AndyFromCB

And don't forget that it would only be a replacement for STEC55X systems because Avidyne does not do its own servos. Also, you'd need Aspen to drive the autopilot as well.

One more pricy item I forgot to mention in my list. -Exhaust to turbo transition, make sure it's not cracked, check for pinholes and general wall wear. I would very much recommend checking the entire system for leaks with smoke.

Few more things on this vintage: -check that oxygen bottle and regulator are not expired -test the speed brakes in flight, make sure they extend and retract properly at all speeds -when was the last time the propeller has been looked at -time gear biscuits have been in service -check, then double check and then triple check the engine mount for chafes over the 10% limit -make sure the turbo v band clamp has not been loosen/tightened more than allowed -tanks -test flight the autopilot in all modes

It sure didn't feel like it in Jackson Hole last summer, but you are right, per capita, they are down. But with so many more people around the world having more money, my favorite places seem overrun these days.

Well, you've got 2 knots to play with as things stand today according to your Ovation POH. Bet you could do what Cirrus did and get another knot by lowering the flaps just a tad more. Then there are VGs that are good for 4 more knots. I don't have my calculator but I'm fairly positive 282lb gross increase (to 3650) is within that 3 knot margin. As to landing gear, that would require a redesign to a modern short throw shock instead of rubber, that's the primary issue, but I see no reason why landing gear could not remain as compact as it is. With what already is a trailing link gear, Mooney would become a easiest piston to land if rebound was properly controlled.

How does it work? Never heard of it.

I don't think it's what can be gotten off the ground, but to say the least, I once have seen a Bravo take off around 3650lb, catch its breath and climb away at 900fpm. Bonanza A36 can be brought to 4024lb gross weight with an STC. Granted, the A36 landing gear is built to handle over 6000lb, so in case of a Mooney, it has to be the landing gear. Now, watching a A36 depart at 4000lb is kind of scary for a few seconds as it accelerates in ground effect, but if Bonanza can depart at 13.3lb/hp, I don't why a M20M/R/T cannot depart at 11.6 lb/hp with 310hp lifting 3600lb. M20J does it routinely at 13.5lb/hp at sea level and closer to 18lb/hp at altitude.

You are charged exactly what free market is dictating. Free market naturally leads to monopolies. Survival of whomever is the fittest and least scrupulous, just like Standard Oil.

Closer to $700K than $400K, this is a big block PT6 and probably does not have all the SBs complied it with as quite a few of the original 64s do not. So you're talking about $1.4 million aircraft, you might as well buy the last of the TBM850s before G1000. Yeap, it's not unusual to have a $60K annual on a TBM every 5 years or so, so it's not really in competition to piston singles. Mooney only has one competitor and they are pretending it does not exist. And no, the Mooney wasn't reposed, sorry ;-) Sold it to another Mooneyspace member. DM did the prebuy. Just wasn't flying it enough to keep it. Basically used to stay IFR current last few years and that was it. Seemed like a waste of newly overhauled engine. Still think Bravos are the best bang for your buck if you only move 2 people around.

I'm not preaching or trolling, I love Mooneys. I will probably own one again. I'm just pissed off at the factory always making the wrong choices. Garmin G1000 upgrade was a great idea. New interior was a great idea. Keyboard was a great idea. How about tossing the stupid rubber biscuits in favor of modern short travel shock absorbers like the ones used in downhill mountain cycling, bumping up the power to 310hp and along with that, bumping up the gross to 3728 and then having a proper 4 seats full fuel aircraft. It would still out climb Cirrus at the new gross. If stall speed is an issue (it's not, it's currently at 59knots with flaps down), throw some VGs on it like Piper did with Meridian. Then they would have a seller. Two doors? Who cares on what amounts to a single seater with full fuel. As to CAPS, don't see why it could not be added as well, you've got a steel cage to attach to and all the dead charlie weights in the back. Second of all, we have a gentleman on this board still waiting for mooney to answer a technical question in regards to spar corrosion. That's not customer service. From everything I know about Cirrus, their customer service is top notch. When I was shopping not so long ago, I openly told them I'm looking for a used one, not a new one (got a turbo 206 instead). They still flew down their latest and spent two hours giving me demo flight and going over the numbers on the used ones. That's service. That's something I'll remember in the future if I ever decide to be a productive citizen again and need a company ride.

