Z W

I stay at FL180 or below. I would go to about FL220 to top weather or possibly terrain (Aspen?), but otherwise I do not like being that high for long. This is your useful time of consciousness at those altitudes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness At FL180, you have 20-30 minutes. At FL220, you only have 5-10 minutes. Not worth it to me for just a tailwind. So far I've never needed to go that high. If I did, I would be watching my pulse ox closely and being very careful not to crimp or pull on my oxygen hose. Also, most cannulas are only certified to FL180. To be legal higher means a mask. My mask is uncomfortable. Another reason to stay under FL180. I use 65% power a lot of the time. It is a whole lot more economy for only a 10-15 knot speed loss. Sometimes I will go 75% if I am in a hurry or need to use the restroom

At 10,000 feet: 160 KTAS @ 11 GPH, about 65% power 175 KTAS @ 13 GPH, about 75% power To sell you on it, you first must understand, the turbo is not about increasing your TAS at the cost of wearing oxygen. It's about increasing your groundspeed by gaining a 50 knot tailwind in the high teens, turning a 4-hour flight into a 3-hour flight. It's about cruising in comfort in the teens when there's moderate turbulence to at 12k or below. It's about taking off out of Jackson Hole, Sante Fe, Telluride, or other high altitude airports at gross weight on a hot day and climbing at 750-1000 FPM until those 16,000-foot mountains no longer block your horizon. It's about flying in clear air at 17,000 feet, visually avoiding thunderstorm buildups, instead of being down at 10,000 feet, in the soup, hoping your Nexrad display or Stormscope is giving you accurate information about where those buildups are. It's about when, at 10,000 feet, you start to pick up unforecasted ice, and you push in the throttle and have 100% engine power to either climb or maintain altitude while you perform a 180 degree turn. Capability, not speed. The downsides? Some additional maintenance. Probably largely avoided if you watch your temperatures. There will be an additional cost at overhaul time. You have to watch more carefully for shock cooling coming down from the teens, and stay ahead of the plane, or you end up too fast and too high. Not really a problem once you're used to it. Just beware. Once you've gone turbo, it's hard to go back.

I've done the same thing, Lood. The Mooney is perfect except about twice per year when I am trying to fit 4 adults or 3 adults and ski gear in it, and I have to run with minimum fuel to make the useful load work. I hate running with minimum fuel. I spend the whole time staring at the gauges and wondering, "Am I sure there's 30 gallons in there?" I am always sure, by the way, but somehow it still bugs me the whole flight. But, to make those two trips per year easier, would I rather have a 182 that's 30 knots slower, or a Bonanza that burns 3 more GPH, for all the rest of my trips? So far my answer is no.

You turn the boost pump on for take-off and landing in a C model. That's proper procedure in the POH. But I always did turn mine off at the same time I leaned for taxi after start-up. It seems to help avoid getting too rich on the ground. Mine would foul a plug pretty quick if I failed to lean for taxi and turn off the boost. I also left my boost pump off and left it leaned for the run-up. I don't recall my POH stating boost pump on for the run-up. Every time I rolled onto the runway I did a GUMPS check, and in the S for switches, I included fuel pump on, landing light on. Also this is the time to check M for mixture - set as appropriate. That should be partially leaned, at a high density altitude, which is what you get on a very hot day or at a high elevation. If you've properly leaned for taxi and you forget to put the mixture knob back in, your engine will start to die as you advance the throttle. You can't forget that way - the plane won't fly. As stated before, that pump has a very short lifespan and a high rebuild cost. You will want to leave it off as much as possible.

You can over-rich the C model's engine pretty easily on the ground. On very hot (100+ dF) days you may even need to leave your mixture leaned by 1 inch to have full power. If mine was full rich and I had the carb heat on, on a hot day, it would sputter at full throttle for a go-around. I always left the mixture leaned just a little bit on short final after I discovered that.

When I'm rocking a tailwind and/or a 175 KIAS descent, I get turbine arrivals. I've not yet been slowed down for a jet though.

