Z W

It will be interesting, and will depend on what the FAA does. The Jarkesy case says if they want to fine you for regulation violations, they may have to bring the case originally in a federal district court, and the accused has a right to a jury as the finder of fact. I say may because it's not quite a blanket ruling that all civil penalties involve a 7th amendment right to a jury trial, but that some certainly do. That may make a huge difference in some cases. Right now, the hearing is done before a FAA-employed administrative law judge. However, most FAA enforcement cases aren't really about the civil penalties / fines. The FAA will still have the option to not seek those penalties and instead just seek suspension or revocation of the pilot's certificate before the administrative law judge. My prediction is this will be what they do. Now, after they've continued doing what they've always done, there is a chance that when you appeal the case to the district courts and on up to the court of appeals, those regular judges will no longer give the FAA as much deference on their interpretation of their own regulations, based on the Jarkesy court's criticism of the Chevron doctrine, and instead will try to interpret the regulations as written. FAA counsel opinion letters should receive about zero weight. That is, in my opinion, probably a good thing, but maybe also a bad thing for the pilot. The opinion letter authorizing a lot of what we call owner maintenance comes to mind. If the courts aren't going to give that any weight, and instead limit us to doing only the maintenance the regulations allow, I'm not sure owners can inflate their own tires any more. This was probably intended by the court, to encourage agencies to write better regulations and not just rely on things like counsel opinion letters, but may be messy to deal with in the short term. All things considered, though, the facts of the case will still be determined by the FAA-employed administrative judge with no right to a jury. And, just so everyone is clear, it is far more likely that the facts of the case will decide whether you keep your license than the interpretation of any law. Judges of all kinds are very good at deciding cases in ways so they are not overturned on appeal, and the best way to do that is to find the facts as you want them to be. I'm sure someone is going to ask for a jury trial on a FAA license revocation action under Jarkesy, and then we'll find out how much of it applies. It will be a few years (or a decade) before we get an appellate decision to really let us know. So all of this is just speculation. But at least in theory, it should now be harder for the FAA to revoke a pilot certificate unless they can point to a regulation that was violated as written, and not just as they interpret it.

Speed brakes are nice, but I find myself trying to fly so that they aren't needed even though I have them. The rumble of the air over their wings once they're up, combined with an ear-popping descent, can make some passengers uncomfortable. I'm pretty sure I would not add them to a plane that didn't have them, for what they cost, both to install and maintain. But they are a nice tool to have. I think the first thing I would do with a new-to-me plane is fully de-cowl it, open up the tailcone, remove the interior and carpet, and fully clean and detail everything. Then, once it's all cleaned and degreased, I would inspect and lubricate everything that moves - engine control cables, pushrods, cowl flap cables / motors, heim joints, push rods, hinges, retractable step, etc., with Tri-flow or another proper lubricant. Along the way I would look for any loose or broken wires, corroded electrical connections, signs of chafing in linkages, exhaust leaks, missing hardware, rusted hardware, brake fluid leaks, oil leaks, old / stiff / cracked hoses, scat tubing with holes in it, or similar items. Anything that looks bad, and any hoses that look like they haven't been replaced in a decade, would probably get replaced, either by me if it's within the scope of owner maintenance, or by a shop if not. Just because an item is airworthy and passed annual doesn't mean you want to keep flying it until failure. Some people think this is what shops do at prebuy and at each annual. That's what I thought at first too. The reality is most often something else, in my experience. A lot of that list is not required for an annual, and most owners don't want to pay what it costs to do this every year, so it does not get done. They check the required items and sign it off. The rest is on the owner. It's best to get to know your own equipment, and keep it clean, so problems are easy to spot and easier to fix. Good time to stock your hangar up with plane-cleaning supplies, lubricants, and degreasers. Also some good portable shop lights and flash lights.

Lol, I'm 38. Thought I was too busy to shop around. Maybe I will make the time next year to call Parker.

Just paid $4,242 for $175k hull, $1m, $100k per person limits. 475ish hours, most of that in type, IR. I'd say you're doing better than me.

Also, speaking from experience, it's not unheard of to be told the only building plans they will approve will be stamped, engineered plans that call for 9-inch thick concrete reinforced with #5 rebar every 12" on center, which must also be approved by the county engineer.

