hindsight2020

I'm not persuaded by the use of that example. Comanches are often pencil whipped to a fault, especially on the gear support. Transmissions, conduit lead times for replacement, the horn repetitive inspections, then the other thousand odd parts compared to simpler Vero Beach Piper offerings. Webco is not gonna be able to keep the line up forever, just like FletchAir for Grummans et al. These things are certainly a labor of love, ditto for the current bonanza V-tail magnesium fiasco. 182RGs and their actuators and pivots, think Textron is doing them any favors? Again, reference the V-tail case study for how they feel about the high wing cessna parts support side of the house. They'll all getting stabbed in the back by the OEMs. Writing's on the wall. The problem is that people are really emotionally tied to their model loyalty, to make an objective assessment that any one significant ground rash incident or unobtanium part procurement can take your entire CAPEX load to the trash can along with all the overpriced avionics right with it. That's why these things should have been moved to primary non-commercial, if it wasn't for the FAA snuffing said category. Clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. That's why I don't invest any more on certified (Arrow in my case, but it could have just as well have been a 20F if the seating ergonomics had not been a non-starter for me) than I do. If the situation I had with my Arrow (FBO dropped a snap on toolbox on the wing rear spar and aileron from a second story!) had occurred to a comanche, it would have been an AOG total loss by virtue of lack of replacement salvage parts that don't exceed the hull value. I'm just not gonna invest in a CAPEX-sink that can do that to me. 50K is still an object in my life, and as a family man I have competing interests. I'm trying to participate meaningfully in the avocation, but it's proving hostile to my demographic. Gentrification abounds. And again, just like many on here, I only begrudgingly own a factory built airplane because the 4-seat experimental I rather have simply doesn't exist in my price point. When I'm an empty nester I'm going so fast to an RV all you'll see is my Wiley Coyote dust silhouette. But that's me as an under-40 owner. I understand that folks with less than 15 years of active flying left might be able to ride their medicals out on these increasingly unsupported cans. And that's just as fine an answer for those for whom it works. To each their own.

So the long bodies do not have more legroom than the mid bodies then? Interesting. What about the front? Any changes to the leg angle or distance to panel? Sorry for the de-rail.

Agree with the comments on the back seats as long as they are individual bucket. If the ergornomics of the airplane's front seats were as the back, I would have opted for a 20F instead of my post 72 arrow ii. Alas, the proximity to the panel and race car seat position were deal breakers for me, which was a first (usually the family requirements have been the ones to drive non-starters, like it did for the N and P -35 Bos when they were considered). If you can stand the mooney pilot ergonomics, there really is a lot of value in the efficiency the airframes get from 180-200HP, short or medium body alike. I never have sat on the long bodies, did mooney ever change the front seat ergonomics with the ovation to match the back?

Nope, no primary non-commercial in there. Yep, right on schedule, this thing's DOA. Time to pack it up boys. I'm just gonna run out my Arrow and then sell it/salvage it/who cares. Then I'm getting on the ExAB bandwagon. Avionics upgrade and a more liberal approach to legally wrenching/modifying my airplane was sounding good, but in light of this blow to the hope of revitalizing the fleet, it's pretty clear these spam cans are going to the scrap yard. At least they released it only 3 years late, so I can finally make an informed decision on the future direction of my avocational flying. For now, steam gauges, fat chance on a paint job expense now, expired IFR database and a tablet is it, and IRAN on the mechanicals. I'm done spending any more money on this boutique priced dead-end crap. The expense just turned gratuitous; it's just not fun anymore. As much as I hate the RV-cult and some of the Jupiter sized tools that make up that demographic, it looks like that's where my future lies. It was a nice thought while it lasted. Primary N-C was indeed too good to be true.

Many parts from the 70s vintage spam cans are indeed 1960s automotive parts, with a PMA/FAA sticker on it. You could install a form-fitting relay from an automotive application and be good to go, nobody would know the difference. This is the GA version of hospital cost shifting. Nothing new under the sun. Which is why exAB is so popular.

what a racket.

sell as is, you're not gonna make your money back, but in the as is case you'll minimize capital foregone without the benefit of use value.

Let's temper the PR bashing for a moment. This is not a "Puerto Rico" problem, because this is not a "Puerto Rico fee". This is an FAA problem. This is no different than if you used FAA services from the Bahamas on your way to the Dominican Republic. They don't call them Bahamas fees or DR fees. They're still FAA fees. They (the FAA) would charge you overflight for the leg to the DR because you would have used American ATC/responsible-for airspace without making the US either your point of departure or your point of arrival. Hence "overflight". The solution to the OP's dilemma? Simple. Land in PR. Doing so will ensure that every flight from Dominica to CONUS either had the US as a point of origin, or point of landing. All waived. No PR bashing required. Like Piloto alluded to before: from FXE it's only 850NM to Aguadilla and 900 to Isla Grande; if you can stretch it that far on a Mooney you can file domestic and give CBP the finger. I'm eyeballing Comanches just for that reason, looking into the future. Of course this is all academic because the OP should have had no range problems stopping in PR from Dominica, if Nassau was the RON destination for that day. Stopping in Provo $$$ probably cost him money over stopping in PR, where he would have avoided the overflight fee on top of the Provo fees. Indeed. I'm curious as well. I've started to gather info for my own proposed TX-FL-PR bucket list trip next year to go see my folks. Provo is the logical choice for my range limitations (in order to make San Juan w/ just one stop), but so far I hear it's on the order of 250USD in fees just to make a simple fuel stop there. I've looked into MYIG but it's spartan, remote and fuel availability is the spottiest of all Bahama ports of entry. Not the place I want to have a mechanical problem or otherwise get stuck in, especially compared to Provo or Exuma. I rather eat the fees than get stuck in Inagua. I want the convenience of resorts, credit card acceptance and wifi if I'm getting stuck. This is supposed to be fun after all.

