smccray

I don't believe they've addressed it.

Wow- old thread I’m still around every once in a while.

I got was successfully insured with roughly 90 hrs total time and 0 retract. Was 10 years ago, but I doubt things have changed with the J market. @Parker_Woodruff can get you setup.

This. It’s small and easy to keep on for the whole flight vs checking periodically.

Did you land LOP? Engine quit on roll out after reducing power? I’ve done that by mistake in my J.

I did my instrument rating in my former J with a GNS480 and a 6 pack. Great navigator, and a decent setup to fly IFR safely. The plane took good care of me. I replaced the panel soup to nuts in my A36. I chose a 750 and a 255, so a single gps navigator with a second nav/comm. it’s a great setup. I haven’t felt limited not having a second GPS. I have a Garmin portable on the panel as well. The only thing it’s used for is traffic / XM radio. Between the portable, the mfd in the G500, and an iPad, I didn’t see the need for a second navigator. I still don’t. If I were flying charter (meaning no GPS —> loss of revenue), or regularly flying on a very tight schedule in any weather, the calculus would be different. The situational awareness with the glass is so much easier than flying with a 6 pack and an autopilot without altitude preselect. I agree with Don- I wouldn’t fly ifr without a second attitude indicator.

It’s all systems plumbing- I love having a circulation pump on the hot water, but it does increase the cost. Look at a timer for the circ pump. Absolutely no plumbing on outside walls. Hose bibs come down from above with a separate shut off. Drain the hose bibs supply lines after you shut off the valves. A hot and cold hose bib is an inexpensive addition when you’re building from scratch, and hot water from a hose is awesome. electrical- wire a sub panel for a generator. Talk to people in your community for best practices. Sump pumps, av equipment, garage doors, etc- choose wisely. We went with the largest air cooled unit to save budget over a water cooled unit, but that requires choosing circuits strategically. Separate from the generator, think about plug / switch locations for any holiday lights and landscape lighting. insulation- we just remodeled a stick built house and foamed the house (open cell). I love it for the stability of the temperature in the house. Lesson learned- spend more money on air sealing and less on HVAC. hvac- worth investigating radiant heat. Not applicable down in Texas so I don’t have any personal experience, but the story is that anyone that has lived with radiant heat won’t live in a house without it. We have added electric radiant in bathrooms, but for whole house you probably want water. sips/ alternative structure- choose a builder with knowledge of the systems (including foam/ generators/ plumbing systems/ etc) that you’re using. If the contract doesn’t have experience, you will have more knowledge on the new system than the contractor. What’s the point? You will kick yourself- I know we made some mistakes in this area. You’ll end up with a better product tweaking a builder’s normal approach vs introducing a new product (e.g. stick build but modify using foam insulation instead of sips with an unfamiliar builder). Gas- can’t help with the decision on cooking appliances, but burying a huge propane tank to supply gas appliances and a generator is a fantastic option, albeit an additional expense over all all electric. I’m assuming you don’t have natural gas. low voltage- Smurf tube is cheap- let’s you get to the back of your tvs if you ever need too. If you want powered shades, wire for it up front. Screen innovations has a great product. I hate trusting wireless connections and category cable / rg6 coax is cheap. Running fiber optic hdmi through the Smurf tub after construction is a piece of cake. Paradigm contractor grade speakers are absolutely fantastic, but they know it and they’re priced accordingly. Check out Matt Risinger on YouTube. There’s some good info there, but it’s promotional content disguised as education. the biggest challenge is the multitude of choices of what to do. You sit down with a blank piece of paper and on a custom build you can do anything you want to do. The breadth of choices is perhaps the biggest challenge to making final decisions. bring your wife with you to TX next time and we’ll sit down over a glass of wine. Merry Christmas!

There isn't enough margin to make it work. 1980s J model, buy for $100K, interior, paint, panel, manufacturing cost- have to charge $350-400K to the buyer to make it work. At the end of the day the buyer still has a 40 year old airplane, or for the same money avionics are similar to a 00's SR20 or SR22. Perhaps that could work for the long bodies and include the rumored gross weight increase (needed!) and it would work.

