marks

I happen to own 24-1686. She was the cover girl on the Jan. 1990 issue AOPA Magazine. N900AT was built in 1989. So the short answer is that if you own a 1988 or older J you do not qualify for the gross weight increase.

I once had a BFR with an instructor who had very little Mooney time. He was very experienced otherwise and was so sure that he knew what he was doing that he encouraged me to do a full power-on stall and assured me that if the airplane got out of my control that he would simply take over and all would be well. - I didn't buy it. I told him that he may be right, but if I was "out of control" then it would be time to give up flying, alive or dead. Once the airplane acts differently than the pilot or instructor expects, training becomes meaningless. Of course good pilots can recover, but sometimes good pilots don't. Since most all stall/spin fatal accidents take place during low altitude manueavers where recovery is impossible, why practice spin entry at higher altitude? Oh I forgot, some pilots try spin entry at 7,000 ft and the spin goes flat, so let's practice recovery up high. (stupid) My theory is simple, "Lead us not, into temptation". No fricken way.

Obviously, a new 201 may go a little faster, but the real competition would be with all the used 201s available. How much faster would a new 201 be than a used 201 and how much more would a new 201 cost? This thread points out to me how little we all know about the aircraft business. As a used aircraft buyer I have no idea back in the late 70's the difference in price between a new Arrow vs. a new 201. Obviously a Mooney wing costs more to build than an Arrow wing. So perhaps the market for trainers wouldn't support a fixed gear 201. But then again Piper sold a six cylinder 235 hp fixed gear Cherokee for many years, so I thought a 200 hp fixed gear 201 would help sell more 201s. But then again what about a parachute? How about two doors? - I can tell you that I'm glad it's not my money involved in this new Mooney venture. The sad story is that we are losing pilots and sales of all airplanes are falling.

It sounds like the price difference from a D to a C was nothing like the price difference of an Archer to an Arrow. I also wonder what the price difference of a D to a fixed gear Cherokee and speed difference was. Obviously the D would suceed or fail against Pipers and Cessnas, not against retractable Mooneys. It's funny to think that so many more people buy fixed gear Pipers, but Mooney built a flop. There's always a reason for the flop. Personally, I would have bought a fixed gear Piper for my second plane if I could have bought a 200 hp Lycoming 360 and forget about carb ice. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about a fixed gear Mooney and I can't imagine that if Cirrus offered a retractable that all their fixed gear planes would become flops. - In truth Cirrus came out with fixed gear airplanes and all of Mooney flopped!

The problem for Mooney has always been volume. When Mooney was building dozens of planes a year Cirrus was building hundreds. Part of the problem was that Mooney had no fixed gear airplane. Imagine Piper if the only Cherokee you could buy was the Arrow. Imagine no Warrior, no Archer and no Dakota. I wonder just how many P28's were built and how many of them were Arrows. If Mooney could build a 201 with both fixed and retractable gear options you'd have at least one airplane that could fly cheaply without speed brakes, emergency extention equipment, electric trim, cowl flaps, gear motors, gear doors and gear moving parts, warning buzzers, and without the extra weight. Such a plane would be cheaper to build, cheaper to insure, cheaper to maintain and inspect. Such a plane would have greater usefull load that an MSE. - The only thing is, that I'm not sure a fixed gear J would be faster than a fixed gear Cirrus SR 20.

As usual Byron, you are 100% correct. If you change the pushrod adjustment relative to one aileron the ailerons will fly as if matched and the yoke will be displaced, which is another way of saying that if the yoke were held level the pilot would experience a "heavy wing". I think what's important to understand is that if the rudder is not positioned correctly it's possible to bend an aileron and have two surfaces that act against each other and create a static balance condition, but doesn't create the best condition for speed as the airplane is flying not quite straight and the result is an improperly rigged airplane.

