Z W

Most financial planners will tell you to insure only that which you cannot afford to lose. The average consumer pays more in premiums than he receives in payouts. So, you should not insure your toaster with a paid warranty. But you definitely should insure your home. If it burns, you have to buy a replacement, and you likely have most of your net worth stored in it. Planes are somewhere between the toaster and the home. Many of us I suspect cannot "afford" to lose our planes. They represent too large a portion of your total net worth. You may someday need to sell the plane and recoup that money to meet basic living expenses. If that description fits you, then hull insurance makes sense. On the other hand, if you've got 2% of your net worth in the plane, you probably don't have to have hull insurance. The other unknown factor here is that the risk of loss is not equal among pilots and planes. You can identify your own risk tolerance; You can't honestly know your risk exposure. Some pilots are just more likely to bend metal than others. You won't know until your day comes. Buying hull insurance allows you to pool that risk with all the other pilots. I've got hull insurance now. I can see a day in the future where I might drop it.

What's wrong with 14 NMPG? In a straight line? At 165 MPH? As others have posted, you can do a little better by flying high and reducing power settings (RPM, throttle, and mixture) as much as you can tolerate. Myself, I hate watching my groundspeed decrease. I like to go fast. You're in the most efficient 4-place piston single, except for maybe a J or K model, depending on some other factors.

Dave Green at Venice, KVNC. www.mooneyservice.com. He is great.

Crider Aircraft Painting at Mena, Arkansas did ours. Great work, great people, on time, on budget. Would highly recommend them.

Kallish, Sounds like maybe you want an E model with a "J" or Lopresti cowling. They exist, but are rare. This is different from the standard "cowl closure" or "guppy mouth" mod that almost every plane has. It was a $15k mod, or so I've heard. You can spot them by the cowl with the two small, round openings on each side on the top, like a modern Mooney has. The plane should outrun a J, with all the mods done, and has much, much better engine cooling than a stock E. I know you said you don't have any need for a WAAS GPS. You didn't ask, but as I mentioned before, your super fast E model is going to run across weather much faster than your cheetah did. If you don't have an instrument rating, or fly IFR, even to bust small cloud layers, you will find yourself very limited in the type of flying you can do. It's hard to take any trip at 145 knots and not cross a weather front. If you start flying, or even training for, IFR, you will wish very much you had a WAAS. At your price range, you can afford one, and it will be much cheaper to buy it installed than to install it later. Just some free advice from the internet. Take it or leave it. Welcome to the Mooney family.

And how could I forget... Twins are safer than singles. Angle of Attack indicators should replace Airspeed Indicators, and Stormscopes.

Parachutes make planes safer. Composites are better than metal aircraft. Diesel engines will revolutionize GA in the next 10 years. A turbocharged plane is better than a naturally aspirated one. It's best to leave your engine heater plugged in 24/7 during the winter months. (I just realized I spent too much time online, and not enough time in the air, in 2013. I'll work on that next year).

Good point, but in his price range, he can get a good IFR bird. VFR only planes are 20-30k now. Spending 40-50k on a plane without the cloud stuff would not make a lot of sense. And he is going to run into weather systems a lot faster at E speeds than at cheetah speeds. My opinion only.

Welcome. You should find a nice example in that price range. If I were you, I would not rule out a nice C model. Your priority list is a little odd. The speed mods are great, but you won't notice them once you start flying. Tanks are important, but even freshly sealed can leak. It is a well kept secret that a good A&P can patch a minor leak. Just plan on it. Also, you say "autopilot" but that can mean anything from a factory wing leveler to a STEC with altitude pre-select and GPSS steering. If I were you, I would focus on engine time, a WAAS gps, a standard 6-pack panel layout, an engine monitor, an autopilot with altitude hold, decent paint / interior, fresh tank seal, sloped windshield, cowl closure, in that order. You probably won't find an E with all of that, unless you get lucky. But when you start flying around, you will wish you had those features in roughly that order, I would bet. Good luck with the hunt.

The TSIO-360 is a pretty easy turbo system to operate. The earlier stock 231's, that is not so much true, but almost all of them have been upgraded with intercoolers and automatic wastegates. You just set the MP where you want it, then set the fuel flow where you want it. All the power, all the time. Can't overboost, unless a component fails. You do have to be gentle with the throttle. I use my verniers for everything but take off and go around, and avoid sudden big MP changes even for those. When getting ready for the descent, I slowly walk the throttle out about 1 inch per minute, per the POH, until it's down under 24 inches or so. Now, though, I find I fly NA planes the same way. It just feels more precise and easier on the plane. Small, smooth changes in configuration are better than big abrupt changes. The turbo system has needed about $2k in extra maintenance in about 3 years. Rebuilt wastegate and turbo controller. Absolutely worth it, imo. I would not fly my turbo without a 6-cylinder engine monitor. Too much going on under the hood as you climb up to FL180 and set 70% power LOP.

