nels

Sorry, that was Nels making the prior post, not Jerry.

I know some of you folks have owned the E model and also the 201. I would assume that at any given power setting and at equal altitudes the 201 will be faster and probably burn more fuel. So, as far as mpg at cruise are the two planes about equal or does one out shine the other? I'msure this info can be had from the owners manuals but what about real world experience from one pilot owning both so as most variables are eliminated.

I'm not sure but I think the forged crank was available to the military in maybe the late 40's or early 50's. I know there was a ton of speed equipment available, especially from Braje (sp). I wonder if the Mooney ran the stock Crosley or was in warmed over a little. I really enjoyed my old Crosley. It was underpowered for sure but I got more female attention in that car than ANY other car I've owned, that includes Maseratis, Lotus Esprits, Porche, Stude Avantis etc . I never would have beleived that a Crosley conv was key to meeting almost any chick on the planet. One lady actually stopped in front of me at a stop sign and walked backed just to see the car. It reminded me of an amusement park miniature car that somehow escaped from the park and was just having a happy time driving around the country side.

Dave, I also owned a Crosley in the past, a '52 Super convertible sdn. Living in Cincinnati I actually bought and still have two Crosley nos crate engines. The forged crank was available but not in the cars until maybe very late. I also have one of the brazed blocks just as a curiosity thing or paper weight. That engine did weigh under 50 #'s minus starter and generator. I would think a brazed engine with the forged crank would probably survive in a plane. They were very well accepted in the circle track racing arena and were putting out over 70 hp with plenty of massaging. I bet the guys at the Crosley nationals would blow their minds if a Crosley powered Mooney dropped in at their meet. Are there any phots of a Mite with the Crosley in it?

I was told years ago that the first Mites had Crosley engines, I assume they were the sheet metal variety. I checked on the Mite site and sure enough the early planes did use Crosleys. However, they were replaced with Continentals I believe as the Crosleys had problems. Just wondering, did any Mites survive with that igenious Crosley engine?

Great info PK. I appreciate it.

Do all 201's have one piece belly and if so are they fiberglass or aluminum or other?

I doubt Mooney was only considering safety when putting the metal cage around the passenger compartment but rather an engineering and cost measure to get what they needed for production. I do think it is obvious from the photos of this Mooney crash that the cockpit survived intact due to the steel tube structure. It is state of the art these days that race cars have a seperate driver's structure or cockpit that will stay rigid and intact while the rest of the car sheds parts and energy during a crash. These Mooney pictures seem to show that this Mooney did try to shed its tail assembly and engine, nowhere near what a modern design Indy car would do but maybe some intuative thought actually did go into the original design.

I've mentioned on the forum already that I bought a collapsed gear 66 E model. I had it ferried to Mn for repair and annual. I intend to be a part of all of it as I really want to know how it all ticks. Like Tony, I've been working and restoring cars for close to 50 yrs and the plane intimidates me only because I've never been inside of its mechanicals. I want to get over that hurdle so I can be more aware of problems before they bite me and also don't want to be taken advantage of in a repair shop at a later date. The plane I bought had recently gone through a Mooney Service Center and emerged with an $18,000 repair bill so, yes, a lot of stuff can be missed by prior A&P's. That repair bill actually gave me the confidence to go ahead with the purchase.

I'm debating on weather or not to keep the belly kit. Since I bought this E model project I've run across and bought a 201 prop and now this belly. I haven't even flown in an E model but in the back od my mind I think I might end up with a 201 eventually. The only way I will be able to afford or justify owning one is to buy one that has done a gear up landing. The usual problems, minus the engine damage, is a prop and the belly repair parts. I have both in hand right now. Who knows, something just might turn up. As I said in a prior post, are there any such animals out there?

I'm debating on weather or not to keep the belly kit. Since I bought this E model project I've run across and bought a 201 prop and now this belly. I haven't even flown in an E model but in the back od my mind I think I might end up with a 201 eventually. The only way I will be able to afford or justify owning one is to buy one that has done a gear up landing. The usual problems, minus the engine damage, is a prop and the belly repair parts. I have both in hand right now. Who knows, something just might turn up. As I said in a prior post, are there any such animals out there?

