bdjohn4

For paint, I used Jim Russell of D74 (Chorman) in SW Delaware. Usually has a 6-7 month waiting period. Takes 1 month for the job. See my gallery. He does Mooneys for reasonable prices and, as far as I can tell, the quality is very good. Didn't really charge me much more for a very custom job. He was very careful about keeping the chemical paint stripper away from the various access ports of the four tanks (Monroy LR tanks installed). The quote from Bartow FL was only a little more expensive, but really far from me. Also, if you have a wet wing, and since you are already in FL, might I suggest, BEFORE paint, either installing bladders or having Edison Gomez of Wet Wingologists (KFXE, Ft Lauderdale Exec) either reseal what you've got or have him put in Monroy Long Range tanks? I would reseal if the sealant is more than, say, four or five years IF I were planning to get paint done soon. Edison did mine and I love them. Even Jim Russell (the painter) said it was the first Mooney he's painted in a while that didn't have even a slight leak. 6-7 hours endurance with the LR tanks. Great for IFR trips. I flew from NC to Hartford several times and arrived with half fuel remaining! All Edison does are Mooneys and he basically started out working for Jose Monroy (of Monroy LR tank fame). Takes about 2 weeks total. Also, I love my GNS430 but the learning curve is high. If I were putting in a new one today, I'd probably spend the extra 3-4k and get one of the newer Garmin models since the GNS430 is old news at this point.

Sportys SP-400 Hand-held NAV/COM. Just for fun, I've flown a simulated ILS and the damn thing is really accurate (GS/LOC). I have two AA battery packs (8 AAs/pack; same AA batteries that go into my lightspeed Sierras... so I have plenty AAs with me at all times... don't drop the packs... the little tabs are apt to break off). I also got the push-to-talk and GA plug adapter. Most importantly, I have a mount that can go on the windshield area steel roll cage down-tube in case I really need it for an ILS emergency. I sometimes have it set up and tracking on an ILS just in case I lose the ILS at a critical period (safety first). FYI: my mag compass is down on the panel now, so that is out of the way.

The altitude restriction is no doubt related to hypoxia, in particular, prevention of cardiac ischemia that leads to a heart attack. And/Or, perhaps risk of neurological consequences of hypoxia (although here, I can't say I'm as read-up on the literature). Like the FMCSA (who regulates truck driver medical certification and JUST overhauled there process, making it stricter I might add), the FAA Medical Branch, I would imagine, is most concerned with risk sudden incapacitation. Fact is, episodes of sudden incapacitation are very rare and difficult to predict in many cases. Since only a tiny fraction of one's year is spent literrally in the cockpit, even with half-clogged coronaries the chance/probabillity that you will have your heart attack while at the controls is miniscule. Would be interesting to see how this meshes with the FAA Medical Branches recent push to use BMI as a screening tool for AMEs to require sleep apnea testing. My bet is that Congress will have to push this, as the FAA Medical Branch will be kicking and screaming against this. Bottom line is that since implementing the Light Sport Pilot program, not a single fatal crash has occurred that could be traced back to a suspected bout of sudden incapacitation (ie. Heart attack, stroke, etc). We'll see. I've met some completely physically healthy pilots that simply made some very foolish decisions that had them pay the ultimate price. Last I heard, in the UK, if you want to be a RECREATIONAL scuba diver, you have to have a medical clearance, much like a 3rd class. No evidence that that prevents diving injuries to my knowledge. John L. MD MPH Occupational Medicine Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine

This will decimate the LSA industry. Nearly every LSA pilot I know is flying one only due to the loss of a medical. Also, in the old days the FAA used to actually review Form 337 (major airframe modification form that must be filed with FAA) but I am told now that they only file them away, with no confirmation. Hope this law passes.

Check the actual ground wire on the overhead horn/speaker. For some reason the ground wire goes (I think) all the way back down the roll cage to the panel and grounds somewhere there, but I suppose you could just ground the wire to the rollcage right next to the overhead horn/speaker.

I don't know that I would run, necessarily. Some guys will get satisfaction in the restoration process itself. I did. Some guys just want to fly. I resonate with both. You can pay what you initially think is a good price for an airworthy example, like me, only to find that first annual costs several 10s of thousands of $$$ because you picked the wrong guy to assist with the pre-buy inspection (like me... caveat emptor learned painfully), or you can pay $3-5k on something that has been sitting in a field and frankly, the owner has forgotten about, and have a challenging project, but not as challenging as, say, building an Experimental from scratch. If you have the time, you like to tinker, and want to fly a certified ACFT, I don't see a problem with a re-build.

There's a C and I think a G or F at W88 (Air Harbor, Greensboro NC) that have been sitting for 10+ years. One has a motor with only 20 hours on it. Sadly, the motor is most certainly garbage at this point. I went with an already flying plane, but would love to see someone snap one or both of these up and repair. I'd imagine that having two ACFT to start with you'd have enough parts to complete and fly one of them. JML

Just seeing this thread. Any updates?