Okay- you’re 100% right. IO360 is 50HP per cylinder. Definitely big bore. the $100k more is capital cost, not operating cost. Yes, it’s all $, but there is a difference. An extra $500 per month @ 6% interest. You get the principal back when you sell. $6-10k in incremental debt service is real money (to me), but cost to upgrade from a J to an R is easily a $10-20k expense, plus the expense to bring the inevitable post purchase deferred maintenance on two airplanes. I love the J. It doesn’t get any more cost efficient for a traveling plane. On the down side, the newest planes are 25 years old. The ovations are newer and more available. Plus- A/C without hauling ice- awesome. My old J was a hauler- 640 lbs with full tanks. Plenty of fuel sipping at 9 gph. One problem- my wife wasn’t comfortable. The R has more space in the front seats. It’s not a Beech, but the long body has some space advantages too. The Ovation doesn’t haul (legally) as well as the J, but it’s a hell of a plane. Story time- when I was ready for an upgrade, I told my wife once per quarter that I was going to upgrade to an ovation after owning the J for many years. She said no for 18 months. The last time I talked to her I wasn’t asking and she didn’t say no- she just said not a Mooney. The best plane for any mission is the one your wife likes!

I agree with the sentiment! But- there’s a gap in the assertion- why a J instead of any one of a number of other planes. Lancair or RV makes more efficient airframes, albeit non certified aircraft. Some other 4 place aircraft are a little more spacious, have more useful load, and are just a little slower. So why a J over those aircraft? There really isn’t much of an argument for the J in favor of alternatives mentioned above where the O doesn’t fit better. The J is slightly less expensive, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the cost delta between the R and the J isn’t a major factor. It’s very unlikely that a J is in the budget but the R isn’t. The cost to buy a J then upgrade to an R later will be huge- likely eliminating any benefit to starting with a J. The delta just isn’t that great, and no one flies a Mooney (or any other traveling airplane) to fly slow! I won’t last… but my 4 year maintenance cost on my A36 is about the same as any 4 year period I owned my J. Fuel bill? Let’s not talk about that… I bought my J out of fear of owning a plane. It was the right choice for me- my J took very good care of me. I don’t regret the decision to buy it. Life is a journey- but now that I have that experience I understand why most traveling aircraft have big bore engines.

A J is a fantastic airplane… but add two more cylinders and make it an Ovation… This won’t be a popular opinion, but I’ll throw it out there for consideration. The carrying cost for a 6 cylinder isn’t that much more than a 4 cylinder. Fuel burn is higher, but if you’re worried about fuel burn, slow down and the fuel economy (fuel cost per mile) is pretty close to a J. Insurance will be a little higher due to value, and the engine cost will be a little more since you’ll need to budget for cylinders on a continental, but- hangar is the same, annual inspection is only marginally more expensive. I won’t mince words- the long body operating cost will be more than a J, but not that much more. Biggest cost difference is likely cost of capital (principal invested or debt)- and you get that back when you sell. You’re talking about a $100k upgrade to the plane. I suspect you recover a little more of your investment when you sell with the big bore engine. Why? Because the market is bigger. How many sr22s are sold vs sr 20s? Why did Mooney discontinue the J In the 90s? People want speed in a traveling airplane. You’re Texas based- the io550 gives you the option for A/c. That was a requirement when I upgraded my J. okay… let me have it…

This plane looks familiar...

Fair question- and someone smarter than me can quickly tell me I'm wrong. The J model cowling was really tight- it wouldn't have fit. Not sure if the Ovation engine setup gives a little extra room. Two smaller turbos may be easier to fit than one large as is used in the TAT setup. The latest released version of the A36 also includes an intercooler located under the right side of the engine. There's a lot of equipment to fit in a notoriously tight cowling. I'd also be concerned about cooling- someone above mentioned the size of the inlets which seems like a valid concern. I'd also be concerned with the added equipment in the cowling restricting air flow too much even if the nostrils turn out to be big enough. I'm just a guy throwing flags from the cheap seats. Fortunately the guys at TAT know their stuff.

