adrian

Thanks Bob. Obviously there's a part of me that is secretly hoping nobody buys it, which will force me to fly it more! That said, it would be nice to see someone using it properly. They are such capable aircraft, as you know better than most.

It could certainly come back - and to be honest, it would be more useful in America than I have found it to be in Europe. When I lived in the United States, I got used to using an airplane for transport. There are airports everywhere, they have IFR approaches, FBOs, 24 hour opening, courtesy cars, no landing fees, etc. etc. I know not everything's perfect in the US, but it is by far the best place in the world to fly (and I've kept a share in a Super Decathlon in Maine so that I can come back and enjoy it regularly!). Here it's very different. If I want to use my airplane to fly from home in France to work in London, I need to make a stop to clear French customs - and I need to notify customs at between 4 and 24 hours in advance at most airports - and when I get to London there are almost no airports with approaches that accept GA. The few that do are ridiculously expensive to use, and almost all GA airports shut at sunset. It is much easier to use the airlines, and with fuel at ~$9/usg it's much cheaper too. So I am not flying the Mooney enough to justify owning it. I'm thinking of perhaps going back to flying something small, slow and fun - just for the pleasure of being in the air. And maybe something with skis on it so that I can get back into landing on the glaciers in the French Alps, which is almost the most fun that you can have with your clothes on! I advertised the Mooney yesterday. There has been a lot of interest and someone's coming to view it tomorrow. It is not the cheapest, but I think it is one of the nicest! I need to take some interior shots - I've had to settle for showing the seats outside just after they were upholstered. I don't want to hijack a thread about Bob's lovely airplane, but if anyone wants one that could be made almost as nice as his, here's the advertisement: https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=48000

Bob, Just..... WOW! That looks absolutely fantastic. What a wonderful travelling machine you have made for yourself. A few years ago I thought my 'E was almost as nice as yours, but you have left me so, so far behind. Really great job. (However, unlike yours mine is for sale because life just gets in the way of flying too much.... So if anyone wants to make one as good as Bob's, I can offer you a great place to start - though you'll have to come and collect it from France!)

Thanks Rich. Sorry to hear that your Skytec starter also failed. I agree that their customer service was good - they were very helpful about the exchange under warranty last time mine failed - but they do seem to fail too frequently.

The 149-12HT on my '66 E failed last week. It was fitted in 2014 under warranty after the previous 149-12HT failed. That failure led to weeks of downtime as I had to ship the starter to Skytec from France, wait for them to determine that it was a failure that was covered under warranty, then wait for a new motor to be shipped and fitted. I'm out of warranty this time, and very reluctant to fit another flimsy lightweight starter. Any suggestions for a good, reliable starter?

I'd also love to increase the Vne and Vno numbers. I've never been able to find out if there was actually any change to the structure, or if it was just a paperwork change. Does anybody know?

Three and a bit years later...... here are the photos you asked for! No captions (sorry!), but they show the departure from Maine, arrival in Quebec, then stops in Kuujjuaq, Sondrestromfjord, Kulusuk, Reykjavik, Faroe Islands, Prestwick, and finally my home base at Villefranche in France. https://goo.gl/photos/ZZZBGQqFHnGAeDbt8

I was in the same position last year. After much discussion with the prop shop, who didn't recommend the oil-filled option, I bought a new hub with no AD. It cost $3500, plus labor to fit it. If I was still living in the US, I would have kept the old hub and done the ECI regularly - but over here in Europe that was too much hassle, as there are so few prop shops that can do it.

Greg - I had the same problem on my '66 E. I have fixed it definitively by buying a new prop control. However, for 3 years I had a very acceptable cheap solution. I used a wooden clothes peg, which I clipped to the the shaft of the prop control. It prevented the rpm from changing with vibration. Before landing, I removed it and clipped it somewhere out of the way. Here's a picture of my approved, PMA'd, RPM stabilisation system!

I love the long range tanks I put in my E. I hardly ever need them, but they give so many more options - especially on this side of the Atlantic where fuel isn't as cheap or as readily available as one would like. On the flight from the US to Europe they meant I never had to do any fuel or endurance calculations. I flew from Canada to Greenland, safe in the knowledge that if I couldn't land at my destination I could divert to any almost any other airport in Greenland, or continue on to Iceland, or return to Canada. That peace of mind was more than worth the cost of the tanks. I always assumed everyone here knew that Piloto is Mr Monroy!

I was based at KBXM, and still part-own a Super Decathlon that lives there. It is a fabulous place to fly! Someone recently restored a Mooney 231 at Wiscasset (KIWI), and I think it is still based there. There's a great flying community at KIWI of friendly and welcoming people. It's well worth visiting and just talking to the people who are there most weekends. They will know most of the local airplanes and pilots.

If you go into things with your eyes open, and if you know a trustworthy expert, you can find real gems. My '66E screamed "don't buy me" from the Trade-a-Plane advert a few years ago. It had been out of annual for 16 years, and it was in Florida. On paper it looked like the worst possible airplane to buy. It was, however, very cheap so I went to look at it. It turned out to have no corrosion, and after just 3 days I was flying it back to Maine on a ferry permit. It needed no major engine work; borescope inspections and oil sample analyses have all been good, and the lowest cylinder compression I've ever had was 77/80. I did a lot of interior and avionics upgrades, few of which were essential, flew it to Sun'n'Fun and to Oshkosh, did my commercial rating in it and then, when I was sure there weren't any hidden problems, flew it to France where it has been superbly reliable. Not a bad outcome for an airplane that nobody wanted. But not a risk I would have taken without having a brilliant A&P.

