marks

OH BTW, I forgot to say that the demonstrated and real world crosswind capability of the Sierra was also better than the J.

My '83 Beech Sierra was a far more "quality aircraft" than my '89J turned out to be. Though the Mooney was six years newer, within a year I was dealing with a gas-smelling cockpit and a few fuel leaks outside too. The Mooney is famous for fuel leaks. The plastic interior panels crack here and there but the Beech had soft vinyl infused cloth that wasn't under tension and never cracked. The Sierra had a wing load 20% higher than the Mooney and was much less susceptible to turbulence. Those long flat wings of the Mooney are highly efficient and low drag, but are also efficient of putting turbulence up your butt. The roll-rate of the Mooney is noticeably slower than the Sierra. The visibility is worse with a tube right down the middle of the windshield and a higher panel. The interior dimensions of the Mooney are smaller in every direction. I had the six seat option in the Sierra which was great for me and my wife, two teenagers and my daughter (can you imagine a J with an extra row of seats?). I hate having only one door in the Mooney, we had three in the Beech. I often fly from eastern MA to central PA. On average the flight was 2.5 hrs in the Sierra but only 2:05 in the Mooney. So you might say each hour in a two or three hour flight took one hour 8 minutes in the Sierra, but my wife claimed we saved 5 to 10 minutes packing the Beech compared to the one door Mooney. - Now I bought the Mooney to save gas and go faster. I've owned it since 2005 and have put over 800 hours on it. It's a fast, bumpy, tight and fuel efficient airplane. I've been flying for 27 years and our baby girl is now 22 yrs old, so I don't need five seats anymore. I'll keep the Mooney because now it fits my mission and saves fuel, but sometimes I get sick of reading "I Love My Mooney" on this website all the time. There's a reason Mooney was and is a nitche airplane. Hopefully I won't be attacked for sharing my observations with everyone.

I have the Aveo Red Baron Mini LED Light. Check it out at Aircraft Spruce. It's much brighter, uses less electricity and tiny. I had it installed by my IA just before my new paint job, but it was expensive because of sheet metal work to close up the original hole. I also removed the old ADF antenna and together I gained about 9.5 lbs. useful load and got rid of some drag. I have an '89J.

If there's no wind and at gross weight I believe it's impossible for any Mooney to make it back to the runway. On the other hand, if you take off from a 10,000 ft. runway in the first 1,200 ft. then turn around, it may be possible to make it back because the runway stretched for an additional 1.75 miles under you while you were climbing. So all in all, it depends on the weight, the amount of headwind on takeoff, the density altitude, and the length of the runway. Don't try it on a windless hot day from a high altitude airport with a full cabin.

I was in Iceland the summer before last and I met a pilot (retired) who was there to meet a newswoman he had met the summer of 1984 when he flew a 65 hp. Taylorcraft from California to Israel. He did it all without any navigation radios of any kind, just dead reckoning. He crossed the Davis Strait into southern Greenland, then Iceland, then the Faroe Islands, then Norway, and then south. I was very skeptical when I heard the story, but he offered to send me a copy of his DVD of the trip, complete with pictures of his FAA documents for over-gross operations, etc. The DVD was unbelievable with all the spectacular scenery and his little airplane sometimes parked next to various jets etc. I met his wife too and the whole story represents the most amazing "hangar story" I've ever heard.

Wilmar is no more. Paul Beck has improved the product and the warrantee. It's at the same airport, but for nearly ten years now it's been called Weep No More. According to Aviation Consumer, that's where Don Maxwell send his airplanes to be resealed when a reseal is what's called for. I had the process done to my J model and so far everything is great.

I frequently make use of aggressive forward slips too, but in IMC the speed brakes allow good forward speed to the FAF and then when deployed allow a quicker process to slow the plane to the desired speed. I frequently tuck them back in as soon as I get the gear down. In a strong headwind in IMC I might not use them at all.

What model Mooney?

Obviously, Aviation Consumer was wrong about speed brakes. I'm glad I have 'em but apparently they weren't standard. It looks like my AT being the very first one and having speed brakes, gave the impression that the speed brakes would be standard equipment. I also have manual cowl flaps, no head rests or arm rest.

My understanding is that colors could be ordered without additional cost (they could have been school colors someplace) and that sometimes they were ordered with school symbols and patterns that didn't have the slanted stripes at all. I've seen a few without the stripes in advertisements in the past.