Maintenance is similar to any complex airplane. Probably less, if your F model has manual gear and flaps. Some like those, some don't. I prefer electric, having flown both. Parts aren't bad to get. Most mechanics I've talked to are familiar with them, and like them. They aren't as common as a Cessna or Piper, but they aren't rare either. The F makes a decent 4-adult plane, actually. Maybe not as good as the 182, but since it's more efficient you can take less gas and "use" more of your useful load. The legroom for your passengers is not any worse than flying coach on an airline. I've done 4 adult males in my K model for a 2-hour hop and nobody had any complaints. Other pros: Spending more on your hotel and rental car than AVGas for any given trip Respect from other pilots ("Isn't that thing hard to land?") Hearing ATC say, "Reduce speed, there's a 182 on a 5 mile final in front of you" Sports-car-like handling 40-knot headwinds are an inconvenience, but not a deal breaker Biggest cons: Not the best load haulers Rough field capability is limited Short fields require very precise airspeed control and a practiced pilot The single door and baggage access make loading somewhat difficult You can find other planes that go as fast, or planes that burn less fuel, but none will do both. In the budget range of an F, I don't think you'll even find another 4-place single that will go as fast. If you're flying from one paved strip to another, with 4 or fewer people, the Mooney really can't be beat. The fuel savings will leave you more room for your maintenance / hangar fund anyways.

You can often cruise in a C model in the yellow, below about 7k feet. I always kept mine in the green in anything other than totally smooth air. If it's bumpy and I'm in the yellow, I climb until WOT cruise produces speeds in the green, around 8-10k. Usually gets you out of the bumps anyways. It is actually fairly challenging to keep it out of the yellow while descending in a C without dropping the gear. Slow down before you go down.

I try to keep my O2 above 90 on the pulse ox. At 10-12k I can do that just by focusing on deep breathing techniques, as long as I'm not talking too much to passengers. Over that I need the cannula, which works up to FL180 for me. My O2 levels sit around 92-93 even at sea level, so I shoot for that. Not sure why. I don't smoke. I was amazed the first time I tried deep breathing after reading it on a forum. Took me from the 80's to the 90's in no time, like Ellioth says. And, if you continue breathing deep with the oxysaver cannula, you can leave it on a lower flow level. At least, I can, according to my PulseOx. I don't worry about that usually unless the tank is running low and I'm trying to finish the flight with "reserves." I don't notice fatigue and headaches as long as I keep my O2 level above 90.

You can find plenty of fine examples of a M20C for under $40k, but you will find that you probably cannot get everything you would otherwise want. The biggest items: 1. An IFR GPS (if you plan to fly IFR) 2. A functioning autopilot 3. A 4-cylinder engine monitor 4. A standard 6-pack panel for your instruments 5. Nice paint and interior Those are the biggest ticket items. At $40k if you find one with a mid time engine and all of that, it will be a steal. You probably need to set your priorities from that list, and then look for a plane offering the most for the buck. Operating expenses, you should budget $10k/year for hangar, insurance, annual, and basic maintenance. Gas and oil changes is extra. If you have any major repairs that will be too low; If you don't, it will be a little high.

Very true, although in our case, it was "If we cant get X lets just keep it and fly it." Two years and lots of repair/maintenance bills later, we changed our approach to "get it sold at whatever the market says its worth." Turns out that was about $7k less than X. After cutting out the brokers $5k commission we actually did not pocket much less than we originally wanted. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

One other note - the cost of ownership on both planes was almost identical. Same hangar rent, same annual base cost, same insurance, even fairly similar random maintenance. There are more systems on the modern plane, but the age of the vintage plane results in a lot of random hoses, wires, accessories, etc wearing out. Aside from the eventual engine rebuild, it is not any cheaper to own a vintage Mooney, in my experience. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