I hope they get to the Ovation- will make a really nice airplane. I don't have any experience with an Ovation, but if the cowling is as tight as my old J, a conversion will end up requiring a new cowling just to fit in all the components. So Gami/TAT will take a bit to get to that new project. First they have to get G100UL distribution figured out (AOPA says they got the STC today). Then they have a modification in the works for the A36- they leaked a photo on beech talk a while back- likely includes the new electronic ignition. Facilitates running more fuel through the system (more HP). There's also talk about a TN B58- apparently there's a plane flying with the conversation, so we'll see what happens on that front. A36: https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2804990#p2804990 B58: https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=207537&view=unread#unread

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more- 100%. The M20TN is an amazing airplane. However, when my wife says "not another Mooney" when I started talking about an upgrade, plus 2 young kids, I needed useful load :). I would buy Mooney as a whole valued only as a parts business only. Shut down access to as many parts as possible to sources outside the Mooney factory and raise prices by 300%. Any desirable upgrade, including G1000 NXI upgrades, or 300 HP upgrades to Ovations (etc) just got a lot more expensive, potentially becoming available only at the "factory." Setup one of the well known MSCs (DMax, whatever Dugosh is now) as the "Mooney Factory" and take a cut of the revenue. As soon as I get sued for a faulty part, declare bankruptcy and walk away. Assuming the lawyers could get it done (and I have no idea if it's possible), isolate the type certificates from the parts business from the production facilities. Sell the production certificate to Uber, other VC, or even to Moller (the skycar is going to happen this time!). Retain the type certificates and STCs in some sort of IP holding company and see what happens long term, or find someone to sell them to after the initial pop of upgrades. I have zero interest in doing that, even if the current owners would sell me the company for $1. I would figure out how to build one more airframe which I would immediately donate to a captive 501c3 flying museum which I would fly to promote aviation and to preserve the Mooney history. Everywhere I go supports the mission of the museum, so it would of course be paid for using funds donated to the museum. If the strategy above is legally possible, I suspect someone will buy the production facility, then sell off the Mooney parts later. Under this scenario, the seller wouldn't sell for only the value of the parts business.

I don't believe that Mooney could sell 100 air frames per year. The current product just isn't competitive in this environment. If Mooney couldn't make it in the last 10 years with easy/cheap money, the combination of what Mooney is selling just doesn't work. We can argue about the timing of the next recession, but the business cycle isn't dead. A recession is coming- how does Mooney make it through? If I were looking at a new airplane, I wouldn't consider a Mooney. That's a tough reality on a Mooney forum, but Mooney wouldn't even be in the running. Beech wouldn't be in the running either. I don't have any confidence that the companies will still be supporting the aircraft in 3 years. I hate to say it, but if I were to buy a new plane (or nearly new plane for that matter) the only thing out there I would consider is a Cirrus. Even if Mooney announced a fully certified in production 4 seat pressurized turboprop with full FIKI, air conditioning, and enough useful load to fly 1000 miles @ 300 ktas with IFR reserves and 750 lbs of baggage for $1.5M, I still wouldn't trade with the company- without someone with deep pockets that can demonstrate that the company has the staying power (and at $1.5M price tag I don't think they do). I assume the value here is the production certificate. Someone will buy it and sell a new aircraft build to venture capital. Maybe Raptor Aircraft will move to Kerrville and start building planes... I wish the greatest success to the eventual buyer.

asset purchase would do that- but- how does an asset purchase affect the production certificate? I'm sure it's movable, but I also suspect it isn't as trivial as a simple asset purchase. I'm not an attorney, but I've played this game in the healthcare space. We execute asset purchases but it isn't a trivial process.

Agree completely. Even if the company generated a contribution margin on the parts sales, I doubt they're making much of a dent in the overhead. Outlook doesn't look good... However... it may be a great opportunity to make a small fortune in aviation... just start with a big one

I notice the date on that presentation is 12/2020. I would expect the seller to be able to show some meaningful progress on those initiatives- including the list of items identified as 2021 opportunities- over the last 10 months if they expect to sell the company as anything more than a parts business/ faa part 21 certificate.

