Z W

A 262 is a 231 that somebody put a 252 engine on by STC. Originally developed by ModWorks. Carries the same "mod" stigma as the Rocket. Maybe a worse stigma, because Modworks went under. Luckily they use all the same parts as the 252s, except for I think the voltage regulators, so parts are not an issue. They are cheaper than a 252, partly because many people don't want to buy a plane that has a new engine STC'd onto it. I fly one. I find it somewhat interesting that while this is a major concern with Mooneys, and reflected in price, the opposite seems to be true for Bonanzas and Cessnas. Old models that rolled out of the factory with small engines get an IO-550 put on the front and everybody wants the plane, suddenly it's priced like the newer models with 300 HP. Personally I don't have a problem with a modded plane (obviously). I would also fly a Rocket or an experimental, after giving it a careful look over. Others prefer factory engineering. The market prices accordingly.

I do not think the operating / maintenance costs are really much different. The Bravo burns more fuel than the 252, but goes faster, so cost per mile is pretty similar. The 252 is more efficient by a bit. I suspect the price difference you note has more to do with the ages of the airframe than anything else. Bravos are much newer than any Rocket or 252. The Rocket also seems to take a slight price hit because of the stigma of being a modded plane, even though its reputation is great. I personally think that makes them a great value. Your cost of ownership is going to vary more between individual planes than it does between models. A good pre buy is essential.

I went from a 172 at 50 hours total time to a M20C, and about 50 hours after that to a M20K. I had two instructors, neither of which had much Mooney time. I think I had to have 10 hours dual and 5 hours solo before carrying passengers, for insurance. I survived this reckless and irresponsible maneuver somehow, despite all of the hallowed advice you get on the internet that says it should not be done that way. Mooneys are less forgiving than some other models for carrying too much speed, but they really do not require superhuman piloting skills or specialized training. Get one and fly it.

CBP would like to claim the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply within 100 miles of the border. To my knowledge, no judge has ever ruled on the issue in the context of a private GA aircraft on a domestic flight. You will note that the officer that stopped Rockydoc tried very hard to get consent to search. He also went to all the trouble of using a dog to get a "hit" which removes the requirement to get a warrant. He did not just walk up and start searching without probable cause. If CBP was relying on the "100 mile" exception, they would not need any kind of warrant or probable cause. They could just walk down the line of aircraft on the ramp at any airport within the 100 mile ring, tearing them apart, without the owner's consent or any kind of judicial oversight. They could do the same with any car parked on any street in any city in America within 100 miles of the border. Possibly any house too. Do you think a judge is going to approve that interpretation of the law?

Yes. There are two claims here (which could be brought in the same lawsuit). The claim against the DHS agent, since he is a federal agent, is called a "Bivens Action," named after the case that created the cause of action. The claim against the New Orleans PD would be an action under 42 USC 1983. Both Bivens actions and 1983 actions provide for punitive damages if the violations are proved to be egregious enough. 1983 actions also provide the injured party with his attorneys fees, by statute. If not for punitive damages and statutory attorneys fees, these cases would never be viable. But they are.

You may generally video police officers conducting an investigation in a public place as long as you do not interfere with the investigation. Juries get mad about these cases. Do not assume you would lose your case. We value our freedoms here and our jurors hold the government accountable. If you do not sue, they got away with it. The courts have decided civil lawsuits are the check and balance for illegal search and seizures. I would take your case in a heartbeat if it did not have to be filed in Louisiana. I would take it on contingency where you never had to pay me out of pocket. And I would try to blow the lid off this CPB illegal search epidemic. With Louisiana being 3 hours away by Mooney,and me not practicing there, I can't do it. But please at least talk to a lawyer there. Otherwise we have to wait until they pull this on someone like me. And by then it may be too late for a lot of pilots.

On those facts, assuming you were not landing back in the US for the first time from an international flight, you have a strong case for suing the government for wrongfully arresting you and searching your aircraft without a warrant. As soon as he says you are not free to go, you are under arrest, handcuffs or no. If it was done without probable cause, your only remedy is to sue the government for money damages. Check with an attorney in the state where it happened. You need a civil rights attorney. I am one, by the way.

Yes on the internal GPS. It seems to work better than the iPad's. Just a very subjective, non-scientific observation. It would be fine for VFR navigation. I have a 430W in the dash and a 496 on the yoke with XM weather so I really just use the tablet for flight planning and charts. I may add the GDL and ditch the XM weather now.

I just replaced my iPad/Foreflight setup with a Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 android tablet and Garmin Pilot. I never got a Stratus, and have not purchased the GDL 39 for Garmin Pilot to add ADS-B and synthetic vision. I have no complaints. It's different, but I had it figured out in about an afternoon. Equally capable. It's missing a few minor features I liked - there is no "Imagery" tab to look at prognostic charts and winds aloft. Also, it does not have the "altitude finder" that gives you head and tail wind numbers at each altitude. You have to plug in each altitude and compare your estimated time in route to get the best height. It has some other features I like better. The TAF/Winds Aloft displays, I find are better. It is very easy to reference approach charts for your current flight plan, which is nice. I've been an Android convert for a long time and had only kept the iPad for Foreflight. Now that Garmin Pilot exists, there is no reason not to switch over. It's about $175 per year with geo-referenced approach plates. The tablet is cheap ($250.00 with a 2-year data plan contract), well built, and very powerful. Battery life is great. The on-board GPS seems to work better than my iPad's. Nobody has to "approve" my apps, and I can finally uninstall iTunes. The iPad is nice if that's your thing, but the other options today are pretty good.

