M20F-1968

Or find a nice F or E and install a new RayJay Turbonormalizer. FYI: I just have one for sale. John Breda

Proof-reading is a virtue: Mislabeled some units. Doing that again: Plane carries 92 gallons (hold back 12 for reserve) 170 kts at 17,000 ft = 196 mph = 80 gallons X (1hr/10g) X 196 mph = 1568 miles There is the 1500 mile range. Of course each flight is different but a turbonormalized E or F with long range tanks gives some favorable numbers. John Breda Speeds at 10,000 ft are reliably = 160 kts, 17,000 =170 kts, 18,000 about 175 kts (have not been that high long enough to really test. Being a bit more conservative: using 165 kts/hr and 11 gallons / hr 165 kts = 190 mph 80 gallons X (1 hr/11 gallons) X 190 mph = 1382 miles John Breda

Mislabeled some units. Doing that again: Plane carries 92 gallons (hold back 12 for reserve) 170 kts at 17,000 ft = 196 mph = 80 gallons X (1hr/10g) X 196 mph = 1568 miles There is the 1500 mile range. Of course each flight is different but a turbonormalized E or F with long range tanks gives some favorable numbers. John Breda Speeds at 10,000 ft are reliably = 160 kts, 17,000 =170 kts, 18,000 about 175,000 kts (have not been that high long enough to really test. Being a bit more conservative: using 165 kts/hr and 11 gallons / hr 165 kts = 190 mph 80 gallons X (1 hr/11 gallons) X 190 mph = 1382 miles John Breda

Close to it (I rounded up a bit) Plane carries 92 gallons (hold back 12 for reserve) 170 kts at 17,000 ft = 196 mpg = 80 gallons X (1hr/10g) X (196 kts/1 hr) = 1568 miles Of course each flight is different but a turbonormalized E or F with long range tanks gives some favorable numbers. John Breda

If your are flying in British Columbia, you will want a turbo. I would suggest, a turbonormalized E or F. Keeps maintenance low, has fuel injection for LOP ops. Can maintain power to 18,000 ft at least, is a 175 kt airplane at 17,000 ft burning 11 gallons per hour with useful load 1000 lbs. With Monroy extended tanks, > 15,000 mile range. What is not to love. John Breda You can PM me for more info, I have a lot of experience in the area as I rebuilt a 1968 F to be the airplane I just described.

Can be fitted to an E or and F if you have the approved data ti use to do it. John Breda

PM me. I may have one or two of these. I have a 1968 F model, but with DER approval, made a new nose wheel cover which utilizes the J model indicator. Much more elegant. Making the fiberglass part was alot of work, with hand layups of fiberglass, and much refitting and sanding to make a model part. Now I have a part that I can use as a model to make others. See my profile for pics. John Breda

There is a RayJay STC for the 180hp O-360. The configuration of the pipes is different. I have never tried to fit the IO-360 RayJay turbonormalizer onto the O-360 engine. I remember that there is some re-routing of exhaust pipes under the engine. I doubt you will find even a run-out system RayJay system for an O-360 (C model). You could try to modify the stsem for the E or F, or as it has been suggested, trade up to a turbonormalized IO-360 which will serve you well. I do have my RayJay turbonormalized system for sale. Probably the only one you will find existing in the world right now for an IO-360 that is in new condition. John Breda

Has anyone tried to use 0.5 oz, very thin goat or sheep leather to cover the glareshield? Does the leather shrink with time? John Breda

Pictures are on my profile here on Mooneyspace. I will need to look up coverages but it is insured for $206,000.00 and the premium is about $3,800.00 per year (that is from memory) The company is Avemco. John Breda

The RayJay part numbers are either RJ 1025-21 or RJ 1025-31. The Turbo Bullet and M-20 Turbos used the same scavenger pump with a number CF101633-0001. That number may be a Kelley Aerospace number. Try calling Aircraft Accessories in OK. They rebuild these pumps. Perhaps they can sell you one. John Breda

I just looked at the post regarding R Model insurance. The answers are difficult to assess as no one posted hull value, coverage or total premiums paid. So, I started this thread. Please post your Mooney Model, hull value covered, coverage amounts and total annual costs. I know I am paying more than most, however mine is a special case since I have an F model that is professionally assessed at $206,000.00. Some companies will not insure much above book value, however there are more and updated Mooneys, so I am wondering what the real market is like. I am insured with AVEMCO. I would like to know what others are paying with similarly equipped airplanes and similar hull values. John Breda

Congratulation on your F. Nice looking bird. I am also an F model owner in Massachusetts. Where in Vermont are you located? John Breda

I'm not sure I would want a partner in airplane ownership. I want to know what condition my plane is in, and am wiling to take the effort and money to keep it in the best, most reliable condition it can be in. This is first and foremost a safety issue. I can seen discussions with a partner about do we do this maintenance this year or wait till next. You could solve such an issue yourself just by just paying for it work yourself, but then why have a partner. If you do not fly enough, a partner could help exercise the plane however. You would not regret and E or F. I am partial to the F given its added length, and retention of the "simple" aspects of the airframe, J bar and hydraulic flaps. Mine is otherwise not a F at all, so I do have the advantages of a turbonormalized plane with modern avionics. I doubt you will find a plane with a list of acoutrements you stated already installed. Decide what you are willing to install your self or what you are willing to do without. Mods are expensive, some more than others. If you do mods, concentrate of the ones that add performance, ie... Turbonormalization, long range tanks, J model cowling, 201 windshield. Avionics; once you have modern stuff, they become need to have items. Before you have them and know better, they can be considered nice to have items. John Breda