Jeff - I'm surprised that your AT didn't have speed brakes. I have read several times that the AT model was noteworthy for the fact that factory speed brakes were standard equipment on all AT models. I have met two other owners and each had this feature just like mine. I just found this fact again in both the Feb. 2001 and the May 2004 editions of Aviation Consumer. Perhaps your plane was a special order in some way. Did you ever see the plane painted in the striped red and white pattern?

We all know that the MSE in 1991 was delivered with the 2,900 lbs. gross weight increase and that the increase can be retroactively applied back to '89 model serial number 24-1686. I am the owner of 24-1686. This aircraft was the very first Mooney Advanced Trainer, N900AT. My understanding from the previous owner (another Mooniac whose name I don't remember) told me that the front portion of the landing gear was beefed-up along with a couple of small alterations to help guard against students twanging the gear and to protect somewhat against over-steering the gear during ground operations. The AT model is generally considered an inferior model, but from useful load to the beefed up gear, she's been a winner for me. Once the adjustments were made, the improvements to the AT model were carried through to the last Allegra model built.

If you check Aviation Consumer on this topic you'll see that Don Maxwell sends his customers to Weep No More LLC for a full reseal when necessary. Paul Beck at Weep No More developed a system that uses a sprinkler system inside the tanks to dissolve the old sealant without scraping. When Mooney makes good on factory warrantees regarding tank seals, they now send the aircraft to Weep No More. For my J, I found the price competitive at $7,725 for everything including gaskets installation and seals for where the fuel sensor lines enter the cabin. I suggest you call to get your name on the list as it generally takes a good four month wait to get in. If you try to patch the leak you will be spending money to delay the inevitable IMHO.

If you like polarized lenses (like me) I strongly suggest that you google "NXT sunglasses". I bought two pairs of Old Harbor Outfitters Atlantis model polarized glasses made of NXT. The polarizing film is sandwiched between two layers of NXT. If you drop them they just never scratch. At $99 I was just amazed at how well they work and now own two pair with brown and gray lenses. I have owned several other pairs of much more expensive glasses over the years, including some mentioned above, but these are my favorites. The NXT used to be far more expensive but not anymore. The screws are drilled through the NXT to hold the frames.

One more thing... If you have any plans to fly to the Vineyard please e-mail me at: mark.alexander@invpro.com I am a Financial Advisor on my own clock and I can give good advice and walk out of my office at any time.

I am very willing to host a fly-in to Martha's Vineyard. In fact if any Mooney lovers fly here I can loan them a car or two and if you can drive a Harley I can loan you one of those. I know reasonable places to stay (especially in spring or fall). Personally, I love to order a large brass tin filled with numerous hot lobsters lined up like sardines and serve them with ceasar salad and champagne. Around here if tourists like us, we like them. Starting in November the bay scallops come in. (There's no end to good stuff, oysters Rockefeller with Gruyiere cheese.) Je peux parlez francais aussi!

Yves, I have a hangar at the main airport at the Vineyard. I've never landed at Katama in all my years of flying but there's a great restaurant there call "Right Fork" and just outside there's a bi-plane with a radial engine that takes site-seeing trips. All kinds of airplanes land right in front of the outside deck and it's very pleasant in summer.

I was shocked to see the manual say idle cut-off on the mixture to start. I've only done that when the engine was warm. I had an '83 Beech Sierra also with the Lyc. IO-360 and the POH said for cold start, "1/3 open throttle, prop forward, full rich, fuel boost until pressure indicated, start." That's the way I've been doing it in my '89 J and it always starts in one turn or less. I point it out to any new passengers before I start to show how reliable the engine is.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Was I ever wrong! I apologize Sabremech. I thought you made a couple of defensive remarks and I just ran with 'em. When I saw the post by John Green with your name in the post twice I just goofed and didn't pay attention to the poster's name at upper left. It just goes to show how easy mistakes can be made. I'm sorry. - And I don't want to argue with John Green or anyone else for that matter. I've already had my say.

Sabremech, I think the comment that you made that you could seal a tank "for a fraction of what some Bozo's are spending." indicated to me that you thought some guys were foolishly wasting their money and you were much smarter than to do that. When some people talk to you about their maintenance concerns about their Mooneys you're ready to "puke". But you being smarter than them, realize how stone-simple-stupid a Mooney is - so in all I thought I detected a little bit of superiority in your posts. I could be wrong. - The 20% estimate was one I read before and I don't defend it in any way. I've also read the 17% number. I certainly don't blame all maintenance accidents on A&P's. In fact it seems to me that owners often try to get their mechanics to cut corners because it's "good enough". - For me I say no new thread. I say let's forget it.