You may want to consult a lawyer in the area where this is, before spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on hangar construction. A few thoughts: 1. Assignment is not allowed without their permission, meaning they can refuse to let you sell the hangar, for any reason or no reason. You may want it to say they cannot unreasonably withhold their consent to assign. Things change and you will want to be able to sell your investment. 2. The airport gets to re-adjust the rental amounts every 5 years. You have some protection since it can only adjust the rates for everyone at the airport. But you could spend a lot of money building, expecting $30/month for your ground lease, only to find they increased it to $2,000/month for everyone at the airport 5 years from now. You don't know who will be in charge of the county airport board 5 or 10 years from now, or what ideas they may come up with to increase revenue by taxing those rich airplane owners buzzing the town with their private airplanes. 3. It's silent on cost of construction, and ownership/tie down rights, of the apron and ramp. Usually that means you will pay to build it. They may or may not let you park aircraft on it, or tie down aircraft on it. In case that's important to you.

It costs what it costs, and it takes as long as it takes. That can be painful, but I've found months or years later, the pain has faded and every time the panel lights up, just works, and does what it's supposed to do. The increased capability, situational awareness, and safety seem worth it.

@Pinecone post some pics if you get this done, please. I still have a vacuum gauge there, but since the vacuum pump just runs the speed brakes and retractable step now, I'd be interested in removing that in favor of a better O2D2 mount.

My mistake. Didn't Google far enough, apparently.

Building the structure is only one part. Before you get there, you will need to figure out how to buy or lease the ground. Federally funded airports are prohibited from selling any portion of the ground. So hangars there are built on long-term land leases. The terms and cost of those vary greatly. Some airports will only do a 20 year lease, and want you to pay more in ground rent than you would pay to rent another hangar on the field. Others will give you a 50 year lease for $10.00 per year, just glad to have someone putting up a hangar and driving more traffic to the field. In all cases, at the end of the lease, the ground reverts to the federally founded airport operator, and usually, the building belongs to them too. If you're still there, you will have to negotiate a new lease for your use of the hangar you built. The above does not apply on private strips, and maybe not for through-the-fence arrangements where you own the ground but have access to a federally funded runway. But those situations are sometimes even more complicated. Also, don't forget to factor in the cost of pouring the ramp, and maybe additional taxiways.

He has a Rocket conversion, with a liquid-cooled 350 HP TSIO-520NB engine. I'm not sure what his fuel flow should be, but it isn't a normal K situation. @wombat those cowl flaps do not look like mine. I have the fully-adjustable 252-style with two arms driven by a motor. Are they a Rocket conversion part?

I don't really recall, it's been over 10 years. They insured me on our M20C without much trouble when I only had about 50 hours in 172's and a fresh PPL. I think I had a dual requirement of 10 or 25 hours which I just used to work on my instrument rating and transition into the Mooney. When we got the M20K they declined to cover me at first, even with a fair amount of M20C time. I ended up finishing the instrument rating in the M20C, flying the K about 25 hours uninsured, then re-applied and they covered me. If I were doing it again I would probably shop harder and pay more for insurance instead of taking the uninsured path, but it worked out for me.

I would check the wiring at the pump that was removed. Sounds like the wire running to the low boost pump switch may not have been reinstalled correctly.

Avemco is insuring me right now with less than 700 PIC.

In recent years, I've added a basic socket set, phillips and flat head screwdrivers, a spare fuel sump, and a spare spark plug. Just the basics, but enough to get access to the battery in the tailcone in case it needs charging or a jump, or swap out a fuel sump if one gets stuck open. I've swapped a stuck fuel sump on the ramp before. Haven't needed the spark plug yet.

I think some of what you're seeing is caused by the mechanic shortage we've all been experiencing since 2020. Shops are backed up, maintenance takes a long time, and a new or remanufactured engine can be 9-12 months out. Makes sense lots of people are trying to sell their planes in less than pristine condition. And as a buyer, you have to worry about how you'll get the catch-up work done, or where you'll source that new engine from.

@Gee Bee Aeroproducts makes excellent door and baggage seals for Mooneys. I have a set sitting in box I have not yet had time to get put on but they seem to be excellent quality. He recently bought a baggage door and set up molds to do an extrusion to offer those as well. https://www.csobeech.com/GeeBee.html