Welcome. I appreciate your comment of enjoying excellent engineering. I almost went to engineering several times in my life (but ended up a symphonic clarinetist (Oregon Symphony X 8 years and others) subsequently turned physician. The F/G airframe is great. The manual Johnson Bar is a plus. You have mountains in the Pacific Northwest (where I learned to fly) and you will want a turbo after owning the airplane for sometime. This is particularly true of the G model as it is underpowered compared to the F/E. My F is turbonormalized and I would not have it any other way. John Breda

Do not even consider doing the work without draining the tanks fully. Handling fuel is dangerous as are its vapors. Go to Home Depot and get several 5 gallon pails with screw-on sealing covers. Ground the airplane, be careful about generating static electricity. Take out the fuel drain in the wing and fill each 5 gallon pail. 6-7 will drain each wing. Install the fuel selector. Reinstall fuel drain and refill tanks. Use a funnel with a screen to refill (there are some that extract water as well - see Mr. Funnel on amazon.com). There are NO short cuts to this project. John Breda

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned safety issues. I would much rather be sitting in a Mooney rather than a Piper or Cessna should I need to make a forced landing. Even the FAA said to me that they have seen forced landing made in a Mooney the pilots and passengers walked away from and that would not have been the case with the other two maker's planes. I was out a Beegles Aircraft a couple of years ago and looked through their supply of wings. The Mooney and Beechcraft products were shoulders above in structural integrity as compare to the Piper and Cessna parts. John Breda

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned safety issues. I would much rather be sitting in a Mooney rather than a Piper or Cessna should I need to make a forced landing. Even the FAA said to me that they have seen forced landing made in a Mooney the pilots and passengers walked away from and that would not have been the case with the other two maker's planes. I was out a Beegles Aircraft a couple of years ago and looked through their supply of wings. The Mooney and Beechcraft products were shoulders above in structural integrity as compare to the Piper and Cessna parts. John Breda

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned safety issues. I would much rather be sitting in a Mooney rather than a Piper or Cessna should I need to make a forced landing. Even the FAA said to me that they have seen forced landing made in a Mooney the pilots and passengers walked away from and that would not have been the case with the other two maker's planes. I was out a Beegles Aircraft a couple of years ago and looked through their supply of wings. The Mooney and Beechcraft products were shoulders above in structural integrity as compare to the Piper and Cessna parts. John Breda

I have installed a J model cowling on a 1968 F model, along with J model style baffling, except for the oil cooler relocation which is on the baffling and not the firewall which is a better, less complicated installation. All was done using a DER and DAR with prior approved data. You can PM me here with your e-mail or you can e-mail me at john.breda@gmail.com or call me at (617) 877-0025. I have done what you are attempting to accomplish. John Breda

After reading this thread, I still am not convinced I have good data leading me to replace the MIL spec O-rings. 1) I believe that the fluorosilicone O-rings last longer than the factory originals, but I do not know how much longer than the 1 year recommended change interval is to be expected. Has Mooney chimed in on this making a recommendation? 2) If they could be obtained a 2X the cost, rather than 5-10X the cost, perhaps it would make sense to use them and change annually, thinking that they will be a better product. 3) I have not yet seen any data on what the true replacement part number and dimensions of the new part. It may not be just measuring them as the density/compressibility of the Fluorosilicone must also be considered. 4) Can someone who has used them post the dimensions, part number and source of the Fluorosilicone parts and I'll give them a try? John Breda

I have experimented with speed brakes with landing on my F model. I have the precise flight electric versions. Some of my best landing have been made with speed brakes out for the full final approach or from the FAF if IFR. They do seem to be helpful in crosswind landings. The plane feels heavier with speed brakes, gear and flaps out (I believe wing loading in increased) allowing (and necessitating) additional power to fly the same approach profile than without speed brakes. The control surfaces are more responsive and the plane is more stable. I agree with Don Kaye, I would not put them out at the last 100 feet above the ground. They work well in a stabilized approach when factored in to configuring the airplane for the approach. The airplane will climb with them out (albeit with more power). I do not use them on all landings. When crosswinds and gusts are less of a problem, fly the airplane conventionally without them. But, if you want to carry more power for stability into the flair, they are a good option. John Breda

You do not want to vary from the Heim bearings called for in the parts manual. There are differences, and you would be hard pressed to understand, forty years after the fact what tensions be intended to be relieved by certain bearing designs. They are all somewhat different and chosen specifically to accommodate their task without inducing load forces. When I rebuilt my landing gear, I learned of a specific Heim bearing used in the nose gear that was no longer being produced regularly, and was produce sporadically for another vendor. The Mooney shop in D/C happened to have the part. I bought what I needed and a set for the shelf. As I remember, part of the head of the Heim bearing was grounded to be narrower. In any case, it would be wise to not invent the wheel on this one. John Breda

For what it is worth...I have a JPI 930 in my F. I have been seeing fluctuations of about 2-4 psi (although always staying within the green arc). I spoke with Joe (owner of JPI) who is sending me a snubber to attenuate the fuel fluctuations from the mechanical pump. I am waiting to receive it. I do think my problem is an indication with the JPI. Plane flies fine despite this JPI indication. John Breda

Put a ferry tank in the back seat of the plane if need be and fly it to weep no more. You can get a DAR to issue the ferry permit (Much more reliable than trying to get the FAA to do it). They may not allow flight on the bad tanks due to possiible engine stoppage, but they should allow a ferry tank. The other argument that may work, which is not ideal, is if you have a problem with one bad take, there is another tank to get you on the ground. In any case, seek a ferry permit from a DAR. I would not go bladders, strip and reseal. Get is touch with Weep No More. Maybe Paul could help out on location. John Breda