johnggreen

Bob, Just read this post and called my mechanic who pulled the maintenance manual on my 2000 Bravo. We do, indeed, have check valve manifold because we have two vacuum pumps, but my manual does not list it as a time limited part either. My mechanic maintains that since my aircraft is flown part 91, that it is completely optional as to whether or not it is replaced at the time limit shown in kgbpost's post. Not meaning to bitch, kgb, but sure wish everyone would sign off with their name. These monikers are confusing, hard to remember and mighty unpersonal. My daddy always told me to shake a man's hand, look him in the eye, and tell him your name. How do you do? I'm John Green and pleased to make your acquaintenance.

George, Very sage advice. As a CFII, I am approached on a regualr basis by people who profess an interest in learning to fly. As much as I want to promote GA, after questioning them as to their motives, needs, wants, time, and financial ability, it is the rare person that I encourage to go forward. The limitations of equipment and pilot skill must be taken seriously from the very beginning or huge disappointments will be in store. I have a FIKI Bravo, 6,000 hours of flying experience, and regularly have to make a 700 nm trip to DC right up the Apppalachian Valley. Fortunately, I know the limitations of both my airplane and of its pilot. Low IFR, thunderstorms, ground induced turbulence in the mountains, and 50 knot headwinds in the winter, dictate that 1/3 of the time "Delta is ready when you are". Anyway, we are, I think, on the same page. I most often see real value in your comments and have often wanted to compliment, so take this as that compliment. As a Navy pilot, you are apparently living my dream. Growing up, all I ever wanted to do was become a military pilot. I failed the pilot physical during the second year of ROTC on a "temporary" condition brought on by strep throat. By the time it cleared up, I was married and out of law school. So much for dreams. Anyway. Good luck and get home safe. Jgreen

Jonh, There are many good, valid reasons to purchase an airplane, and good, valid reasons (depending on your mission profiles) to purchase a Mooney. I encourage you to explore them. On the other hand, you have set forth a fairly definite profile of what is driving your investigation of purchasing a Mooney. You want to purchase an $80,000 Mooney to transport four people over 1000 miles, with increased flexibility as to when you go (and arrive I assume), save time over the airlines, and do so with a cost savings over airline tickets. I mean no insult or offense to anyone by my answer. You asked a question and you want (I assume) and deserve an honest response. Here is mine: preposterous. The scenario you propose and the benefits therefrom are so far from reality as to be pure fantasy. I'm sorry. Jgreen

As much as I hope they are recovered in some semblane of "restorable" condition, I have my doubts. I will first have to note that "experts believe" leaves me skeptical. If I thought I had found a buried Spitfire 4-6 feet deep, you may bet that I would wear a shovel out post haste to verify. If found, being buried, may not be any better than had they been sitting on the ground. The acidity of the soil is going to have a lot to do with whether anything of value survived. Where I live, we have very acidic soil. Anything metal left in contact with it for long will vanish in a few years, even bronze fittings on water lines. Anyway, I hope I'm wrong and badly so. Now, if Amelia Earhart would just come walking up arm in arm with Elvis. Sorry, don't mean to be too cynical; just bored. I think I'll go clean out my hangar. Jgreen

Jetdriven, Now you tell me! Jgreen On another note, i have a question about Foreflight that I need answered, but right now have to go to two engagement parties. Later.

I became a fan of mineral spirits when I owned a Beech 18. Wow, that took a lot of cleaning. Not so funny story about Simple Green. I had flown over to a private airport owned by a friend. I was in my J-3 Cub which is painted in white and red dope. Friend start raving about this new cleaner called Simple Green. He tells his son to go get the pump up sprayer and spray SG on some oil running down the side of the fuselage. Son does as told, sprays the fuselage with large flowing strokes and I watch to my horror as the red trim starts flowing down the side of the fuselage with the oil. Been kind of leery of SG ever since. Jgreen

I'll have to cast my lot with Steve65E. In the seven years that I have owned a Mooney and paying any attention to MAC, I have certainly not been impressed. From the minute Mooney shut down production, I have thought that the prospect of Mooney ever going back into production is so completely unrealistic as to be fantasy. Should I be proven wrong, I will put on a large bib and eat my crow with a large spoon. My opinion, expressed by letter to the editor of MAPA was met with a fanciful rendition of how special Mooneys are, like Ferraris, and the factory is coming back because they are just such special hand made airplanes, blah, blah, blah, bull hookey. Now, I'm sure I have irritated a few people, but like Steve seems to imply, I think the best we can hope for is for some talented, small, hands on operation to buy out the company for the ten cents on the dollar that it is worth and continue to supply the 6,000 plus flying Mooneys with parts. OK, I'll log off now so you can proceed to kill the messenger. Nobody really likes the hard truth. Jgreen

