Mooneymite

The 1969-75 electric flap drive is elegantly simple. The proper greasing of the drive mechanism is apparently regularly overlooked. If not properly greased, the resistance in the flap gearbox can...and does pop the circuit breaker. I'm not sure why a grease cup was used instead of simple grease nipples. I'm sure there is a good reason....? Maybe to prevent grease-happy mechanics from blowing all the seals with a grease gun?

This. ^^^^^^^

On my 74 C, there were no limit switches, just an ingenious jack screw that would essentially disengage itself at the limits of travel. For some reason, your flap motor reverse circuitry is messed up. I'd start by checking the flap switch in the cockpit.

Location, location, location. The cost of ownership is very location dependent, but I'm guessing there is no more cost effective location than a fly-in community where you own your own hangar and maintenance can be done, "locally" by friends and neighbors. I think such a comparason would be very interesting.

I'm pretty sure the MOONEYSPACE terms of service forbid contesting unbelievable speed claims since all Mooneys are unbelievably fast. Don't verify. You'll damage the brand.

Sad news.... I talked to Ray a couple of days ago. Ray's wife who generally accompanied him on his sojourns, passed in January. Ray is back doing the IFR checks, but with a heavy heart.

Depending on where your tail becon is, you may be better off with a wing-tip mounted Sky Beacon. If your tail becon is on the empenage, no problem, but if your tail beacon is mounted on your rudder, you may have to re-balance the rudder, or at least check it after installation. The Sky Beacon avoids this issue. I've owned both. They both performed flawlessly from the gitgo.

I'm re-reading the Mooneyspace terms of service, but I think it is forbidden for O-360 operators to smirk when reading another IO-360 hot start thread.

Got a stopwatch?

You have a very smart wife!

Absolutely correct on both counts. Unacceptable and we can do better. I know I have said this many times on Mooneyspace: Technology is the answer. GUMPS, checklists and incantations have gotten us the present gear-up rate. It isn't going to get any better using these tools. We are human. It is time to use non-human assistance. Now think about the gear-up rate for expensive aircraft with EGPWS. Technology is the obvious answer to driving the unacceptable gear-up rate down toward zero.

Absolutely no problemo....we'll all be flying behind electric fan motors in the very near future.

Brings to mind the age old adage: "To make a small fortune in aviation, start with a large one." You may need $2 billion in this economy to break even.

If you build on leased airport property, it probably is a tough call. I built on my own land in a fly in community so when I time out, and the hangar is sold, I'm guessing at the very least, hangaring my plane was free. It's tough to recoup rent money.

Rob, I built a hangar about 25 years ago. At the time, a 50X50 steel was about the same price as cinder block and stick. I chose steel with brick facing. Many of my neighbors in our community went in other directions. After 20 years, none of us have regrets....owning your own hangar on your own land is the greatest. Just do it. I went with the bifold door, but the stack doors have stood up well and the hydraulic swing doors have really become popular. If I have one regret, it is that the contractor did not pour the concrete floor carefully and that has been a shortfall I've lived with every day for 25 years.

Years ago, I knew a guy who never used anything but automotive Havoline 10W-30 in his Mooneys. He ran them for years. Eventually he timed out and his planes got sold. Those planes are "somewhere". I'd love to know if the engines ever had oil issues and if they all made it to TBO.

I 100% agree with you. A purchase that allows you to replace the engine such that you know all the history is worth a lot. The problem is that sellers do not want to reduce the price to reflect the run-out engine. For some reason they live by the idea that TBO is meaningless for part 91 ops and "the engine has lots of life left in it after TBO". I know of cases where prop strikes were never recorded, or addressed properly. I want an engine that is new.

Yes. I noticed this phenomenon many times on my C's bladder tanks. I would fill the tanks chock-a-block full the night before an early launch, but the next morning the tanks were "less than full". I supposed that the bladders "bulged" overnight creating a bit more capacity. However the cooler temperature overnight may have been responsible for some of this as well.

Deciding to get out of bed on the morning your accident occurred is proof of bad decision making. Next time you'll be more careful.

This is closer to Hartwell.... I've used it in my Mooney many years ago. Is it still there? https://www.airnav.com/airport/0GA2

I do not wish to cast aspersions on emergency personnel. They have a job to do and mostly they do it very well, but in our fly-in community when 911 was called by an overzealous resident for minor incidents, the emergency personnel did a lot of damage to the aircraft. Unless it was a life threatening situation, I would not call 911.

It amuses me when the developer refers to "hangers". You gotta wonder how exactly aircraft are stored. https://broadriverairpark.org/

One of the earliest Mooneyspace posters was a guy named Pontius Pilate. He first raised the question about TAS wen he said, "What is Truth?". I think we all know the answer to that question.

You can always pick out the real Mooneyspace pilots...they always report their aircraft speed in Mach, not TAS.

After landing, I got a call. There was an investigation. ATC made a mistake. Case closed.