I haven't had any conversion-related issues in about 12 years of operations that I can recall. It can be a little tricky to figure out if you need the 231 parts or the 252 parts in the illustrated parts catalog, but it's always one or the other. And often, there are several different part number options even for just the 231's, so you'd probably be figuring it out anyways. In general, you use the 231 parts for electrical stuff, and most of the airframe, and the 252 parts for firewall forward. I believe that's all they did for the STC - replaced 231 parts with factory Mooney 252 parts. I have never come across any non-factory or one-off custom-fabricated parts. Some of the unique 252 parts associated with the TSIO-360-MB and SB engines have become harder to find, such as the intake airbox. The factory has supposedly been working on making us one for over two years now. Ours has been repaired and rewelded multiple times, and the last time, essentially rebuilt. But this is a problem you'd have with any 252 or Encore, not just a 262. There just weren't all that many ever made. Have always kept the old original part number starter and avoided the lightweight due to reports on here of issues. Still have the vacuum speed brakes and step, even though that's all the vacuum pump runs now. I've heard some conversions don't have all the parts changed. Examples include the fully variable cowl flaps, rounded side window inserts, extended range tanks, vacuum step, second alternator, maybe some others. As far as I can tell, ours got everything, but you might investigate closely if you were shopping another one. I don't think any of it would matter a whole lot to me. The biggest feature is the MB engine and the ability to take off full throttle without concern of overboosting.

Started with the OxySaver Cannulas. They were fine. Went to the O2D2. Like it much better. Mostly because the oxygen tank now lasts so long, I use the oxygen more (any time over 8,000 feet or so) and arrive feeling much more refreshed and sharp. Don't have to hassle with filling the tank or getting it filled nearly as often - couple of times per year. Also the headset-mounted boom cannulas are much more comfortable and convenient. All of the OxySaver style ones are always tangled up around your headset and uncomfortable to wear.

They usually seem to trade on a function of 1) how many years are left on the land lease, vs. the cost of renting another hangar on the same airport, and 2) the cost of constructing a new, similarly sized hangar on the airport. If you buy while there's 10 years left on the land lease, and sell when there's 5 years left, you may well sell at a "loss". Most of the time, hangars on public use airports depreciate every year. Not always true on some with really long lease terms, like 50 years, which may appreciate at first, then depreciate as the end of the lease approaches. If it's a private airport with deeded ownership of the ground under the building, this likely does not apply. You can easily have $100k in dirt work and concrete on a new 50x50 hangar build, before you start on the structure. Especially if you're heating it. Remember you have to pour an apron and maybe pave a taxiway too.

I have a M20K model with 105 gallon tanks. If you fill them up, it will fly 8.75 hours at 12 GPH and anywhere from 160-185 KTAS, going from 9,000 to 18,000 feet. In theory, that gives it a no-wind no-reserve range of 1,400 - 1,618 nautical miles. I still don't count on going 1,000 NM non-stop on a regular basis. With 105 gallons of fuel, there's useful load for pilot + bags only. No passengers. Add a passenger, lose some fuel, lose some range. The next challenge is wind. If you have a tailwind it's often no problem. Somehow I usually have a headwind both ways. At the higher altitudes it gets stronger. Add a 25 knot headwind at 9,000 feet and your max no-wind no-reserve range drops to just 1,181, with 105 gallons of fuel, and an unsatisfying 135 knot ground speed, for up to 8.75 hours. Then you have weather. On every 1,000 NM trip I expect to cross a weather front. There will be clouds in the way. Your 1,000 NM direct trip can easily become a 1,200 NM trip with deviations around weather. And then you still need to account for passenger useful load, winds, and reserve fuel. Also don't forget oxygen. If you don't have enough O2 for 8.75 hours of flight for two people, plus the return flight unless you can get O2 filled at your destination, you'll have to stay under 12,500 feet, and may not get to use the tailwind the whole way. Finally, flying for more than 3.5 hours isn't for everyone. I'm ready to get out by then. You can do 1,000 NM hops, sometimes, if you really want to, but 500-600 NM flights are much better. I believe the Ovations will burn slightly more fuel and have slightly less range than these numbers, maybe with higher speeds, especially down low. As far as I know the Mooneys are some of the best options available for range, but this has been my real-world experience.

I consider anything longer than 3 years to be a bonus. 2.5 years is a little short. Might consider checking your battery connections for corrosion and tightness, all the way from the battery to the starter, and the main ground cable in particular. A bad connection can make an otherwise functional battery seem weak.

Both the GPS and the antenna have sold.

@bradp thanks for the tip. Updated to show a picture of the data plate. It says 14/28 vdc so I believe it may work in a 24v plane as well.

Garmin 430W, removed from our Mooney for an upgrade to a GTN. In good working order, clear screen, all the buttons work, no known issues. Tray, antenna, and connectors shown included. This came out of a 12v airplane. Tag indicates it may also work in a 24v airplane. Verify before purchasing. $4,000.00. Paypal or Google Wallet preferred. Thanks for looking.