Z W

You're going to have more variation in maintenance costs between individual airplanes than exists between the models. What I mean by that is a neglected O or O2 is going to cost you far more than a well-maintained Cirrus, but it has nothing to do with the design of the aircraft. I've seen this point debated a lot and nobody ever reaches any real conclusions backed up by math. Metal airplanes don't seem to break any less than composite ones. Retractable gear probably adds some maintenance cost, but then again so does a parachute. You may go through your entire ownership without rebuilding a motor, or it might start making metal in your first year. Generally people seem to agree that turbocharged aircraft are more expensive to maintain, but I've found from personal experience a newer turbo cost about the same as an older naturally aspirated, just because the older plane always had some older part wearing out. Or maybe that was just some bad luck for me (or good luck, that the turbo didn't have more problems?) The Mooney will save you money at the gas pump, probably. Assuming you run LOP or at some reduced fuel flow. By the same token, a Mooney at 150 ROP probably gets worse NMPG than a Cirrus or Columbia at 20 LOP. Fly what you like. Those three aircraft are all very similar.

Mountain flying sometimes produces the worst potential for shock cooling in the winter. You may have to be at 16k to clear the terrain, and then descend to an airport at 7k in a very short distance, meaning a very steep descent angle. The easiest way to accomplish that is to clear the terrain, pull the throttle to idle, drop the gear and flaps, and point the nose down. If there is such a thing as shock cooling, that's how you do it. In that circumstance it's more of an immediate safety concern than an engine wear concern. After 5 minutes with an idle engine and a high airspeed (nose pointed down) your engine will be very cold and may not produce full horsepower if you need to do a go-around when you get to the airport. Since density altitude is still high, with the airport at 7k or higher, you really need all the horsepower you can get. Failure to keep a warm engine has gotten more than one pilot in the mountains. You can do the same thing coming down from the high teens or flight levels on any given flight with a turbocharged aircraft in the winter. It's harder to do in a naturally aspirated plane cruising at 10-12k, but possible. The way to avoid it is to watch your CHTs and keep them in the green at all times. It's just good practice, and easy to do if you can plan your descent from far enough out. If you can't, due to ATC or terrain, use the tools your aircraft has - close the cowl flaps, keep some power in, pop the speed brakes, put the gear down, put the flaps down, etc. Some aircraft lack some of those tools and so have more trouble with this than others. Whether any of that relates to increased engine life, I have no idea, and I don't think anybody else does either. But you should keep your engine warm anyways.

I once landed without the "gear down" light. Put the gear down, but the light didn't come on. Cycled the gear a few times. No different. Checked the breakers. Didn't find any popped. Did the manual gear extension procedure. Still no light. The floor indicator said "Gear Down" but normally the light confirms it too. Flew over the runway and had somebody look and confirm the gear was down. Finally just landed, trying extra hard to grease it. I was halfway expecting the gear to collapse as I landed and hear some awful crunching noises. I popped the door open on short final, ready to evacuate in case of fire, even though that's unlikely in your standard gear up... Landed like normal. Turns out there was a chafed wire in the warning light circuit going to ground which popped a circuit breaker. I missed it in all the excitement. But it sure felt like I was close to doing a gear-up at the time.

I can respect a thoughtfully made decision, and it seems you are thoughtful about this one. But I don't understand it in your particular situation. Going from two planes to zero, just for expenses? Maybe you don't need to own a fire-breathing time machine like the Acclaim anymore, which I'm sure carries a hefty maintenance and insurance bill. But there's a lot of "middle ground" between feeding a TN and a RV8 and not feeding any planes at all. I can tell from your prior posts you love to fly. Why not pick up a cheaper Mooney (C, E, or F)? Or just keep the RV8? I bet that would cut your monthly costs by 2/3, or even more considering opportunity cost of capital or interest on a loan for the TN, and you can still leave the earth behind whenever you want. I understand hanging up the keys for medical issues, or if you've already got a "cheap" plane (hah) and just can't pay for it anymore. But if that's not you, why give it up completely? You may look back on that decision someday with regret, when the medical issues do finally come and you no longer have the option. Just food for thought. I've thought about giving it up, and decided it's a part of my life I don't want to let go.