I keep my CFII current but do little instructing as my work schedules between my business and ranch are pretty complete. That being said, I would help out a fellow pilot and usually do when called to the line. John Green Grenada, MS

I truly enjoy the Bravo. Still, I would truly love to move up to a larger, maybe faster, maybe pressurized, maybe etc.,etc. airplane. I have crunched the numbers on everything fomr a Matrix and Mirage to a Meridian, to a turbine 210, a 421/414 and P Baron. Some, I could afford, some I could pay for but couldn't afford and some, well, I could sell a kidney I suppose. When you crucnch the numbers, it is amazing how much you get from a Bravo for so little money. A TBM 850, after the two mil plus investment is several hundred thousand a year in operating costs if you fly it enough for it to make sense. I'm sure Roberto can back me up on this. Even with a pressurized twin like a 421, you can scare 100m per year in operating cost pretty quickly. To truly enjoy owning an airplane, its ownership and operating costs should be, relative to your income, almost unnoticeable. I don't ever want to own any plane that when I contemplate firing it up and taking a trip, or a flight around the corner that the cost of doing so gives me any pause. Hey, I guess you could call that "wisdom" and yea, it appers that comes with age and lots of experience with **** hitting the fan when you least expect it. I guess what I'm saying is that for now, with two children still in professional schools, the Bravo has a feature that I really like; I can afford it. Jgreen

I took the on line course of Advanced Pilot Seminars, the LOP gurus, and learned a lot more than I thought I knew about the combustion event. To keep it simple and not lecture, because I don't feel qualified to lecture, consider the following. Your NA engine is capable of 100% power at sea level on a standard day. Above that you are producing less than 100%. The mixture is "set" to allow the engine to produce 100% power and keep comustion temps and pressures under control at sea level. From the minute you leave "sea level" conditions, you are now producing less than 100% power and some mixture adjustment is desireable, otherwise you are running too rich, blowing unburned fuel out the exhaust, and may be producing even less power than that of which the engine is capable. Hence the target EGT. Note your EGT at full power sea level then as you climb and the power produced drops, you continuously lean to that target EGT and maintain that until you get to altitude. One of the most important things I learned from the Advanced Pilot Seminar course was that when your power drops below the red zone, 65% or less, you cannot really hurt the engine by running TOO lean. If you want a quick demo of how too rich actually reduces horsepower, simply go to cruise altitude, set cruise power, and leave the mixture full rich. Then lean to best power. You will probably see an increase in a J model of 4 or 5 knots. OK, that's my two cents worth. I fly a Bravo and don't fly LOP cause my engine simply doesn't respond well; i.e. loss of lots of speed and little savings in fuel. Jgreen

You tall guys have it rough. I'm 5'-10" and yes, the world was built for us. Amost everything fits. I met a gentleman a couple of years ago who was the largest, perfectly perportioned, huge man I ever saw. He had to stoop noticeably to get through a 6'-8" door. He flew a Baron that he bought new. Beech specially modified the piot's seat for him and he seemed to have no problem. He could literally stand at the wing step of the Baron and look, unobstructed, over the fuselage. I do often hear tall Bonanza owners owners on the Beech forum looking for solutions as well. One guy suggested a Mooney and was promptly thrown off the blog. just kidding. With my "perfect" 5"-10" form, I find the Baron/Bonanza extremely comfortable. Yesterday, I gave a BFR to a gentleman in a Cirrus. My lord, it was like sitting in my La-Z-Boy. The Cirrus is one comfortable airplane! Jgreen

Jerry, There is a local pilot who two years ago moved from an Acclaim to a TBM 750. I would estimate that he had well in excess of 4,000 hours. In addition to the standard training he had to have an accompanying instructor for the first 30 hours. That, to me, seemed pretty jaundiced. Jgreen

I found George's comments about insurance and pressurization to be interesting. I don't doubt that he has valid reasons for bringing it up, but it is not a factor that I have encountered. Over the last year, I have seriously considered moving up to pressurization and more room. I looked at twins and singles. My insurance agent is a very gregarious fellow, excellent pilot, and loves talking about airplanes in addition to writing insurance. Due to the depressed market, I/he looked at various aircraft and their pros and cons. He got me all kinds of quotes on insurance and not once was the issue of pressurization raised. In fact, I was kind of surprised that I could go to a pressurized twin with almost no increase in rates/thousand of hull value. I do have a fairly broad range of experience and hours and no claims in almost 50 years of flying which I'm sure helps a lot. I am waiting with bated breath for "AGE" to become an issue though. The only real issue I encountered was that insurance companies now look at a piston pilot moving to turbine power with a serious jaundiced eye. They are going to require some serious training, real hours in the PIC seat with an instructor and elevated premiums for quite a while. After looking and considering operating and acquisition costs, I decided to just continue to enjoy the Bravo. BUT !! If I was going to move up, the Mirage would be the likely candidate, with the Meridian next if they will just start drilling for natural gas at my ranch. Yall have a good day, OK? Jgreen