If you check my posting above, I said if the "boards show that the ailerons are rigged per the manual" then follow my advice. I have no doubt that the mechanic can lower an aileron by more than the other aileron and "lift" a wing, but unless the result is to match the two ailerons, then the result will be a level airplane but with a small amount of adverse yaw that overcomes the position of the ball. Adverse yaw means that the airplane if flying in a slight crab and is not truly flying straight and speed is lost even though the airplane is flying level. - Hopefully your airplane had the ailerons slightly unmatched and the mechanic corrected the error by lowering the right aileron. However, if now the position of both right and left ailerons are not matched, then it means that your airplane needed a rudder correction and instead you now have unmatched ailerons, in which case you are flying in a very slight crab while pulling one aileron through the air at a slightly protesting position to the air. This "double-mistake" might balance out so that the plane flies level, but the airplane is not properly rigged and you will lose a couple of miles per hour speed all the time. This is why we can say that a properly rigged airplane can go up to 5 miles per hour faster than another Mooney of the same age and with the same equipment. Check to see if your ailerons match one another.

Having been through the rigging process twice (the second time after a perfect paint job) I have to say that the plane can certainly be rigged without bending anything. If the boards show that the ailerons are rigged as per the manual and if the gear stows away nicely and nothing hangs down to create a right wing heavy symptom, then first put a level across the seat tracks to be sure the airplane is level on the ground and check to see that the ball is perfectly centered on the ground. It's possible that you are only observing the ball out of level when the airplane does not need the right rudder input. So you may have to adjust the turn coordinator on the ground. If all the items above appear correct, then adjust the rudder position itself. Do a half turn at a time and fly the plane until you can fly with feet off the pedals. On the J the rudder must be 1 degree to the right of center before any finer adjustments are made. Remember that the air spirals around the fuselage and does not flow straight back. Bending an aileron may appear to lift a wing but the airplane will be moving in a very slight crab and won't gain any speed. People with experience have a better idea of how much adjustment is needed and can help you in an hour or so as you fly the plane once or twice between adjustments. Don't let anyone bend anything unless it's to correct some earlier bending someone else shouldn't have done.

I have 'em and now I'm spoiled. There's a 172 slowly making his way toward the downwind and much closer to the airport than me. I keep the speed up in a shallow decent and I'm doing about 170 kts. The tower seeing how much faster I'm going puts me infront of the 172 and I have no trouble getting to the field first and safely ahead.. But hey! I'm way over my max gear extend speed of 132 kts. No Trouble!! I got speed brakes! I pop those suckers lift the nose without climbing, get the gear down on final and roll off the runway at the first turn-off. - Now I know what you're going to say. I should have better planned my descent, flown slower, let the 172 get in front of me, followed him in his giant landing pattern and that I don't need speed brakes, but I like 'em.

I asked Paul Beck after he finished my job if I needed to keep my tanks full and he said that during a cold winter or in the hangar it made no difference, but that in the sun during summer to keep the tanks full because of heat. He said that walking on the most flexing parts of the wing walk area rather than on the rib areas is also not helpful. When Paul at Weep No More sealed my tanks he replaced my gaskets where the fuel lines enter the lower cabin and he got my outer fuel gauge sensors to work again. Sealant won't fix loose rivets, so the wing has to be in good shape before the process begins and proper channeling must be in place during the process to be sure that fuel can get around and under ribs where required. - It seems clear to me that a properly sealed wing can stay sealed for decades and the same can be said for properly installed O&N Bladders. Bladders however, cost more to install and weigh more.

Unfortunately, Mooneys are famous for leaks. Paul Beck at Weep No More in Wilmar MN is so good that his competition recommends him. I'm one of his happy customers. No scraping the inside of your tanks, no usable load loss as with bladders, no balony or excuses, Paul Beck is the man. He is the expert on Mooney fuel tanks.

Before GAMIs my spread was .8 and after .2 or .3. I usually fly 25 degrees LOP at 65% power and my J runs smooth as silk.

manu, Maybe we don't have the same problem. Unless the mixture turns so lean that the RPMs are affected I don't have any symptoms. For me the problem is that the fuel becomes far more rich, the exhaust temps fall, but the RPMs stay the same. Sometimes the opposite happens, but once flying along LOP the engine missed and sounded like it would quit. Pushing the mixture forward fixed the problem instantly. - Many things could cause a momentary loss of power. Perhaps you've got a hanging exhaust valve, or maybe a dying spark plug. If there's fuel and spark the engine should keep running. I think this site is great for looking for the "quick fix" but sometimes the problem can be harder to find. Please keep us posted. Most problems don't get better on their own.

