exM20K

@A64Pilot I think we are on the same page here, except as to the cost of the big bore turbo o/h. It is shocking, but they are well in excess of $100k now, both CMI and, I believe, Lyc. I did top o/h only partially because of new components, but in my case, the jugs had been punched 0.001 over once before, so at 1700 hours, there was nothing left but to mulch them. Agree 100% on the Mike Busch-fueled anxiety over cylinder R&R. Shop had torque plates, and this sort of work happens dozens of times across the county daily w/o planes lawn-darting all over the place. -dan

My primary considerations in choosing to top a 1700 hour engine vs O/H: Treat the symptom. High oil consumption and oil that would get dirty on the first run-up (it seemed.) The CMI crankcase test scored very badly, cross-hatch was very worn, so the cylinders needed to be replaced. The rest of the engine is fine, with 0 corrosion and no metal ever in the filter, so why throw out a working reliable engine? Recent Major Components repaired or replaced. 2 Turbo’s, mags, harnesses, fuel pump all replaced within the last 100 hours. Invasive MX / Infant Mortality. Less stuff is disturbed, so less opportunity for things to be done wrong/poorly. CAPEX /Time value of money. Just to make the math easy, let’s assume optimistically that the O/H costs $100,000 more than the top. At an 8% cost of funds, that o/h costs $8000 per year more. The hours on the “new” cost another $10,000 in blue book @150 hours per year. Downtime. I need the plane to run my business. Germ tube is massively inconvenient to the point of pointlessness. Top, even though it didn’t go great, is significantly less downtime. Unless someone beats me with a money stick, I plan on keeping this plane for a while. So at the rate I’m flying, if I can get another 5 years/750 hours out of the engine, then I’m nearly $100,000 ahead on a cash flow basis. There are, of course, no guarantees, save for the skinny warranty that the overhauler offers. As @aviatoreb is discovering, these engines are astonishingly expensive (Victor super-dooper overhaul quote $130,00++), so anything that can economically extend the life of the engine in place seems prudent to me. The financial figuring, done with an appropriately dull pencil, is just rationalization. For me, it was higher confidence in the engine and less downtime that drove the decision. YMMV. -dan

Especially considering the panel height of the pre-GX or -DX Ovations, I'd go with the @DonMuncy units. I find the rosen's to be 20-30% too big in the G1000 Acclaim. Or, I suppose you could trim to fit to your satisfaction. -dan

If you post up a picture of yours, I’ll put up mine for comparison. The vendor has only a single part number, and the TKS install shouldn’t be different. I’m due for a replacement as both are etched into opacity on the top third of the radius. I just wish I knew ahead of time when I will have a few weeks of downtime. -dan

Great Lakes Aero Products makes most of this stuff. https://www.aircraftwindshieldstore.com/aircraft-parts/mooney/m20r/29-0465-up/ if you have the leading edge landing/taxi lights, they will trim and drill to fit if you send in your old ones. otherwise, it can be a bit of work. -dan

One would hope. Smooth definitely makes *me* last longer. Noise/vibration are very fatiguing on longer flights. -dan

A dedicated, fused 24V outlet on the baggage bulkhead to power the Be-Kool air conditioner. -dan

True. In my case, the engine began life as a Continental Platinum Edition, which had all the rotating bits balanced, so maybe that is why the result with a matched set of pistons is so good. -dan

Continental Service Bulletin M89-9 is an easy and effective way to see if a jug or jugs have lost their dynamic seal. It’s not always easy, but a good borescope imagery set will show the condition of the cylinder walls (corrosion and/or loss of crosshatch). I have no experience with the Savvy ring wash, but if it’s the cylinder walls, you’re probably going to need new jugs or work on what you have. I got away with punching the old cylinders 0.01 over, but that is a one-time only thing. I got 1000 hours out of that work. I recently went through the same stuff again and elected to replace all six with a balanced set from Continental, and the result has been a very smooth engine. I would strongly recommend getting the moving stuff mass balanced either from continental or from one of the good cylinder shops. -dan

USAA referred us over to Falcon in 2005 for the hangar policy. I insured my first Mooney with Falcon in 1996, back when founder John Allen owned it (and MAPA). It really is a pity to see this deteriorated state of customer service from a company that was formerly a pillar in the Mooney community. I simply cannot imagine treating my customers to unannounced 30+ percent price increases and last-second renewals. Oh, well… things change. -dan

@Hank and @Rick Junkin thanks. I’m a slow learner but headed the same way -dan

For the last 15+ years, I've done my hangar insurance at my home through Falcon. That agency has been rolled up into something called accusure insurance, and the quality of service has dropped significantly. Most recently, my hangar insurance invoice came (payable to something called Wholesure Aviation LLC) three days before due and sporting a 30% increase in premium for the same coverage. I get it that roll-ups of agencies and their books of business are money-saving events for the roller, but the larger company is unable to deliver the same or better service at the same or better price. Any recommendations on a better agent? @Parker_Woodruff do you write hangar policies on private airstrips? -dan

I’m in “Fly the Approach and Find Out” camp. I think the kids call this FAFO. The runway itself is also a decision factor. 2500x30 vs 5000x100. Big difference in the time available to execute a graceful touchdown. And, don’t forget: the anenometer may well be mounted at the FAA’S preferred 10 meter height, not the 2ish meter altitude where the flare begins. And the ATIS is, on average, 30 mins old. -dan

I believe @DonMuncy’s visors are better-sized for the Mooney cockpit. I have Rosen’s, and they feel about 20-30% too big. -dan

Here's a useful (to me) drill to get comfortable with crosswind landings: On a good X-wind day, do a normal approach, in landing configuration, crab or slip, and keep a little power in during the flare. Fly down the runway centerline, maintaining centerline with the slip. then go around and repeat or land. It may feel strange at first, but it should really raise your comfort level with your ability to be pilot-in-command rather than subject to the x-wind. -dan