Posts on this forum have been known to turn up in Google searches years later. I hope your wife is open minded . Never been there. Have a good trip.

He doesn't have an IO-360 in his G model. He has the O-360, carb'd. LOP isn't an option. It is more efficient, though, to fly high (9-12k) and lean to peak EGT with the O-360. You'll get a higher TAS for the same MP and fuel flow. That helps, unless the headwind is stronger up high.

Can't say that I have. I'll put it on the list of places to visit. I don't get down to Rolla all that often.

A "right" can mean a lot of things. Typically it's used referring to the Bill of Rights, found in the first ten amendments (Right to free speech, right to bear arms, right to be free from quartering troops during war, right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc...) In my post, I was referring to our 4th amendment rights against searches and seizures. Seizures includes seizing your person and putting you in jail. There is no corresponding "right" to an airman certificate, so people commonly refer to it as a privilege. If we had another constitutional amendment granting a constitutional right to an airman certificate, or driver's license, that would change the analysis in obvious ways, but that has not happened. In today's society, it has become almost impossible to be self-sufficient and survive without a driver's license in large portions of the country, and sometimes I wonder if there shouldn't be a right to drive. At the very least, I think we take driving privileges away from too many people, for offenses that are too small. But that's an entirely different topic.

I'm not sure what FIRC means, but I would like to read whatever court decision, statute, or regulation you are referring to. The only major legislation I'm aware of to recently pass is the Pilot's Bill of Rights, which is not nearly as powerful as the name suggests (http://www.faa.gov/pilots/rights/). It certainly does not give us a "right" to fly. It mostly gives pilots a right to get copies of the FAA's evidence against them before their hearing on revoking their license.

This is a very complicated issue, legally speaking. The 4th amendment protects you even in your private part 91 aircraft. You need not identify yourself, produce anything, or speak to any law enforcement officer, and any officer needs reasonable suspicion to detain you, and probable cause to search you and your aircraft. This is all in the context of a criminal prosecution, the classic example being trafficking drugs. If you refuse to cooperate, refuse to speak to anyone, and request an attorney, law enforcement generally cannot detain you or search your aircraft, without at least reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime or infraction. The 4th amendment does not, however, apply in a disciplinary action by the FAA to suspend your airman certificate, which is a civil action. The FAA can take your license for refusing to comply with 14 CFR 61.3(l), for example, which requires you to produce your airman certificate and a photo ID "upon request" to a the FAA, any law enforcement officer, and any member of the NTSB or TSA. The FAA can take your license for violating any applicable regulation it so chooses, and as long as its decisions are not arbitrary or capricious, the courts will generally uphold it. As some have said, the courts view your airman certificate as a privilege, not a constitutional right, so it can be taken from you more easily, without constitutional safeguards. We see this all the time in driving while intoxicated cases. Even if the defendant beats the criminal charge and avoids any jail time or fines, the government can still take his or her driving privileges away, and does. I am an attorney, but this post is not legal advice for any specific situation, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship (sorry, the Bar makes us put these disclaimers in things). I suggest if you are contacted by anyone from the government wanting to talk to you about your airplane, you immediately call an aviation attorney to walk you through your specific situation. If you PM me, I will send you my cell phone number, and take your call free of charge if it's ever needed.