Sabremech, If you would just Google the words,"General Aviation Maintenance Accidents" you will quickly find a report of the same name prepared by the FAA/Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. The fourth sentence in the Introduction states: "For instance, Ropp and Lopp in 1998, found both general and corporate aviation lacking in any sort of structured safety management system for maintenance operations, in spite of the fact that maintenance related accidents comprised as much as 21.3% of the accidents in 1997." I really thought that my 20% estimate was common knowledge as confirmed in this report. I also found it interesting that the first paragraph had this to say, "The analysis revealed that among the maintainers, skill-based errors were the most frequent cause of accidents, followed by violations committed by both professional maintainers and owner-operators." So there's your statistic. You being in the business, you should be aware of how often poor maintenance causes accidents.

Sabremech, I may have misunderstood your posts, but you can rest assured that I respect the people who work on my airplane. You haven't been personal with me, but you did make statements of how others foolishly waste their money in your opinion. As for the accident statistic, I believe the number I've read before is that 17% of all GA accidents are mechanical in nature and that the majority are the result of poor maintenance or inspections. I will try to reproduce that statistic or a correction for you with a little research. Incidentally, TODAY is my 8th anniversary of living through a total loss of power in hard IMC by suffering a fire in the engine that was caused by an A&P who failed to reconnect the fuel pressure gauge after attending to a hot mag. He wasn't my regular mechanic. The fuel was spraying into the engine bay like perfume out of a perfume bottle. When the exhaust manifold got hot enough the fire ignited instantaneously. I made a U-turn from over the ocean in the fog with just partial panel, because the vacuum system had burned in the fire. I landed on the Hyannisport Golf Course during the Robt. F. Kennedy Memorial Golf Tournament. WBZ Boston was there with Live TV coverage. The NTSB report makes entertaining reading. That A&P nearly cost me my life and I don't respect him. He never even said he was sorry. 10/15/2004

N201TN, I don't think I should send you a Personal Message. I think you should tell everyone "the whole story". I see that you pointed out the name "Wilmar". Did you have this job done years ago when the process was being developed at Willmar or did you have this job done in the last seven years or so by Paul Beck? As for Sabremech, some solutions appear to be fairly permanent, such as that described by the bladder story of no leaks for 23 years, and of course you're going to patch your own tanks. The reason for my ongoing banter with you is that while you seek respect for yourself and other confident A&P's, you fail to give respect to aircraft owners who choose to seek the best service and are willing to pay top dollar to get it. You make it out that you are so much smarter and save money while mocking owners who are willing to travel or pay for the best. Owners go to Don Maxwell and Weep No More for good reasons and are not stone-simple-stupid like the airplane. About one out of five accidents are the result of poor maintenance so when you find service where simple repairs are double checked by more than one mechanic, you know you're going to pay more, but good people can make simple mistakes on simple airplanes and the results can be tragic. I believe one cause of deadly accidents are overconfident pilots and mechanics.

I'm sure when Maxwell patches a leak the plane doesn't leak when you're flying it home, but when will the next leak appear or when will the cabin have a whiff of fuel in the air? Bladders are a fairly permanent solution. People choose bladders for the same reason they go to Weep No More. If the loss of useful load doesn't bother you, bladders are a good choice and should be on the list of options. I do have one warning about Weep No More. The warning is that if you plan to use them get your name on the list ASAP. When I was there last month Paul was already booked well into 2013. Paul charges less than the other "experts" who scrape your tanks by hand and can possibly gouge you (in more way than one). So decide how many times you want to patch and pick your poison.

Sabremech, the problem is that there are many confident A&P's who try to do the work in the field, but as the owner, you don't just give them credit for trying, the owner gives them his money, and yet as our poster points out, the problem is still not fixed. So while the A&P might sometimes delay the problem and save the client money, sometimes if the job had been done by Weep No More, the costs for the first efforts would have been saved and the tanks don't leak. So sometimes after paying Don Maxwell repeatedly to fix the problem, Don in Texas sends the plane to Minnesota to get Paul at Weep No More to do the job. The confident A&P has the money in his pocket for trying and the owner beats a path to Minnesota to finally stop the leaks.