TBM 850 for me. If money were no object...

As a general rule of thumb, keeping your power settings the same, you will gain 2 KTAS per thousand feet you climb in a turbo'd plane. So, take the # of feet in thousands you are thinking of climbing, x 2, and you know how much airspeed you will gain going up. Compare that to the forecast winds aloft to decide if it's worth climbing higher. Example: My plane does 170 KTAS at 10k feet. It does about 186 KTAS at FL180. That's a gain of 16 KTAS. If the winds at FL180 are more than 16 KTAS worse, I don't go up. Also, because of the time spent climbing and descending, and the need to put me and all the passengers on oxygen, it has to be significantly better up high before I will go up. I won't climb 8k feet and use up my O2 for a 5 knot gain in groundspeed. As a practical matter, above 10k, it seems like the winds almost always gain strength faster than I gain KTAS. I almost never climb into a strengthening headwind, and only go up for a tailwind. But I really love those tailwind days...

It took 4 pages to get to the "frivolous lawsuits are destroying the world" post. I'm actually proud of the group for that, as a lawyer. Jkhirsch, please talk to a qualified aviation lawyer before you make any more statements to the FAA, if you have not already. Some advised you to do that, several pages ago, but I can't tell if you did. You can PM me for my phone number and I will talk to you, no charge. You are swimming in dangerous waters here, and posting far more information online in a public forum than any lawyer would tell you is wise. I'm all for freedom of information and transparency of government, but this is a story that should be posted after you're done with the FAA's enforcement action, not before or during.

Mooneys make a fine first plane. They will keep you from developing bad habits, like landing 10 knots too fast. My mechanic has said that because everything is so tight and compact (i.e. efficient) on the Mooney, it does take some extra shop hours compared to some other planes, because they're harder to work on. I think this difference is negligible. Fuel wise, they are the most economical choice out there, which saves far more money than any extra maintenance costs. Short bodies (M20C, M20E) are OK on grass strips. They are much lighter on the nose. I have not taken my mid-body K model offroading yet, with its heavy nose and inner gear doors that sit 2 inches off the ground. I might someday, but honestly, I find it's pretty easy to get everywhere in the country from a 3k+ paved runway. Even outdoor activities like camping are pretty easy, although you may need a rental car. And any plane that's good for bush work is so slow, I couldn't hardly stand to fly it to the unimproved strip.

Crab and kick. Half flaps. Carry about 5 extra knots for the half flaps and gust factor. Maybe 10 extra knots if it's really bumpy, runway length permitting. I kick the nose over about 20 ft AGL. Hold the center line between the mains with the ailerons, point the nose down it with the rudder.

My 90lb black lab jumps onto the wing, climbs into the back seat, and slobbers on the back windows for a while, until he falls asleep. Acts just like he is riding in the jeep. No ear protection necessary. I did tie his leash to the rear seatbelt on the first flight. Wasn't sure how he would do. He seemed to be laughing at me. Your experience may vary, he is a pretty good dog.

Statistically, the risks of flying GA are higher. Fortunately, many of the risk factors of GA flying are within the pilot's control. If you eliminate fuel exhaustion, inadvertent IMC, flight into known (knowable?) icing conditions, and pre-flight errors, the statistics would probably be better. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have performed that study for us to show our wives. You pick your odds in life, and take your chances. Justify it how you want. You're leaving this world feet-first anyways. I just approach flying with extra caution and discipline and enjoy the ride.

Buy an Arrow or a 177RG. From Skynewbie, 1/18 on Beechtalk: Quote: Indeed if I don't end up with a Bonanza, I'm considering a Piper Arrow or Cardinal 177RG which comes closer to performance at less cost for MX and fuel.

The problem with shopping vintage machines is that their model year and engine times do not make them "comps." I sold our C model about a year ago. These are the main features I found you have to compare with any vintage plane: 1. Engine time SMOH (overhaul = $30-40k) 2. WAAS GPS (10-15k to add) 3. Standard 6-pack panel layout (3-5k to add, with lots of down time) 4. 4-cylinder engine monitor (2-5k to add) 5. Autopilot with altitude hold (10-15k to add) 6. Paint and interior condition (10-25k to fix) 7. Age of last tank reseal (10k job) You can debate which of these should be on the list, and maybe some items that are not on the list, but you can clearly see, they all add up to far more than the list price of any E model. You probably won't find one with all of those features. My advice would be to prioritize them, and buy the one within your budget that contains as much of what you want as possible. By the way - I wouldn't rule out an exceptionally well-equipped C model if I were you. They are often a better bargain, and just about as capable as the E. Happy shopping.