We had both the C and the 262 for a couple of years. My father and I both fly so it was not completely crazy. We made a half-hearted attempt to sell the C after we got the 262, but had a bad experience that probably resulted from using a broker and coming to the market with a price in mind. You cannot do that, by the way - the plane is only worth what the buyer will pay. We eventually came to realize trying to own two makes no sense. We are also in business together, so we cannot easily both be out of the office at the same time. Somebody has to stay in town and keep things running. The 262 is a great plane. The paint and interior are bad but it is likely getting a makeover soon. Our airplane budget just got a little looser. From the left seat, though, it is great. It climbs 500-1000 ft a minute, at gross, to at least FL180. It is very happy burning 11.5 gph at peak TIT, and that gives you 170-185 knots between 9000ft and FL180. I dont go higher than that but it will go faster up there. It is actually better mpg and lower fuel cost than driving an SUV. It is the king of economy. The 252 cowl flaps keep the engine very cool. The speed brakes, on board oxygen, 3-axis autopilot, and fully functional back seat made it the choice to keep over the C. The speed difference between it and the C was actually pretty negligible on most trips, unless you count the tailwinds the 262 can sometimes reach. I like to snowboard, so the turbo was also a big deal to reach the mountain airports. I will post updates on the 262 work. Probably starting with the panel. Stay tuned. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I see a lot of threads about the market, and the best strategy to sell or buy a plane. I just finished selling our 1968 M20C, at $1k less than list price, and thought I would share my experience. It was a well-equipped, beautiful plane, but it had damage history (multiple gear-ups and prop strikes, along with a forced landing on a road in 1994 where the wings struck sign posts). It also had a 1300-hour, just past mid-time, engine. I did not use a broker. I took the time to put ads on Barnstormers, Controller, and Trade-A-Plane, along with Mooneyspace. I was concerned about the amount of my time it would consume; however, almost all the inquiries came through email, rather than telephone. I found that to be very manageable. I priced the plane aggressively. I made it stand out as the best deal on the market, by listing it well below the list price of the next comparable short-body Mooney with an IFR GPS, 4-cylinder engine monitor, standard 6-pack panel, a functioning autopilot, and nice paint and interior. It got a lot of attention. I probably received 2 or 3 inquiries per week. I saved a lot of time and effort by compiling all the photographs, specs, logs, etc and putting them into my Dropbox account (www.dropbox.com). I then had a standard email with links to download all the information. When I got an inquiry, I just pointed them at the info and said, "Let me know what your offer is." I had two very serious buyers who were told by multiple lenders that they could not get financing on a plane over 30 years old, or one with damage history, or one with a mid-time engine. They eventually walked away. The third serious buyer got it done. I don't think he's flown the plane yet, since the plane is still in the shop getting a fresh annual and having some minor issues fixed. I hope he enjoys the plane as much as I did. I hear he has joined the site, but I'll leave it up to him to introduce himself. One interesting fact - he was not concerned about the "damage history", because the aircraft he's been flying usually have multiple bullet holes in them. Any airplane that has not been shot up seems like an improvement. It took about 30 days to get the final signed contract, and another 30 days for inspection and closing the deal. Part of that delay was me finding a weekend to take it to his mechanic for the pre-purchase inspection. My take away? The market is still alive. You can sell your plane. Lots of people are out there looking at Mooneys. I watched the market for a long time before listing, and the ones that sit for years are sitting for a reason. I'm sad to see the plane go. I learned to fly instruments in it, and took my family a lot of places. But I think the new owner will take care of it.

Go see Dave Green in Venice. www.mooneyservice.com. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I have not installed it, but I've looked into it. You can install it as your primary AI, but a 337 and/or field approval may be required. You can find an extensive discussion here: http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=75676&hilit=RCA+2600 Supposedly a great little unit if you can get it legal.

Update: The plane is now under contract.

On mine, for a very cold start such as 26 dF, I will do 5 pumps, then crank. The engine will catch, spin for a few revolutions, then die. Next time, I do 7 pumps, and it will fire and keep running. I developed this because if I ever manage to get it flooded, I cannot get the thing to start. The flooded start procedure has never worked for me on this plane, and I've successfully used it on other models. Go figure. If you go straight to 7 or 8 pumps, sometimes that's too much (e.g. it's 26 dF but you are parked facing the sun and your engine isn't that cold) and it floods it. Working your way up to 7 or 8 pumps avoids the flooded situation. It actually reminds me of starting a weedeater, where you do a couple pulls at full choke for a false start to flood the engine. This is the opposite, since it's actually firing while too lean, but for whatever reason it works on my 68 C model. And sometimes, it turns out 5 pumps was the right number, despite the cold, and it just fires up and goes. I've always done this with the fuel pump on, even while pumping and cranking. My POH doesn't say anything about turning it off after fuel pressure comes up. Never noticed gas dumping out the bottom of the engine with this procedure and it works even when the engine is very cold. I do try pretty hard to use the pre-heater when temps get below 40 dF.