Another '66E

I hope they got back. A friend of mine was working there this week, and said a German pilot arrived at LPAZ without reading the NOTAM advising that Avgas is not available.... Nearest alternate is a long, long way away.

Lovely! The Aspen can always be added later if you want it. I'm very envious of your autopilot! It is, of course, a crazy investment to make on such an old airplane. But when I can afford to, I will be following you!

"Unduly" implies that there is a safety failing in the Cirrus that doesn't exist in other aircraft. Yes, in some circumstances if the fuel tanks are ruptured there can be a fire. But there were post-impact fires in 45 out of the last 100 fatal Mooney accidents, and in 35 out of the last 100 fatal Bonanza accidents. If we are going to criticize the post-accident safety of a Cirrus, it should be done with the understanding that old aluminium aircraft with a single door are generally worse.

I enjoy hanging out with pilots, whatever they fly. I haven't found one yet who doesn't know something that I don't!

I love my M20E, which has taken me on some incredible adventures. But.... I fly it because it's cheap and efficient, and fuel here costs $11/gallon. If I could afford it I'd have an SR22T with FIKI. A Cirrus is easier to operate, easier to land, easier to get in and out of, more comfortable, safer (when operated correctly, which means using the parachute early), and more reassuring for passengers. And it has better handling. The "feel" of the Mooney may be nicer than the artificial feel in the Cirrus, but the Cirrus is a lot more agile and easier to control accurately in challenging conditions. None of which is very surprising given that my Mooney is getting on for 50 years old, and wasn't a new design even then. It would be nice to see a new Mooney design that made the Cirrus look old.

I get almost exactly the same results as Bob for a similarly old E, with cowl closure and 201-style windshield. As for determining TAS, it is really quite easy. I once had the pleasure of working with a test pilot named Ralph Kimberlin, who had worked for Piper, Rockwell and Beechcraft then freelanced while working for 26 years as a professor at the University of Tennessee Space Institute. He wrote a definitive text book - Flight Testing of Fixed Wing Aircraft. He's pretty good at the math, as well as being a superb pilot and thoroughly nice gentleman. Here's his method: 1. In calm air fly a constant, known heading at a constant altitude and a constant indicated airspeed for long enough for your GPS to show groundspeed and track. It should only need a few seconds of stable flight with a modern GPS. 2. Write down GS, track and heading. 3. Turn to a reciprocal heading (not a reciprocal track!), repeat the test at the same altitude and indicated airspeed and write down the results. 4. Land! 5. Use the heading and track figures to determine drift angle. Let us call it "D". 6. The very simple formula: cosine(D) * GS gives the component of ground speed along the aircraft heading. Determine this value for both headings. The reciprocal headings cancel any wind effects. 7. Take the average of the two results found in step 6. That gives your TAS.

There is a freelance A&P / IA in Brunswick, Maine (KBXM). He has a borescope, and the quality of the work he does is second to none. He restored my Mooney and prepared it for its flight to France. Happy to send you contact details if you haven't made other arrangements. In addition, Brunswick is a great airport, and the town is a lovely place for an overnight stop, with some great restaurants!

My install cost was $0 - a side benefit of employing an A&P and giving him a Mooney project to work on when there was no real work to do! Can't remember what the kit and the STC paperwork cost - just over $3000 I think.

I have the long range tanks in my E. For me, they paid for themselves several times over when flying the airplane from the USA to Europe. On one leg, with unexpectedly strong headwinds I burned 53 gallons. Standard capacity is 52 and there were no alternates nearby. That may be the only time I'll ever do that kind of trip, but in more routine flying in Europe I find them useful. 100LL supplies are not always good; in the south of France lots of airports seem to run out every summer, and the ones that do have it are often closed for lunch! And there are big price variations - it's nice to fill up at home and fly somewhere knowing that I can fly home without having to buy any of the destination airport's expensive fuel. As the E is really only a 2 seater anyway, and as I'm usually alone, the weight of the extra fuel isn't a big issue. If I was buying a Mooney and had to choose between two identical aircraft, one with LR tanks and one without, I'd definitely buy the one that had them - even if it cost a couple of thousand dollars more.

There are limits as to how much you can cant the Aspen - can't remember what they are. But it is very easy for a competent metal worker to make a new vertical panel for it. The radio stack has to stay canted because of the limited clearance to the tube in the center of the windscreen. Here's a rather blurry side view of my panel before I flew it:

There would be a red "Cabin Altitude" message on the MFD, and the red Master Warning light would flash which should be fairly unmissable. The master warning also sounds a chime through the pilot's headset. A trained and experienced pilot should be able to take the necessary emergency actions very easily - but if for some reason he took the wrong action he would have very little time to correct his mistake before becoming incapable of helping himself.

There are quick donning oxygen masks in the cabin walls just behind the crew seats. In order for them to work the supply from the cylinder needs to be turned on (there is an annunciation if it is off), the cylinder has to contain sufficient oxygen, and the "oxygen" switch in the overhead panel needs to be turned on (a checklist item before engine start, or before takeoff). After donning the mask, the "micro/mask" switch needs to be set to "mask" to enable communications. It is possible to imagine a pilot who was already hypoxic making a mistake, or failing to notice that his oxygen supply was not turned on. Confusion happens quickly at high altitude, especially when the cabin altitude has already been high for some time. A very sad accident.