chrisk

I have a similar setup. The tanks are heavy, being about 150 to 180 lbs when empty. The local welding shop charges $33 for an exchange ( for ABO not welding), but it is a pain to load the bottles into a vehicle, and of course the shop is not open on weekends. That said, being able to fill the O2 in my hanger is worth every bit of the hassle. Its definitely cost effective. For the cost of 2 refills from a shop, I can rent two bottles for a year, fill the bottles, and get a reasonable number of fills/top offs. (5+)

Speaking from experience, if your climb and speed are suddenly in the toilet, you might want to double check your gear position. Adopting a check at the top of a climb (and 1000 agl) also helps find this problem. On the other hand, N22NS may have had other good reasons for flying with the gear down. Maybe the alternator was in-op? Or maybe they were reminiscing about flying a M20D?

There are plenty of experimentals that have wonderful performance. An Evolution Turbine 750 comes to mind, but it is more than a Mooney. Perhaps a Vans RV10 is a better example, but it is still nowhere near $35K.

Just curious where the labor and cost is for building a Mooney? The wing, the frame, the gear?

I believe some one posted the regs: (2) Has a photo identification that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization. The photo identification must be a: (i) Driver's license issued by a State, the District of Columbia, or territory or possession of the United States; I'm not a lawyer, but to me the answer is obvious. Was your drivers license issued by a state and does it have a photo? If so you should be good. I'd even suggest an expired license might qualify, as it was once issued by a State and meets the wording of the regulation. Personally I have a passport card that I keep with my pilots certificate. There are some words on it saying something to the effect of good for domestic air travel.

I wouldn't even bother to respond. This whole thing should have been simple. The owner makes his plane airworthy by by getting an annual completed by who ever at his cost. He needs to do this no matter who ultimately buys the plane. Then you pay for an inspection with the mechanic of your choice. --If your inspections finds something wrong, you get to re-negotiate. If its an airworthy item most rational sellers will pay to fix it. If its not an airworthy item ,most will not pay to fix it. What is considered airworthy can be a bit of a judgement call: hangar rash, nicked prop, and worn tires come to mind.

Looked like lots of tread left to me. (except the flat spot) As for flat spots. My partner and I have put two on the tires in the last 4 years, one on each tire. --I was trying to make a taxiway when I made one flat spot That said, I still have tread (and groove) on the flat spots. It just takes a second, and I don't recall it making any noise. Its more like you can feel it lock up.

I've aborted a take off before due to the door popping open. Plenty of runway left, so that was an easy choice. A fouled plug on takeoff, and an associated engine miss on takeoff, was a much harder decision. I didn't abort that take off, because aborting would have meant ending up in a corn field. And continuing and having the engine quite would have also meant ending up in the same Nebraska corn field. I did return to the field, and had the field mechanic pull the plugs and perform a compression check. As to an instrument problem. If there is plenty of runway, I'd abort. If I had a chance of over running the field (less than 2000 feet left at lift off), I'd continue with the take off. For a 2400 foot runway, any abort would have to happen really early in a take off run to have a chance of success.

My 231 has manual speed brakes and I would never consider spending money to upgrade them. They get used on rare occasions as a convenience, but there are plenty of other tools in the box. As to the original post, I'd keep the vacuum driven speed brakes.

You might try looking at: https://www.milspecproducts.com/c_spec_2800_stainless_studs__slotted At the bottom of the page, they list the sizes.

I've heard that many times. Why would you be hesitant to fly in the clouds while in the mountains? You have a turbo. If your flying at 17K, your not going to hit anything. Modern GPS has a moving map and terrain. On the other hand, if your near freezing levels, I too would be very cautious, since your ability to get out of it might be severely limited by terrain. And of course if there are embedded storms you wouldn't want to do it either. That said, as a general rule, I try to avoid flying in the mountains at night or in IMC. I prefer to have as many options as possible at my disposal. On the other hand, I'm not going to sweat a broken layer.

I was at KGPI 2 weeks ago. The mountains are not bad and you should have no problems getting over them in a J. The airport is super easy and you will have no issues. Do check the icing forecasts. When I went to leave, it seemed like the entire state had an icing forecast that started at the MEAs and kept going up.