I have the same problem. I fly along at 11.9 gph and then I look back and I'm at 13 gph. My mechanic says the fuel servo is to blame. My first thought was that is was simply the mixture control, but no it isn't. Overhauling the fuel servo can be quite expensive. Usually the fuel fluctuations are only a few tenths of a gallon at a time and can go either way. Sometimes things stay the same for 15 minutes, but when flying LOP I am constantly watching the fuel meter.

I live on the island of Martha's Vineyard. Runway to runway from the island to the center of Cape Cod at Hyannis takes ten minutes. The other choice is to wait for the ferry departure, then 45 minutes in the boat, then ten minutes into the Woods Hole parking lot with a shuttle bus, then one hour driving on Cape Cod roads to Hyannis. - For work I commuted by plane to Hyannis for fifteen years. They say short flights isn't good for the oil, but the plane was never allowed to sit for more than three days, and usually was flown twice a day. The first engine flew 2,455 hrs before it needed a top overhaul but that was enough for me to get a major.

My first Concorde lasted a full seven years. My second lasted just half that long. I began using a Battery Tender on the second battery, but one night we had a power failure at the airport and the Battery Tender hookup discharged the battery. Of course it rechareged later but it never seemed to be the same after that and by 3 1/2 years it was toast.

For years we had French kids stay with us in summer and they all told Belgian jokes. One of the jokes truly relates to aviation. It goes like this: Two Belgian truckdrivers were driving a truck at night four meters tall. They came to a bridge at two in the morning. The sign said "Maximum truck height 3 meters." They stopped the truck and one of the Belgians got out. He looked all around and then at the bridge, and said to the other driver, "it's ok. No cops!" - Sorry. Had to say it.

I agree that the vast majority of deadly spin accidents happen at low altitude where the recovery is impossible due to the altitude. If pilots would also refrain from making "the death turn" back to the runway a good number of spin accidents resulting in death would be avoided. Remember, whether we're talikng about intentional spins or spacial disorentation, "All the deadly screw-ups begin with a turn."

I owned a Tomahawk. A power-on stall in a Tomahawk was less of an event than a power-on stall in my J because the Tomahawk couldn't climb at as hign an angle as the Mooney. Of course the trick in either plane is to keep the ball centered. I'm not scared of stalls, but I never liked 'em.

It's hard to believe that we could have ever had a "cold war" with these people.

IMO you are "fairly priced", but all the buyers are looking for real deals and there are more airplanes than buyers.

My last IO360 I flew to 2,455 hrs then an exhaust valve guide had worn beyond limits. I always used Aeroshell 15W50, always changed oil at 50 hrs. I almost always flew the plane just 15 minutes at a time. I live on an island with no bridge (Martha's Vineyard) and I flew off-island to work every day and back every evening. There was so much moisture in the oil that in winter just about every time I pulled up the dip stick there'd be this big blob of oily ice stuck to it. I got the engine overhauled and flew it another 1,350 hours before I switched to a newer airplane. I think the lesson here is that flying the airplane is what counts. My plane would generally be flown five or six days a week, both morning and evening.

About a year ago I had quite a talk with Mr. LoPresti (the son). He told me that the speed claim for the Mooney cowling was fully based on the premise that to get the full speed effect you'd have to be using the "ram-air" system at altitudes above 10,000 ft. It's easier to get a few more knots when the indicated airspeed is a little lower and the increased manifold pressure on a percentage basis is a little higher. He was very forthcoming and his idea of flying without the ram air system in operation at lower altitudes would be more like 2 or 3 mph.

Mooney is a private corporation that has gone through chapter 11 bankruptcy reoganization in the past and has changed it's name and logo in the past as a result. It has been many decades since Mooney ever made a fixed gear airplane, so because Mooney hasn't made a primary trainer aircraft most everyone has learned to fly in the aircraft of the competition. Unlike Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft, Mooney has always been a low volume small-time player relying on a single core model with a few improvements along the way, selling various reincarnations of the same model. Some models have had different engines than others and a few models have been stretched from time to time, but mostly the whole line has grown out of the M-20 model. Good luck with your assignment. I'm sure you don't need us to tell you the rules of proper scholastic research.

There's much correct info above, but in short the wings are big and long and don't quickly fall, while the rudder is small and since it leans forward, is easily blanked.