1982 M20K with 262 conversion (252 Engine) Useful Load: 875 lbs Fuel Capacity: 105 gallons Full Fuel Payload: 266 lbs (works for me and more luggage than I normally pack) Max Range: 1,598 NM, no wind, no reserve, at high speed cruise (175 KTAS, 11.5 GPH, 20 LOP, 9.1 hours); Better if I slow it down and/or fly higher than 10,000 ft. Climbs at 1000 FPM to at least FL180 at max gross. Almost never are the 105 gallon tanks full. I've topped them off probably 2 or 3 times. But I think, on the right day, I could fly from California to Hawaii without a ferry tank. And if I ever get to do an Alaska trip, it will be a piece of cake, from a fuel planning perspective .

Nice looking plane. It's missing WAAS on the GPS, a 4-cylinder engine monitor, and a fuel flow gauge, I think (can't see one in the pics) but it looks to be priced accordingly. I don't remember seeing any J's in flying condition at 60k a year ago, much less with a low time engine.

Nickmatic - I have noticed a more serious problem you have. You bought a 252/Encore and I don't see any pictures of it in your gallery. Pics or it didn't happen, my friend. Welcome to the Mooney family.

There are two different situations you will see referred to as "shock cooling" on the internet and in literature: One, the sudden cooling of the engine overstresses the metal in your cylinders and other engine parts, and the overstress causes damage and decreased engine life. There are lots of theories on both sides of this, and little to no empirical data on either side. Two, during a prolonged descent without power in very cold air, your engine will cool below it's proper operating temperature. The concern then is that if you jam the levers forward for a go-around, your engine will not make 100% power. Also related to this, is that without enough MP (about 15" as you state) the prop drives the engine, versus the other way around. There is consensus from everyone that this does bad things to your cylinders and rings. I've never seen any empirical evidence, myself, of type #1. So I'm not currently much of a believer. Nobody can ever tell me how many degrees per minute is "safe" and at what point it becomes "shock cooling," either. For type #2, I have seen that if you open the cowl flaps, chop the throttle, and point the nose down, my engine will quickly go below its green operating range. I don't think I need to be a Mooney test pilot to determine that's not the condition you want your engine in on short final. So I avoid that. So when somebody starts talking to you about "shock cooling" you might clarify what they are referring to, and ask for their sources. As a general rule, watch your engine monitor and keep the CHT's between 250 and 380 at all times (maybe as high as 400 during the occasional prolonged climb), and you'll have a happy engine. With my 252 engine, I do not open the cowl flaps in the pattern. I leave them closed to keep the temps up. Cowl flaps open is part of my go-around procedure. So, a little different than Charlie's Bravo.

When planning descents from cruise, I watch the required descent rate to hit my target. It displays on my 496 by default. Any Garmin product can be programmed to display it, I think. My 430W will do it, with alerts. Or you can do the math the old fashioned way. When it says I need 400 FPM descent to hit the airport, I start reducing my power to 20" of MP by gradually rolling the throttle out. That way, when it hits 500 FPM, I'm slowed down enough to point the nose down and descend. I can then do a 500 FPM descent rate, not pop anybody's eardrums, and stay out of the yellow arc. Usually, ATC will clear me for lower right around the 500 FPM calculation mark. If I don't get cleared by then, I ask for lower. My engine stays nice and warm, and no need to pop the speed brakes, unless something goes wrong (ATC holds you higher, or you want to reduce your airspeed for turbulence). The brakes are always there if you find yourself too fast, and make a great tool, but I find with planning I rarely need them any more. Hope that helps you get it figured out.

I do slowly back out the throttle before starting my descent, in that I spin out the vernier kind of slowly to avoid making big sudden power changes. I do that partly to go easy on the engine, and partly to avoid scaring passengers. They don't really like sudden changes in the sound of the engine. I used to do 1" per minute as the POH recommends, but I noticed that as long as you keep the cowl flaps closed, the engine does not "shock cool" in any sense of the term. I can verify that with my 6-cylinder engine monitor. As long as you leave the engine properly leaned, the temps stay up in the green operating range, which is where you want them for a go-around. I find 2500 RPM and 20" of MP, with the cowl flaps closed, is a great power setting for sustained descents of 500 to 1000 FPM. According to Wikipedia, your TSIO-360-SB (Encore) engine should have a maximum RPM of 2600, and a maximum MP of 39". This is different from your stock TSIO-360-MB (252) engine, which is 2700 RPM and 36" MP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_IO-360#TSIO-360 And I think you asked your question in the right place. There are very few people flying your airframe and engine in the world. A high percentage of them are here. If you can find a CFI with a lot of M20K time, great. I never could.

Critical altitude of the stock 231 is 14k. I fly in the high teens regularly (once or twice per year in the mountains, too), and almost never am I trying to get 100% power above 14k. I use a cruise climb setting. You can take off from any airport in the Rockies at 100% power in a stock 231 on a hot day. If you really need 100% power above 14k, it would probably be for an icing situation that should have been avoided. That is why I would put little or no value on the critical altutude / service ceiling increase. Nice to have, but... Meh.