I'm not trolling. The useful load on a packed to the gills SR22T G5/G6 with every option ends up around 1090-1100lb, 1180-1200lb on the non-turbo version. Reliably so, they have their production down to a few lbs per aircraft. The 1278lb is base package, you can buy it. Acclaim comparably equipped ends up around 850lb (TKS and A/C). That's a big difference. 900-1000lb useful load SR22s are prior generations. Mooney is just refusing to accept reality. Many would accept a single door, but they cannot accept the lack of useful load vs the competition. Top speed and range don't matter when you have to stop for fuel every hour and half with 3 aboard. As to flying singles for a corporation, it depends. Before I sold my last venture to a bunch of New Yorkers, we had a TBM 850 to move people around. New Yorkers instantly sold that aircraft and replaced it with a King Air. Different risk acceptance I guess. Their policy was no singles at all, no single pilots either. I quit due to "religious" differences the moment I vested. Cirrus sold 301 aircraft in 2015, Textron managed 312 across their entire line (Cessna/Beech pistons) Piper 111 Diamond 144 Mooney 8 Like I said, they are the market leader with just one product with 3 engine variants. Yes, the Acclaims are mostly flown about 100 hours per year, for pleasure. Compare to most late generation SR22s being flown 200 to 300 hours a year. They are being used as business tools. No other aircraft currently allows you to do that and yes, it is all due to CAPS. All other piston singles require you to compromise safety at night or over wide spread low IFR. CAPS gives you a peace of mind to depart KOMA and head to KFAR even if it's 0/0 in between. I've cancelled so many flights over the years with great weather at departure and destination and widespread fog in between. Those flights are actually less worrisome with CAPS than they are even with a second engine.

Exactly what I said, 198 on 15.6 at 17,000, so easy 200 at 18,000. +10C. It's not my opinion, the market has spoken. People with $700K to blow are buying SR22s. I bought a 206, but that's because I have no need for speed right now, being a stay at home dad for the foreseeable future and wanted to haul bikes/skis/cribs, etc. I have no set schedule, I can fly daytime VFR. But should BRS ever finish their 206 project, I'll be their first customer.

Here you go, sorry only 198 on 15.6 at 17. Nate's old SR22 on the way to Lincoln, NE. Pretty positive climbing another 1000ft would have given it even 200. https://picoolio.net/images/2017/03/29/CirrusSR22f003a.jpg So how do you like them apples? Only about 10knots slower than a TKSed Acclaim on same fuel flow (LOP) without frozen, cramped feet. Of course, not unexpected considering 30ft less wing area. Also, not sure what you were referring to about SR22 being the worst aircraft to fly in the bumps. With 25lb/sq ft it rides considerably better than anything other than maybe the TTX. Plus I don't ever recall slamming my head against the ceiling in the SR22, while it happen on almost every summer flight in my old Bravo. More headroom and real restraint system go a long way. Never had an issues handling any wind in a SR22 I would not tackle in a Bravo. Actually, when I think about, the new G5 handles crosswind better than almost anything out there with its real draggy flaps. The wing just quits flying upon touchdown with a ton of rudder still left to spare. Not something I've ever been able to say about M20M rudder. There was never enough. And zero need to do heroic, much faster no flap landings like some here recommend. Sorry, Mooney will be lucky to sell 10 of these things before going Tango Uniform again.

And that's why Mooney will be lucky to sell 10 of these machines. Because they are looking for hobbyist/pilots. Cirrus builds aircraft for people whom have a purpose for their $800K traveling machines whom also happen to be pilots. That's why you see a ton of 8 year Acclaims for sale with 400 hours on then while almost every 3 year Cirrus for sale has close to 1000 hours. They actually get flown for a purpose, on schedule and are purchased with pre-tax dollars. "Real" pilots choose Mooney or Bonanza, people looking for safe, reliable transportation choose Cirrus, leave the GFC700 on and don't notice "handling", whatever that is.

And how exactly does that work? So supercooled water hits your leading edge, doesn't freeze due some magical Rain X properties and then does what?