I don't have a problem with a tail wind takeoff, since the POH lists the take off distances up to 10 kts. Beyond that, I'd be cautious. And for some airports (Like KLAM), you need to either land or take off with a tail wind since its one way. But of course if you take off with a tailwind at KLAM, there is no obstacle to clear, just a valley to fall into. I was really looking for the runway slope calculations, since the POH seems silent on the topic (or I missed it). Thanks for all who replied. I'll have to add the +20% for each 1% of slope to my list of rough calculations.

In short, I could take off up hill with a headwind and climb over some hills(1200 feet). Or I could take off down hill with a strong tail wind and climb over a smaller hill (200 to 300 feet tall). For a down wind take off, the tailwind would add 50+% increase for take off roll, and an aborted takeoff down hill with a tail wind is going to be a serious challenge. And I really wanted to be able to abort if things were not going well. Taking off down hill (per DP) requires a climb of 363 feet per mile, until 500 above the runway end. With a 10+ knot tail wind, the climb rate per minute needs to be higher (around 600 fpm) An up hill take off requires approximately the same rate of climb until about 2000 ft above the runway end, but the climb rate per minute is much closer to 400 fpm. For me, the option to abort and better climb rate per nm made the decision. I've put the DP data below to help give an idea. Elevation for Rwy 14 is 4401, for Rwy 32 its 4337 TAKEOFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 14,300-2½ or std. w/min. climb of 363’ per NM to 4800. Rwy 32, std. w/min. climb of 360’ per NM to 6500 or 2400-3 for climb in visual conditions. DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 14, climb heading 141° to 5800 before proceeding on course. Rwy 32, climbing right turn heading 070° to 6500 before proceeding on course or for climb in visual conditions cross Camp Guernsey Airport at or above 6700 before proceeding on course. TAKEOFF OBSTACLE NOTES: Rwy 14, vehicles on road 42' from DER, 209' right of centerline, up to 15' AGL/4334' MSL. Trees beginning 731' from DER, 336' right of centerline, up to 45' AGL/4564' MSL. Rwy 32, trees beginning 181' from DER, 155' left of centerline, up to 45' AGL/4424' MSL. Trees beginning 999' from DER, 192' right of centerline, up to 45' AGL/4504' MSL.

I recently did some of your proposed route. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9821P/history/20190817/1701Z/KGPI/KIDA Given good weather, I would have preferred to go east right out of KGPI, crossed the Rockies, and headed south to KCOS. My route was weather based, and was way more work than it should have been. Ice predictions at MEAs to the east, storms to the east, storms at KCOS, crazy turbulence in western WY. Of worthy note, KCOS is a good night time airport. Its quite long and there are not terrain issues to the east. The FBOs are very good and I believe the Jet Center is open all night (but you should double check).

I've been flying for years, but this last weekend was my first experience with a runway with a substantial slope. I landed at KGUR in Wyoming this last weekend. Plenty long enough, at 5000 feet long, but with a 1.25% slope, a field elevation of 4400 feet, near by hills, and 90 degrees (DA around 7500). Fortunately the wind was reasonably high at 10+ kts and I was 100 under gross. Time to pull out the POH and look carefully. Unfortunately, the POH only lists the distance to clear a 50 foot obstacle. But the end of the departure end of the runway is more than 50 feet above the start of the take off run. Finally I picked an abort point where I knew I could stop. If I wasn't in the air, it was going to be an abort. What a slow take off roll heading up hill! The plane however lifted off well before my abort point and was climbing well at Vx. I easily cleared the near by hills. I'm curious what rules you apply for an up hill take off. And I'm curious if anyone here has experience with KGUR. KGUR felt a bit surreal. Its a dual use airport, but it was deserted. The tower was closed and there was only a single aircraft on the field (Not military). There were no people at the airport. The FBO was a very small building with an unlocked door. And in the back ground you could hear machine gun fire, which is presumably why there is a restricted area just north of the field.

I'm a bit late to this thread. I for one love my Mooney, but I would be more than happy to trade up to a newer and faster model. That said I have 231, and the cost to trade up to a FIKI Ovation or Acclaim with modern avionics is not insignificant. But there are also more modern Mooney models that are not for me. I'd much prefer my 231 over a M20L. And as much as I'd like a M20M, I'm concerned with the operation costs.