I think the moral is: If the sealant is really old, bite the bullet and do a complete strip/reseal (and why not have them put in LR tanks at the same time )

It is not as bad as you think. Trust me. When you see $50k on the Lyc website, it doesn't really mean $50k. Get your mechanic or Lyc Service center to price it for you and you'll be pleasantly surprised. I am going through TriadAviation at KBUY. It is not as bad as you think and not that different than getting your tired beater IO-360 overhauled. More expensive? Of course, but not so bad in my opinion. There are more and more 390s out there in the EXP world, so I think that going 390 will be ok in the long run. I have no idea if a 390 case is just a 360 case bored 1/8" to accommodate slightly bigger jugs. That is what I imagine it is. BTW, although Alamo Aerospace did the STC, Lycoming owns the STC (which you might have to remind the Lyc rep of.... they got confused today), so buying the prop through them is the way to go as well. Apparently, H&H (Triad's siamese twin Prop shop, run by a great Thai fellow named Yoo ) was told by Lyc rep today that we'd have to go through Alamo. The rep was mistaken. JML

Not sure exact weight penalty for engine. I heard 30 lbs but that was a back of the napkin statement and we weren't sure if that was applicable to the IO360A1A or a number from another model.Looking at Lyc's website: http://www.lycoming.com/Lycoming/PRODUCTS/Engines/Certified/360Series/EngineData.aspx They are saying an A-series IO-360 is 325 lbs (with the 360ci engines varying wildly in weight for some reason) and an IO-390 as 308 lbs?!?! I don't know if that is an apples/oranges thing or what. I am going from 3-blade to 2-blade so even if the "real" IO-390 is a tad heavier, with the lighter prop it should be close to a wash. If a port/polish is that cheap, maybe I should have them do it on the 390 at instal I'll ask if that is doable. 220HP with the Powerflow?? JML

Wow, this generated a lot of interest. Aware of the cylinder costs. The more IO390s that get out there, the lower the cost of cylinders will be in the future. I'll take my chances. Having an IO-360 ported/polished/flow-matched is great, but that alone would probably be as much (or more) than the cost differential between the IO360 and the IO390, and if I want I suppose I could have the same done to the 390, I suppose. I have to buy a prop/prop-governor anyhow, so the $s end up working out fine. Like I said, Lycoming was VERY willing to work with me on pricing a reman IO-390A3B6, and it was only a few thousand more than if I rebuilt my old IO360A1A (a very old design indeed), so I happily chose the reman 390. Hopefully you guys will consider this option too when the time comes. Also, hopefully the 2-blade Hartzell prop matches well with the motor. We'll see I guess.

I assume you have:HC-C2YR-1BFP/F7497 Can't wait to put one of these scimitar props on my IO-390 conversion. I am very happy to hear you are getting better cruise kts with the scimitar, which I understand to be heavier and slightly detrimental to speed, but so insignificant that it is difficult to measure. Yes, IMHO an engine is too expensive not to spend a little $$ to have dynamically balanced. I did it as part of the PowerFlow warranty but would do it even if that wasn't a requirement. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/archive/index.php?t-21362.html Excerpt: "gmcjetpilot 09-12-2007, 06:07 PM I had a long talk with hartzell. The 7496 was their first go at it. Its a fine blade and a little thinner than the 7497. As they developed the 7497 for the IO360 angle valve they realized it would work on the 180HP as well with out the small limitations. I asked about weight and loss of performance? Yes the 7497 weighs a little more but as a precentage of the props total weight its very small (no specifics given). Performance? Talking to the engineer that did the flight test development for the 7497 the there may be a slight hit on speed, but its too small to measure. Hartzell has the same challenges in getting good flight test data like we all do, especially when trying to compare two different props. If you have the 7496 blade its still rocks and you do get that slight weight advantage and minor edge on speed. The limits on the 7496 are pretty minor. So if you have a 180HP 360 you have the choice of either. However if buying new today, the 7497 with no limits is the way to go as Hartzell recommends."

Clarification: Edison did not do the original 2007 installation of the STC he helped develop. Edison did only the reseal of a botched Monroy Installation that lasted only 5 years. bdjohn

When was your last total strip and reseal? I have Monroy LR tanks installed by Jose Monroy's protoge Edison Gomez, of Wet Wingologists East at KFXE (Ft. Lauderdale Exec). He does nothing but Mooney wings, so there is hardly anyone that knows more about a Mooney wet wing. Had one wing done in 2012 and one in 2013. He offers a 7-year garrantee. Prior to that, the wings were done in 2007 (with Monroy kit installed) when the previous owner bought it from a Mooney shop up the coast a ways (that will remain unnamed). Edison was not impressed with the quality of the sealant installation and noted that the mechanic clearly didn't adequately clean the aluminum surface prior to application of the sealant. The shop up the coast (who I won't mention) was called, and the A&P that did the LR tank installation was long gone. I just said the heck with it and had Edison do the whole thing. With care, properly sealed wet-wings will last a long time. The lesson I learned is that it is never a bad idea to have an STC installed by the writers of said STC. They will do it by the book. I am leary of patches if the sealant is old, since if it is leaking in a spot now, that means it will leak elsewhere in the near future (again, if the sealant is already old and dry-rotted), so I just had the wings completely redone. Since repair is such a specialized job (not many A&Ps want to fool with wet wing leaks), might as well just have them completely stripped and resealed. Very happy with the results. Bladders won't work if you want LR tanks, unfortunately. JML

IO-390 A3B6. Oops.

