NTSB reports I read are people doing things I scratch my head at. I have over the years had friends crash and die, great pilots who did things I scratch my head at that result in their death. I think what most miss is it isn't lack of AOA, stall horn, or a lot of other stuff. It is just a momentary lapse of reason in most cases that leads to an unfortunate incident. They are called accidents for a reason, don't succumb to the notion of invulnerability.

Pitch and power always go together to get to vRef. I can fly 18" at a lot of differing speeds depending upon pitch; I can fly 120MPH at a lot of differing pitches/power settings. Generally I find when people are having problems with glideslope, landing, etc. it is a pitch issue. They are flying a power setting per the book or other reputable source to try and hit a speed but with too much or not enough pitch (AOA). Pitch (AOA), power, and speed are all directly related so all 3 have to come together to be consistent. I will say 18" gets me to about 120 then gear at 1 dot and then 1/2 flaps at FAF coupled with 2-3" reduction puts me @500 FPM down the G/S at @ 95mph with about 5 degrees of pitch. This has worked for me in F, J, E, C's with pretty minor modifications depending on weather, weight, CG, etc. but emphasis on minor.

When the big sponge goes flying past the windshield you will know you forgot to remove it, carry spares.

Big sponge makes excellent cowl plug, for about $5.

Do not use pneumatic on the prop and review previous log entries to see what type of prop grease they are using. I use my pneumatic to do the gear.