Stephen, The Malibu/Mirage is the logical "step-up" from the Bravo. As you say, the speeds are equivalent, two more seats, lots more room, and pressurization. The ideal step up would be to the Meridian and turbine reliability, but that is, shall we say, a bigger dream. My flight profile is 500 to 650 nm trips and wearing oxygen gets to be tiring, how nice that pressurization would be. Though I've never even flown one, I did study operating costs and though more than the Bravo, still in the same ball park. For now, I'm still paying tuition for two sons to very expensive professional schools so the Bravo stays, but I too can dream. Jgreen

Wthin the last couple of years, I read a story about a Mooney pilot (ex Air Force pilot) who took his Mooney to 28m. No unusual circumstances were present. When he started down, he noticed the syptoms of the bends, called center and by the time he landed, he was almost completely incapacitated. They air lifted him to a decompression chamber and saved his life. Different strokes for different folks, but after studying all the available info years ago, I decided that 18m is my limit. Yes, I am erring on the side of conservatism, but that's my decision. The limitiations of single pilot, single engine, piston, non-pressurized aircraft are in my opinion significant. The only reason I'm flying a Bravo and not a pressurized turbo prop is simple; I can't afford it. Jgreen

I was just doing a tally here. It seems that comments pro/con MAPA are running about 4 to 1 con. So, I am somewhat shocked that anyone could suggest with a straight face that MAPA buying out Mooneyspace would be a positive for the Mooney community. Mooneyspace is valuable. There is a serious exchange of valuable thought 90% of the time on both pilotage questions and maintenance issues. With the demise of MAC, and it has demised regardless of what MAPA touts, we need each other badly. I don't care to bash Trey or MAPA, I have been a member since I purchased my Bravo seven years ago if memory serves me right. That being said, I can't really justify the membership. The benefits have been minimal at best and nothing compared to what I have gleaned from Mooneyspace. Many of you should take that as a compliment. So who would want to trade the success of Mooneyspace for the mediocrity of MAPA's email site or support? Not I. Jgreen

Quote: co2bruce Had mine checked, all OK. Took all of 10 minutes. Peace of mind is a wonderful thing. I sometimes have to wonder about the penny pinching around here. This is our lives and our loved ones lives on the line. If you can’t afford a half hour of service maybe flying isn't the best the best hobby for you?? OK I have my flame retardant suit on.

I had a friend who built and owned an 0-360 RV-6. I flew the airplane several times and we mad a couple of cross country trips together. It would true 175 knots all day long. I would put my money on a well built O-320 powered RV-6 being slightly faster than a 201 and smoke any E model. The more interessting comparison would be the 201 and a 225 HP Beech Debonair. I suspect they would be neck and neck. Jgreen

The majority of the people of this world live with starvation, disease, genocide and 40% infant mortality. Two billion people in this world live on one dollar a day. We, in the USA are traumatized by the normal negative events of daily life. We need counseling for everything. No wonder our enemies see us as weak. We are. Damn shame there is not some place you can buy a backbone. Jgreen

Zam, Thank you for the update. It's a good idea to consider ANY change of behavior/operation of an airplane as a possible harbinger of trouble. It usually is. Jgreen

Chuck, My Bravo runs nicely within all the desired parameters, CHT and OT regardless of power or altitude. I credit a lot of this to a really good baffling job when the engine was pulled at 500 hours for the crankshaft AD. If you oil tem guage is correct, you have a serious problem that should be sorted out now. In addition to engine wear, oil begins to break down QUICKLY at temps over 220. Jgreen

Here is a link to a local paper. Not much detail. http://www.tv3winchester.com/home/headlines/NH_Woman_Critically_Hurt_in_VA_Plane_Crash_141442103.html Jgreen

Excuse me. "That was my opinion." I'm not sure I even know what an opion is. Jgreen

Of course, I'm only hearing one side and very limited information but I have two comments. I overhaul the Slick mags on my Bravo every 400 hours +/-. I understand that you can pretty much depend on problems when they hit 500 but that is hearsay; albeit from experienced mouths. I don't like problems. Secondly, NINE WEEKS? I think the best shops figure on about 42 man hours on a Bravo annual excepting major issues. Nine weeks for an annual would in and of itself cause me to NEVER darken their doors again. In fact, three weeks would be unacceptable without some serious issues being addressed. My last annual took two weeks, but that included the overhaul of the prop and the speed brakes by 3rd parties. Now, that is just one man's opion. Jgreen

I've been using Aerox Oxsavers (with metering valves) for seven years. Completely satisfied and save lots of oxygen. You'll need masks over 18m, but I don't go there. Jgreen