As opposed to a M20M landing in a school yard full of kids at 70knots vs 19knots under the parachute? The usefulness of the A/C is not at FL180. It's when the tarmac is 180F and you're waiting for your release. And I assure you, a SR22T will hit 200knots with no issues. Let me find you a nice photo. I'll be back. And if you're saying Perspective is a renamed G1000 then you truly have no idea what you are talking about. Cirrus spent about $3 million on software development on top the G1000. The presentation is vastly improved over standard G1000NXI in pretty much every area. Unlike Mooney/Cessna/Beech, they actually stay on top of G1000 software updates as opposed to being 8 years behind. That is the biggest reason not to buy a Mooney. At any moment, it can become a very expensive paper weight without software updates. Not a worry with Cirrus. As to AOA indicator, I'm not going to get started on that one. I don't need one, but if my head was so far up my behind that I needed one, it would not help. ESP however would. Well, even the best pilots have days when they are not on top of their A game. And last, a long body Mooney is not a sport plane. It has far heavier ailerons than any Cirrus. Just a lighter elevator, so the control harmony is actually worst than a Cirrus. Want a sports plane, buy an Extra. The steel cage won't do you any good if you're cartwheeling at 80knots without a proper harness. 3 point harness is fairly useless in that situation.

-Useful load. 200lb goes a long way. Cirrus is a proper 3 seater with full fuel, Mooney Acclaim is a single seater (equipped with TKS and A/C, SR22T gives you 1100b vs 900b in an Acclaim). -Cabin comfort, wider, taller, bigger windows, A/C and heat that just work. It feels just like your luxury car. -Well, there is that parachute, which turns it into a useful business tool as opposed a fun daytime VFR machine. In my "old" age, I refuse to fly singles at night or over low IFR. This severely limits usefulness of a single other than SR22 to me for business travel during winter months. If I'm spending $700K, I am not driving to Fargo ever again. -Properly designed 26G seats and 4 point restrain system. What good is the steel cage if your head ends up in the panel. Cirrus cabin is just as good/solid in a crash as the steel cage. Watch the KAPA rotor wash crash video. I would not want to be a M20 or for that matter any other GA aircraft, other than maybe Diamond, if that was to happen to me. -Considerably better avionics, Perspective is so much better than the stock G1000. -ESP to keep me from killing myself on base to final turn. -Automatic descent mode to keep me from killing myself when the kid folds the oxygen tube in half just to see what happens. Granted, Cirrus is 15knots slower at same fuel flow (it's 20 knots slower, but only against a naked Acclaim without TKS). TKS does not slow Cirrus down as it does not change the profile of wing being the wing is fabricated to directly accept the panel as a leading edge. TKSed Acclaim will hit 215knots at FL180 on 16gph, TKSed SR22T will do 200knots on same fuel flow.

Sounds to me like he was having some major control issues, listening to the ATC tapes. Maybe a runaway trim?

collecting your "saved" tax dollars ;-)

I would not call that a good example. I'm sure the privatizing of horse and buggy inspectors office to per incident subcontractor type of an arrangement would have saved a bunch between 1930 and 1955. I've never called flight service in my entire flying life other than once in 1999 as demonstration by my flight instructor. Who calls flight service? What do they do? I really don't remember. I don't know anyone who uses them but then I am a proud child of the magenta line. But now at least it might be easier to completely shut them down. So that is a plus I can see. I've used ATC on every flight and never seemed that it can be much improved from what it is today.

Savings for whom? And of what? Generally when that happens, the only savings experience are of time and by members of the house/senate during their fund raising calls because they can make less of them counting on guaranteed checks from the subcontractors. I've worked over the years with large organizations and once an enterprise reaches a certain size, it does not matter, private/public/non-profit and/or government, they all become equally inefficient. Such is the price for pay for maintaining large organizational overhead. Privatizing just shifts around opportunities for graft, but that's about it. So if we can accept that no money will be saved, at least the current system guarantees equal access and is a known devil.

Thank you, I stand corrected.

Rentals are perfectly legal as long as the aircraft has had an inspection in the last 100 hours. What you cannot do is rent a plane along with a pilot. At that point it becomes a charter operation. It's not the aircraft they are concerned about when it comes to expense sharing, it's the fact that a pilot came along with the aircraft without a charter certificate.

FAA doesn't care as long as the airplane gets 100 hour inspections instead of annuals and does not come equipped with a pilot. Insurance on the other hand, is a different story. His policy would no longer be valid, even if you were a named pilot, if you rented the airplane from him as it would be considered a commercial operation, just like any flight school rental.

It's incidental in this type of an operation when you run an aircraft hundreds of hours a year. Compared to everything else, it's "change". Did you have much twin time when you got that quote? Did you get the quote from a broker or AVEMCO? Because that sounds really high even for a transitioning pilot. Also, once you move up to turbine equipment, the insurance is a fraction of piston twins. IIRC at my last company, we paying something like $25K annual for a King Air and that was multi million liability.