A good locksmith can probably make you a single key that works on both the doors and the ignition. A small thing but very handy.

Edit: The plane has sold.

140-145 KTAS with all the speed mods @ 10 GPH. I plan 140. YMMV. If you're shopping, lots of good examples on the market with speed mods. I'd put them high on the priority list, in particular the 1-piece windshield and front cowl closure which also helps cooling.

Well, from a 262 (231 with a 252 engine bolted on the front): I run it at 28" MP, 2500 RPM, leaned to peak TIT. I open the cowl flaps as necessary to keep CHTs below 380. In cold air they are often closed, and all cylinders are always in the 350-380 range. At those settings, I get the following, which varies based on OAT and the like: 10,000 ft - 170KTAS 12,000 to 15,000 ft - 170 -175 KTAS 15,000 to 18,000 ft - 180-185 KTAS All of that is on 11.5 - 12.0 GPH. I don't like the mask, so I don't fly higher than 18k. I've seen Parker post better numbers, but he has the Encore conversion with 10 more HP, and I think runs his LOP. It will go faster if you put more fuel through it, but I don't. This is about 75% power. You can also pull the power back to 25" 2500 RPM and get 10 GPH at the cost of about 10-15 kts. These numbers also come from multiple trips checking a TAS calculator and winds. I have not done the 4-square GPS thing. Also, I suspect you will very rarely find yourself wanting to cruise at 14,000 - 15,000 ft. You're on oxygen, but below the really good tailwinds. Most of my time in the 262 is spent at 9-10k with a headwind or 17-18k with a tailwind. Very rarely am I cruising around in between. I've been meaning to try LOP, but my engine starts to rough right around peak TIT, so I have not put much effort into that.

I can attest to the impressive sink rates you can encounter in a Mooney with power at idle and airspeed below 80 MPH. My worst landing recently involved a plane near gross weight, a slightly high approach (dumped by ATC), and low airspeed. I normally descend first and then bleed speed, but for some reason I found myself high and slow this time. Unfamiliar airport and terrain may have been a factor. I cut the power over the fence and the plane dropped out from under me. I was probably doing 75 MPH. At this point, you are "behind the power curve" and pulling back on the yoke only increases your rate of descent, as you lose speed. The only way out is power, as somebody described above. I added a lot, bounced hard, and then landed uneventfully. It's easy to do, and can be a surprise. I didn't realize what was happening in time to avoid the bounce. Nothing wrong with 75 MPH on short final, just be careful about pulling the power to idle at that speed. You might accidentally lose 2-3 MPH and find yourself sinking more than you planned. I prefer 80 MPH for anything other than a short field landing. It just gives you more cushion, although you will float more than necessary. The real job as a pilot is picking the right speed for the runway, wind, and weight of your current flight.

Hank: What you describe does not match the reality that I see on a daily basis. Plaintiff's lawyers who try to practice that way quickly go broke, as you would expect if you really think that through. Insurance companies keep multiple lawyers on salary. They can defend truly frivolous claims without paying anything (and they do). You have however just repeated the "frivolous lawsuit" message that insurance companies spend so much money promoting as the reason we need loser pays laws, damage caps, and to get rid of jury trials. I would encourage you to check into the issue more. You might find we are not all bad and your blood pressure can improve.

I'm sure a lot of lawyers have done a lot of bad things to earn some bashing, but I do get tired of it sometimes. The anti-trial-lawyer sentiment that blames the high cost of everything on them, though, is really misinformed. The fact that insurance companies and big corporations can get everyday Americans to start pushing loser-pays and restricting jury trials scares me. We have to fight those bills every session in our state legislature, and all the money is on the other side of the fight. FYI, it usually starts now with the introduction of a one-sided "loser pays" bill. If the Plaintiff loses, he must pay the Defendant's attorneys fees. If the Defendant loses, each party bears their own fees. That really shows you who is funding these efforts.