I don’t know ! I don’t have any personal experience with old radials, but I bet you have some stories!!! Wish i could buy you a beer at Oshkosh! No doubt! However, we’re operating on the assumption that operating “over square” is lugging the engine. I’m quickly out of my depth here, but I haven’t seen a full explanation of that statement either. If we take the scenario of reducing the RPM while keeping a high throttle (lugging), I believe you’re increasing internal cylinder pressure (ICP) assuming fixed engine timing and fixed mixture setting. Higher ICP leads to higher heat which leads to detonation. By that definition, lugging is certainly bad- and I think you’re analogy to a car is exactly right. However, this “over square” condition isn’t itself a problem. We can manipulate the mixture, rich or lean of peak, controlling the combustion event, and the engine is no longer experiencing the high ICPs expected with lugging an engine. The problem isn’t the over square operating condition, it’s the fuel air mixture (as measured in each individual cylinder). As you mentioned, turbo aircraft generally operate “over square” in cruise. I hear you that there’s a rule of thumb/ short hand that is used. It makes sense to make new concepts simple as much as possible for people learning. However, these old rules of thumb seem to drive a lot of misunderstanding. As you noted, pilots think they can pay less attention by following rules of thumb- they think they’re making choices to be easier on the engine when in fact they’re doing the opposite.

Yes- that's the explanation I've heard, but I've also heard that it's more applicable to the old radials than it is to a "modern" piston engine. Hard to call the old technology we fly "modern" but it seems relevant distinction, particularly with a well balanced fuel distribution. As with the extra fuel at full throttle on the bonanza, the rule of thumb is actually harder on the engine.

That's exactly what the Bo install does. Full throttle is actually better for the engine vs a post takeoff power reduction.

I've heard the oversquare rule of thumb. I haven't ever heard an explanation of why it's better for the engine. I have tried an after takeoff RPM reduction to 2500 rpm and reduce the MP by 2", full rich. The engine runs hotter compared to everything full forward. In other words, more HP, cooler engine. I don't know if it's just a Bonanza peculiarity, a Continental engine setup, or common to all plane/engine combinations, but it's easy to try in your own airplane. In my J, I flew basically WOT, 2500 RPM, lean for constant EGTs in the climb, lean to peak in cruise (over 8K MSL). Descend in the green WOT without changing the mixture, then power back/mixture to ROP to land. It's pretty simple...

I don't have it in an electronic form, but I found a link: http://www.malusflyers.com/Malus_Flyers/Malus_Flyers_files/AFMS-550 Rev H.pdf Even Tornado Alley played the game of saying "equal or better" to original POH. In my mind that's a regulatory hurdle. There is extensive info in the attached document about lean of peak operations. I haven't read the detail, but the recommended setup changes based on the TAT setup, meaning WhirlWind II is a little different than the WhirlWind III. The specifics probably don't really matter if you're looking for an operating methodology for a Mooney install, but the background is likely helpful- google is your friend. All engine systems really have to be operating in good condition to get the performance out of the engine. Garmin records all of the engine parameters every flight. My CHTs rarely exceed 380, and then I make adjustments (e.g. fuel pump, mixture setting, airspeed) to reduce CHTs. In cruise, CHTs are general low to mid 300s. Oil temps are in the green. Generally the oil only gets hot sitting on the ground at a busy airport waiting to depart. I'm unable to to push 17.5 GPH thorough my engine generally and to stay cool. In the winter I'm able to get to the low 17 GPH, but in the spring/summer I generally see ~16.5. It may be because my engine is high time, or it may be something else- but I'm pretty close to book numbers on speed. An interesting side note- when I installed new spark plugs, I installed cooler plugs. I was able to push a little extra fuel through the engine and stay cool. The engine is really fine tuned- small changes to the setup have an impact on the final results.

There is a lot of info out there on ROP vs LOP operations. Look here, look at Beechtalk, and you'll find more opinions than you care to read. Beechtalk has a lot of LOP advocates; the community doesn't seem to be very tolerant of the ROP advocates, so tread lightly over there. The data does seem to indicate that the engine health and life is better running the Continental IO-550 LOP. I fly a TN engine. The Tornado Alley setup wouldn't be possible to run the engine ROP. The setup requires a lot of extra fuel while running ROP to keep CHTs in check. Target is 1310 TIT when ROP; 36 GPH full throttle, still a lot of fuel at high MP. LOP, the engine can be setup at ~1570 TIT wide open throttle burning 16.5-17 GPH. I wouldn't be happy with the CHTs on your engine monitor. You might try setting up your engine LOP. I assume you pulled back the throttle a bit. The Bonanza setup is wide open throttle, 2500 RPM, and adjust the mixture to 50-70 degrees LOP (based on TIT). Based on the numbers from my old J, I bet you run less fuel, less heat, and comparable TAS.