Had a prop strike on an 1800 hour high-time engine (IO-360A1A). Turns out it was an omen. The internals were looking terrible (most certainly from long before the strike, with camshaft that shed bits of metal into the cylinders. Looked horrid) and I am told the prop governor was not long for this world. So, that is how I am rationizling my mistake that lead to the strike. So, the price of an IO-390 A3A6 was only slightly more than a IO-360. Therefore, I am going to go with that. Lycoming seems motivated to get more of us Mooney drivers to consider the swap. When you go with IO-390, you have to buy a new prop-governor anyway, so that is $$ I'd have had to pay anyway if I went with that. Now, with a high-time old beater motor in my E (3-blade top prop conversion, 201 winshield and some gap seals [tail, dorsal, flap, LASAR cowl enclosure, smooth belly]), I was getting a TAS of 150-151kts. my main question is, what can I expect with a 2 blade vs a 3 blade. I read that MAPA PIREP a few years ago of the guy in the upper midwest who was dissatisfied, but noted that the experiments were not carried out with much scientific rigor (i.e., he usually was at X thousand feet before he got to the edge of the lake, but now, with the IO-390 he was only Y thousand feet). I didn't know what to make of that. The Glastar Sportsman article featuring a head-to-head comparo of the 360 vs 390 seems more valid, and shows significant performance increases. The approved Hartzell prop is a blended airfoil design, which I can't say would change performance much based on what I read on the Van's Airforce site of a guy that had a long conversation with the Hartzell engineers, but certainly would look cool. Anyway, your thoughts would be appreciated on which number of blades to buy. I have to decide which prop to order soon. FYI: I fly out of a 5000ft paved runway in the SE at 600ft MSL and do a lot of long X-crty trips. Monroy tanks installed too. bdjohn

I stand corrected on the prop diameter. I could have sworn I read that the 3-blade was 1-2 inches smaller in diameter. I guess I've got a decision to make. http://hartzellprop.com/wp-content/uploads/159-0000-R37-AW.pdf . Page 949 (or M-45) What wold be the real-world difference in cruise performance with a 2-vs-3 blade? 1kt, 2kts? Anybody have real experience with this question?

I've had similar good experiences with LASAR. Also, they tend to keep mods in stock, not make them to order. Mooney has also been good to me. The director of engineering himself scanned several pages of 44 year old drawings and sent them to me when I needed a new wiring harness. Those drawings were not easy to find. If anyone needs to replace the fire-wall forward wireing harness in a '69 E-model, I have a pdf. Sparkchasers made a new one for me for about $600 as I recall.

Thanks for the replies. I think I am going to go with the Lycoming IO-390 conversion (STC = SA09695AC ) and thus am limited to the Hartzell Scimitar (2-blade = HC-C2YR-1BF/F7497 , or the 3-blade= HC-C3YR-1RF/F7282 ), but am thinking of going with the 3-blade given the slightly greater ground clearance, fankly (Prop-strikes are, it turns out, very very expensive mistakes). There is no STC for the MT on an IO-390 at the moment, so as much as I would like to put a MT 3-blader on there, I cannot at the moment. I spoke with a close friend that is a FAA DER and Seneca II owner (a pretty smart guy that understands the regs and culture of the FAA/FSDOs), and he says that putting an untested prop on a certified ACFT is more than Field-Approval, that much vibration data must be obtained. I am talking with Pete at MT USA to see if they are interested in doing an STC for the IO-390, but haven't heard back yet. Sure would be nice to have a lighter-weight composite blade option like a MT for the IO-390 I feel that, with the AVGas future unknown, the worst that could happen is that I could have to de-rate the IO-390 to a lower horsepower and running a lower-octane fuel. Who knows what the future may hold.

OK. Thanks. I spoke to Pete at MT just now. Lead time is 14 weeks unfortunately but he has it on order for me. Price differential isn't that much when you consider you get a Kevlar spinner with the MT. No flying this winter though, unfortunately.

Forgot the "?" Mark. Are there problems with crazing/cracking in MT props?

No problems with crazing/cracking of the blade finish. I am forced to replace my Hartzell 3-blade ( on my '69 E-model) and my local trusted A&P/IA, who does a bit of work on Liberty LSA (MT-equipped) says the crazing/cracking on these makes A&Ps leery. I figure I should reduce as much vibration as possible on this nearly half-century old airframe. Any thoughts? BTW: I considered the IO-390 conversion but passed and will just O/H my io-360A1A. $4000 cylinders were just too much to stomach

Got mine done by Jim Russel at D74 (Chorman, Delaware). Great experience. Takes 4 weeks. Did a contemporary warbird scheme. Take a look at my gallery.