Try this. Assume a 200 lb pilot, make the fat right seat person sit in the back, and leave the right seat open. Add a 100 lb kid to the back seat too. Then add 9 more gallons for a total of 64. You will find its in W&B. Then if you want to bring another 100lb kid, put them in the front, and take 45 gallons. Its still in W&B

AC90-66B is a good document and provides recommendations, but it really fails to recognize what happens at most US airports. Transport Canada has a good doc on the realities of what I see at most airports. https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation/documents/TP11541E-Accessible_VFR_procedures_at_uncontrolled_aerodromes_EN.pdf Its common to see straight in final and down wind entry. Is less common to see a base entry, but its still seen often. And rarer yet is the upwind pattern entry

I like the idea. But the more I thought about it, the more I became concerned. Hard to miss on a pre-flight, but as someone who has missed the wheel chocks before, I thought I better not. --And I know I am not the only one. Anyway, the consequence of missing the device on a pre-flight seem substantial. --And no good way to tell its there from the cockpit, until you retract the gear. Maybe a velcro loop attached flag would be a bit safer.

Not trying to stir the pot, but just curious how one would enter "straight into midfield downwind"?

Thanks for bringing this up. Its how we all learn from a mistake.

I received a call from a law firm based in Washington state (I think), who wanted to take pictures of the inside of my 1981 Mooney 231. I declined. I'm just curious if anyone knows the details of why someone would want this? All I know is its about a crash and presumably a law suite

A few thoughts The only aircraft engine I have seen that does not use quarts of oil between changes is a Rotax. If I fill my oil to max capacity, my engine consumes it quickly, and then deposits it on the belly of my Mooney. I now only fill to 6 quarts, instead of 8. But for long trips I still fill to 8 out of paranoia. Note: a rag soaked in 100LL works well for removing the oil from the belly, and there is even a convenient way to acquire more when you are under the plane. Oil consumption is slower when the oil is fresh (i.e. less per hour in the first 10 hours, more per hour in the last 10 hours). . When some one asks how many hours per quart, I truthfully say "I have no idea, most of it ends up on the belly".

I knew I remembered the initial 231 had in induction ice issue that resulted in an auto alternate door being retrofit. I finally found the info at http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20K231 Eval Files/M20K231_Eval.htm It also gives a good example of when to use the alternate air and what happens if you don't. Here is the section Other Hints Operating the 231 Here are a few other hints taken from my engineering flight test days with the M20K 231. The 231 is an airplane that has a primary engine air induction system that is prone to forming ice on the face of the induction air filter. We found this problem after I flew icing tests in northern Canada with our prototype and test M20K in 1984. We found that the original manually activated alternate air door mounted underneath the turbocharger was not an adequate solution to providing the engine a secondary source of induction air. The alternate air design was okay, it was the pilots who didn't recognize induction system icing quickly enough and didn't pull open the alternate air door in time to keep the engine running. The solution was a new design for the alternate air system that mounted a box on the firewall with a door that opens automatically for alternate air. The factory made the decision to offer this redesigned alternate air system free to all 231 owners in 1984. If your airplane has not been upgraded over the years to the firewall mounted alternate air door, get one now. This system is a huge improvement in safety and engine performance. One other hint from that trip to Canada with the instrumented 231 test airplane - we got lots of airframe ice while looking for engine induction system icing. We learned more about the handling characteristics of the 231 with airframe ice during that trip than ever before. We found that the 231 lost airspeed in cruise at the rate of about 10-15 KIAS every 1/2 inch accumulation. The airplane would handle about 1 inch of airframe ice on the leading edges, but after that the indicated airspeed was down low enough that the airplane wasn't pleasant to fly. But the big thing we learned concerned landing with any ice accumulation on the airframe. We found that landing with ice would cause a significant tail buffet condition if the flaps were used. There was no buffeting present during he approach and landing with up to 1 inch of airframe ice if the flaps were kept retracted. The only precaution was to keep the speed up - I held 90KIAS to the landing flare and it seemed to work out okay with 1 inch on the airplane. But lower those flaps for landing with ice on the leading edges of the wings and horizontal tail and there would be a considerable airframe or tail buffet beginning around 90 KIAS and lower. So we recommended that any approaches and landings in the M20K with airframe ice accumulation be done with the flaps retracted.