Yes, but expensive. I've heard they sell the complete parts necessary for $8k out of salvaged planes. Install would be extra. You need the plastic bucket for the base, the two seats, and then all the hardware associated with the reclining mechanism. And then you've got two back seats that don't match the front... Not sure if it's an STC. Might require a field approval from an FAA inspector. Like most options these days, it's a lot cheaper to buy a plane that has them than to add them later. Buyer's market and all.

More or less. That is what is called the 262 conversion (I fly one). It was done by a company called ModWorks. The STC's are still around, although the company isn't. They took a 231 and put a MB engine, speed brakes, hot prop, and extended range tanks on it. Some, like mine, even modded the windows to be rounded on the corners like the 252's instead of square like the 231's. The only difference between a full 262 conversion and a 252 is the 262 has a 14-volt electrical system, instead of the 24-volt on a 252. It uses different voltage regulators, but I think has the same alternators. The conversion is no longer economically feasible. Right now it's cheaper just to buy a 252, rather than buy a 231 and convert it. But you can sometimes find a 262 for sale, and usually significantly cheaper than a 252 because it's a "modded" airframe. They are a great value.

1) Conversion to LB is required at overhaul. MB STC is out there, but nobody seems to have done it in a long time. Somebody posted a quote for it a few months back, and I think it was $70k or so, including the new engine. SB was done recently on a 252 by a forum member. Not sure if you could get it done on a 231, but possibly. 3) Overhauls will be 45-55k, if you include the turbo and associated parts. 4) 170cm skis will fit just fine, length wise, but will hang over the back seat, and in a crash, are probably going right through the back of your head. You might want to find a model with the split rear seats. Those come out very easy so your skis can lay down on the floor. They're also wonderful for loading purposes. I've had a bench rear seat and now have split folding seats, and would express a very strong preference for the rear folders. 5) 170 kts over 15k on 10 GPH is about right. You will be on oxygen staying at those altitudes. You will only be up there on about 1/3 of your flights, when there's a tailwind. Otherwise, you will be at 10-12k doing 170 kts on 11ish GPH, or slower on less. Still no slouch. 6) This is one of the nicest looking 231's I've seen listed. It's also one of the most expensive. It's got a lot going for it, but it's competing with the 252's at that price. The 252's come with the MB engine, a second alternator, split rear seats, factory oxygen, and usually speed brakes / hot prop / extended range tanks. Certainly worth a hard look, just be aware of the options some other planes might offer. You might also look at Rocket conversions. Less efficient, but a lot faster, and you're close to Rocket price range here too.

Once, on a long day of IFR training, flying partial panel in light turbulence, I called the tower at St. Louis / Lambert International as "Springfield Tower" twice. They asked if I was sure I knew what city I was in.

Tim, I think we met once, at the Bolivar, MO airport. I'm glad to see you made a happy home for Parker's 252. Your panel upgrade plans are sound. You are going to have one of the nicest Mooneys out there, at a bargain price. You didn't ask for this advice, but I'm throwing it out there anyways. Your post suggests you plan to load this single-engine Mooney up with FIKI TKS, the best panel money can buy, and then fly it in as much weather as possible to meet your busy schedule. Please be careful. Having FIKI on a single does not necessarily mean you should launch into low IFR, thunderstorms, or icing. I speak out of recent experience with an airframe very similar to yours. It all makes sense and you will be very confident until you're over low IFR, and/or in icing conditions, and the gauges start reading funny (low/high oil pressure, oil temp, manifold pressure fluctuating, high/low vac, high/low amps, high/low CHT, high/low TIT). Hopefully you don't have your family on board when a gauge on your only engine starts reading wrong. Hopefully it's day time, and not night. Hopefully you're not alone and have another IFR pilot in the right seat. No matter what, you'll probably read these "be careful" posts from the internet with a new perspective. I know I do, now. Your Mooney, no matter how much you spend on it, is not an all weather machine. Thunderstorms, ice, and low IFR should be avoided. Fly safe, and congrats on a great purchase.

My 252 engine is almost always at 1550-1600 TIT in cruise, whether LOP or ROP. Never considered that a problem. Redline is 1650 continuous, and you supposedly can go up to 1700 for a brief period while leaning, not to exceed 30 seconds. I do try to keep it under 1600 TIT in cruise. I've never tried going full rich in contemplation of a "runaway engine" scenario, but I think that in that scenario, I'm pointed at the nearest airport, and probably not touching mixture or throttle until I've got the runway made. Just me though.

I always try to remember to warn my passengers before a strong crosswind landing. I forgot to once, and scared a friend pretty bad. It just looked like we were going to land crooked, apparently. I use the crab method. To those that don't understand wind correction angles, it can be scary. It doesn't help that strong crosswinds on the ground come with the associated turbulence, bumps, and engine power corrections on short final.