Well the new belly arrived today. It has the skid rails on it to help in the event of a gear up landing. Its brand new, in the box, never drilled or installed. It is a dual purpose type. It is made for either the long body through the 201's or 10 inchs can be cut from the rear and it can then be used on the short body. I weighed it on the bathroom scale first with just me then me, the belly and hardware. Looks like the assembly for the long body would weigh 23#'s. The instructions say to add 10 #'s to the plane weight after install so I assume there is about 13#'s of aluminum and hardware that is removed during the installation process. Now that I bought it the guy working on the plane says he thinks we should just replace the aluminum skin. I wish he would have said that earlier. Anybody know of a gear up landed 201 for sale ? Maybe I could make use of it in the future.

I just recently bought my 66 Mooney and just got the registration the other day. Will the FAA send me a notice of the AD?

I'll tell you Byron, if the belly was 7 grand I wouldn't give it a second thought. I needed belly repair and just happened to see a new, never out of the box, fiberglass belly on Barnstormers for $1500. I figure the cost is not at all out of line and might even save a few bucks by not fabricating all the alum panels. I hate to add weight just as you say but if it quiets the plane a few decibals and gains anything at all in speed, I will be more than happy. When I get the kit I'll weigh it and let you guys know what the weight penalty is. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Quote: Hank Yes, my fiberglas belly is quite thick and heavy. I have to slide something under the plane to support it within a few inches as I remove the last screws from both ends, then I can reach inside and undo the antenna wire. Drag it out, carry it out of the way, and start the clean & wax process. It's easily 20-25 pounds or so. 20 to 25#'s is awfully heavy. Does yours have the skid protection in it in the event of a gear collapse? I assume it goes on your M20C? If so, the J model would weigh significantly more.

Byron, I think Scott is comparing carbon fiber to fiberglass not the original aluminum.

Scott, Its an insurance job that I bought. Guys at the airport said it slid about three ft after the gear collapsed. But, it did bang up the belly so I sorta figured that the cost will be similar to replace in alum or go to the one piece. I don't know what the weight penalty will be but hopefully it will be a little slicker in the air and maybe even reduce cabin noise a little.

Quote: jerry-N5911Q I've heard out in West Texas the airport ATIS reports winds like that as "light and variable, gusts to 40."

Sorry orangmtl, the last couple posts were mine.

Anybody know anything about an Aero Mods one piece belly? Sopposidly one size fits all or I should say the long size is designed to be trimmed for the short body. How hard to install and what performance perks? Any pros or cons to this manufacturer? It will be going on a '66 E model.

Are the winds particularly bad this year?? In particular, I've been through Kansas twice this year, the last time moving my daughter and her husband to Denver. Since I just bought a Mooney and now getting reaquainted with flying, I notice winds on the ground a lot more. I also know that, hopefully, my wife and I will be flying from from Cinci to Denver a lot. This will require a fuel stop in kansas. Does the wind ever slow down in that state??????? It was sometimes hard to keep our van on I70 much less a Mooney on a landing strip!!

Mine used to retract real quickly as well. We changed the hydraulic flap pump last year at annual because it was leaking. Now they retract in 8-12 second while flying and a little slower on the ground. There is an adjustment on the hydraulic pump that regulates the retraction rate. It is a pain in the ass (PIA) to get to and adjust. When they retract that quickly you need to be careful retracing them after takeoff or during a stall recovery there is a definite and noticeable drop in altitude when you retract them quickly.

Don't know how old the system is but could the flexible brake hoses be kinked or swollen closed with age. Also, is the push rod in the master cylinder returning all the way to allow air to get out of the system and also fluid into the system from the reservoir?

Since I'm new to aircraft I'm not sure if this would be a possiblilty but if brake fluid for aircraft is of the synthetic or silicone type, it would have a tentency to hold very small bubbles of air in suspension for a long time. If you would leave the plane set for a couple days and just rebleed at the master cyl if possible, this may purge the trapped air that has finally worked its way up to the master cylinder. Sometimes several dozen slight motions on the brake pedal will allow accumulated air to bubble out the intake orifice in the master cylinder and this will do the bleeding for you, just don't go in and pump the heck out of it, just minimal pedal motion. As I said, not familier with the aircraft brakes but I would assume all brake systems are similar.

I agree I figuredd I'd see a little more on the TIS side. If there were only a way to "trick" the system into transmitting the data.