If anyone is looking for a reason to burn some avgas this Saturday, 9/21/2013, come on over to the airshow at my home base, H21, Camdenton, Missouri. It's located in the middle of the state at the Lake of the Ozarks. It's a really beautiful and easy place to fly into with a 4000 x 75 ft paved runway and two LPV approaches. http://www.airnav.com/airport/H21 The airshow is free to the public and features a pancake breakfast, a really good aerobatic performance, and some warbirds on display. This is its third year, and the last two have had a surprisingly great attendance from the general public, but not very many GA planes flying in. It would be great to see a larger GA, and especially Mooney, presence. The airport will close from 10 AM - 4 PM for the airshow, so plan accordingly. More info: http://www.lakeoftheozarksairshow.com Official Flier: LakeofTheOzarks-AirShow-lettersized-poster.pdf

You can reduce power to extend range. In my C model I could reduce power to about 6 GPH and still cruise about 110-120 kts. I used that setting for cross-country flights building foggle time for my IFR rating. Endurance at that setting, with 52 gallon tanks, was about 8.6 hours, with a theoretical range of 946 miles, no reserve, no wind. Your heavier G, with the same engine, will probably do just a little worse than that, on either speed or fuel burn (but with more legroom in the back). I would not even think about trying a trip like you are describing without a fuel flow gauge I trust, some very large margins for unexpected headwinds, a life raft, and a personal locator beacon. Even then, I think I would buy a removable ferry tank like Oscar did. Flying is no fun when you aren't 100% sure the flight will have a positive outcome. Most endurance fliers also wait for the right weather pattern, e.g. a nice tailwind, that may make it a non-event. But if you are going to do this flight more than once, you won't want to wait two weeks for weather, and you're going to want some more gas on board. The Monroy tanks are a nice feature, but for their cost, you could probably sell your G and buy a J or K that can easily do 1000 NM and would fit this mission better.

What power settings and altitudes are giving you 180 KTAS? Often by increasing fuel flow and manifold pressure you can eek out another 10 knots, usually at a cost of several gallons per hour of fuel burned. I have no experience flying Ovations or any long-body, but from what I've read on Mooneyspace, most Ovations cruise at 170-180 KTAS like your Eagle. They may be capable of 190, but the last 10 knots takes so much fuel, it greatly decreases your range and economy. Your best speed will probably be wide open throttle, around 10,000 feet, 150 degrees rich of peak EGT. You might try that setting and see how you like the fuel flow and cylinder head temperatures. "Book" numbers always give those unrealistic top speeds for marketing reasons. Many owners choose to trade that last 10 knots for 3 GPH and a cooler engine.

Here's the NTSB report. A good reminder to sump your tanks, although we don't know if the pilot did or not: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130819X52423&key=1 On August 18, 2013, about 1445 central daylight time, a Mooney M20J, N9201R, descended and impacted terrain after takeoff from Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport (MKC), Kansas City, Missouri. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The private pilot and a passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was registered to Air McRoyal LLC and operated by the pilot under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight that was not operating on a flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The flight was originating at the time of the accident and was en route to Youngstown, Ohio. The airplane arrived at MKC on August 15, 2013, and was parked on the ramp until the day of the accident when it was taxied to the airport self-serve fuel pump and 25.25 gallons of 100 low lead aviation fuel was obtained. A mechanic stated that he heard the airplane engine run-up and takeoff. The run-up was “short” and was “less than a minute.” He did not hear any engine power hesitations during the run-up, just a “quick” magneto check. He did not hear any power hesitation prior to the engine quitting during takeoff. The airplane departed runway 19 (6,827 feet by 150 feet, grooved concrete) and the pilot reported an unspecified problem during climb. The airplane descended to an estimated height of 10 feet above the runway surface with the landing gear retracted. The airplane was approximately no farther than half down the runway before a second climb began. The airplane attained an altitude of about 300-400 feet above ground level when it was observed to enter a turning stall. The airplane descended and impacted a field about 0.25 miles southwest of the departure end of runway 19. Examination of the airplane engine revealed the presence of a liquid consistent with water present in the fuel servo. There were no reports of fuel contamination and/or loss of engine power by airplanes fueled at the fuel pump where the accident airplane was fueled from. Examination of the airport fuel facility did not reveal any fuel contamination. The pilot bought the airplane in February 2013. He accumulated a total flight time of about 308.7 hours, of which 19.2 hours were in the accident airplane make and model.