Somebody, please get this man a functioning camera phone. A trip this awesome should not be chronicled by a selfie with a tourism banner in the background. Weak. (I feel like I can be a little harsh here, because anybody with stones big enough to cross the gulf splitting the 100 miles between Cuba and Cancun equally can obviously take a little ribbing from some faceless guy on the internet who hasn't ever flown outside the continental U.S. )

Pretty awesome. Fly safe. Where are the pics? Key West is pic worthy. Belize more so. A shot of Cuba off the left wing should be mandatory. Edit: Looks like he's about 50 SM off shore. If you can't see Cuba from 6,000 ft today at that distance, that would be the only excuse for not posting a pic of it. But pictures of the coast of Mexico south of Cancun should be posted, no excuses.

Get a Dynon D1 or D2. Keep your vacuum unit. Done for under $2k and you have not just an electric gyro, which still has a relatively high failure rate, but a solid-state AHRS with no spinning parts. Not certified, but probably safer than a certified electric gyro AI at less than half the cost.

My 100 lb black lab sleeps in the back seat, no crate required. I was a little nervous on the first flight, but he treats it just like riding in the jeep. I tied his leash to the seatbelt in the back at first, but don't bother any more. Your experience may vary .

You will find more difference in cost between individual examples of each model than between brands. What I mean by this is if you buy a well-maintained C, it will probably have a lower cost of ownership than a poorly-maintained Piper or Cessna. The planes are similar.. my C model had the same O-360 engine as the 172 I trained in, although the Cessna had it added by STC. Gear, prop, and insurance will add some theoretical cost, but which plane you buy will have more impact on the cost than its design, in my experience. The gas savings that come with the Mooney are not theoretical, though. Your search should be focused on getting the best example of whatever model you prefer. Preferably one that has been hangared and flown a lot recently, and maintained with an open checkbook. The alternative is an owner who flies around saying "I don't really need a working oil temperature gauge anyways." The logs will confirm.

I think this is incorrect. You assume the plane climbs faster without flaps, or to put it another way, that your rate of climb at Vy without flaps is greater than rate of climb at Vy with flaps. Vy is actually achieved with 15 degrees of flaps, at least on some models. I've attached the Vy charts from the POH of a 1968 C model, which specifies 15 degrees of flaps be used. Interestingly, I just looked and the same chart in my current M20K model, also attached, which says "Flaps Up" for Vy. So it's possible we have a difference between the short and mid bodies on this subject. The same POH also specifies 10 degrees of flaps for best takeoff distance. Also, it's not like using takeoff flaps results in standing the plane on its tail and roasting the engine at 450 dF. We're talking about partial flaps until the plane is in the air and the gear is tucked up. The quicker liftoff and higher initial climb rates very well might put your same theoretical plane well above its no-flap counterpart, at a higher airspeed, with cooler CHTs, at any given time during the first two minutes of flight. 68C Performance Charts.pdf M20K 262 ROC Chart.pdf

No official reference, I read it on the internet somewhere, probably on this site. However, you can confirm it with the plane's flight characteristics. Also, the performance charts for my C model specified that to reach Vy above about 10,000 ft, you must extend takeoff flaps. I did that and verified that is the case. If takeoff flaps increase climb rate, they must add more lift than they do drag. I also know that full flaps decrease climb, so I know they add more drag than lift. I know, not exactly a scientific, peer-reviewed and published article by an aeronautical engineer, but those are hard to come by for our planes. This is easy enough to test yourself. Go compare your climb rates at a constant IAS and power setting both at no flaps, takeoff flaps, and full flaps. You should takeoff with whatever flap setting gives you the highest rate of climb at Vx, which is your target airspeed until obstacle clearance is achieved. Guess what? It's the setting labeled "takeoff." Seems like a no-brainer to me. But if you just like taking off without flaps because of the rocket-like feeling in the seat of your pants as the plane accelerates to cruise speed, that actually makes plenty of sense to me too.

At the risk of interrupting a pretty funny thread there at the end... The "take off" marker on your flaps is the point at which the flaps start to add more drag than they do lift. Up to and including that point, the flaps add more lift than drag. Using "take off" flaps will result in a shorter takeoff roll and a steeper angle of climb, meaning your ratio of upward travel to forward travel will improve. This is helpful for obstacle clearance. It is also helpful for quickly putting distance between you and the ground and minimizing the amount of time you spend under 1000 AGL, which is the most dangerous time to have an engine failure. That's the theory you can read on these forums. I've verified it in both an M20C and an M20K. I use takeoff flaps as a habit unless there's more than about 20 kts of wind. I will then leave them up to minimize the gusting effect, and with those winds, takeoff roll and angle of climb are great anyways. I spent quite a bit of time on the C model with inop flaps because of a pesky hydraulic leak. It would take off just fine without them, but rolled longer and didn't climb as well. It actually does have a nice feel to it that way. The plane accelerates faster once you get in the air without the flaps. But it doesn't perform as well. You never know when your engine might quit shortly after takeoff, and I prefer to be as high as possible and as close to the airport as possible when it does. No-flaps puts you lower and farther away.