Lol beat me to it

I thought mooneys had better usable fuel than your typical cessna/piper, which can have almost 3 gallons unusable fuel per tank on certain installations. I'd think 7 gallons on board on a mooney wouldn't cause you to flame out, unless the pilot lost track of his "fullest tank" and actually switched into the empty tank in haste. What is unusable fuel on a 20K? Isn't it like less than one gallon per tank?

I doubt very many people would sell their aircraft, assuming they can afford to maintain them in the first place, because of an ADS-B remote box that's likely to be cheaper in 2020 than it is today. Now I suppose if that came with the strings of installing a WAAS GPS as a pre-requisite then yeah I see people walking away. From my understanding the mandate can be met by a blind WAAS receiver as part of the ADS-B unit, an all-in-one solution which is likely to be prevalent in 2020 if not today, negating the need and cost of a outright WAAS GPS unit installation. I'm still somewhat surprised by the prop strike totaling the aircraft absent major airframe damage. a non-ad prop is about 8-10K installed and the teardown is all labor. A mooney E should be insured for 35-40K+ all things being equal. Even 80% of that is near 30K. My understanding is that the insurance doesn't fix your bent engine bits, so that cost doesn't go into the equation. The rest would have to be airframe damage. Didn't see pictures of that on the link. Who knows, the guy could have had a really low insured value. 30K prop replacement and engine teardown with no bent airframe? That doesn't sound right even for "certified" maintenance money.

This thread went tumbleweed. Adiós.

Sorry, late to the reply. I don't peruse mooneyspace as much as the other board. I just saw you PM'd with the same question so I'll reply here for the benefit of all. The race reference was 100% facetious on my part. It was an attempt at political humor while still trying to make a point I genuinely believe in, which is that Congress listens to demographics of power. If the fact affluent white people are a more politically powerful demographic or the fact affluent white people represent the preponderance of general aviation participants upsets your sensitivities, I got nothing for you nor do I apologize for those two assertions being factual. That said, please understand that wasn't the intent of my post at all, I was just pointing at the fact I believe this legislation will lead certified aircraft of the stated gross weight limits, down the avenue of experimental avionics, which would be a great thing for certified single engine piston GA. I'm not affluent nor Caucasian as an aircraft owner (I am white skinned though, for the sake of full disclosure) and I was merely being facetious with the race/political angle. I realize now not everyone in this demographic will appreciate my humor, and for that liberty I do apologize. In the interest of attaining progress out of the dark shadows of certified aviation I do hope we stand in agreement as a collective. Sorry for the de-rail, now back to your regular programming.

That would be incredibly subversive. Without access to experimental avionics, there's literally no difference between a normal AW airplane and primary non-commercial. Meaning, unless you suggest they will disregard the law and NOT "do something!", then at a minimum they WILL have to allow certified spam cans gain access to non-certified avionics solutions. There's nothing else it allows you to do. If you still have to abide by ADs and certified logbook records keeping, then it's not different at all. And if you think they're gonna let you do all the maintenance but still hold you to certified standards you're smoking crack. that's not the intent of primary non-commercial and they would have zero incentive to even bother with it at that point. Also, think about the genesis of it all. They're trying to band aid the 2020 mandate by allowing the spam cans to resolve their compliance via experimental pricing, because they know the certified pricing will crush GA enough that they'll hear from enough white people. I recognize you're a pessimist when it comes to the FAA and I share your cynicism, but as it pertains to primary non-commercial, I don't share your prognosis because there is nothing BUT experimental modifications to distinguish such a category from the current normal A/W. This leaves the FAA with only the option of not creating any category at all, which I don't think they'll get away with for the aforementioned 2020 ADS-B compliance motivations. This is gonna happen. They're gonna drag their feet and scream like petulant rent-seeking children, but there's enough of a white people's hobby on the line that they'll cave.

Um, the legislation was already passed and signed into law by the President last year. It's the goddamn FAA dragging their feet on the implementation of the part 23 re-write. The law gives the FAA until DEC 2015 to give it up and adopt the changes but those treasonous bureaucrats are dragging their heels until 2017 from last I read. (which I don't understand how that can be legal). Btw, you don't have to come up with a term, what you guys are coining "E/FB" already was included in that legislation as part of the recommendations of the ARC (aviation rulemaking committee). It's called Primary non-commercial category. It will allow you to change a factory airplane from a normal/utility category airworthiness certificate to this primary/non-commercial A/W certificate, allowing you all the discretion of E/AB in the maintenance, [lack of] records keeping and modifications of your factory built spam can, without having to ask mother-may-I to the FAA in the form of STCs and go-nowhere 337 field approval requests. Primary non-commercial, as the name implies, forbids you from using the aircraft in commercial operations, much like E/AB delineates in their airworthiness certificate category limitations. Additionally, primary non-comm airplanes can be reverted back to normal category A/W certs provided you return the aircraft to the condition specified by the factory TCDS (type certificate data sheet), which nobody is likely to do, I might add. It will absolutely be a reinvigorating element in the otherwise sure death of GA. Stalling it is doing nothing but continue to hurt GA. I can tell you right now, if primary non-commercial became a reality, I would automatically go out spend 15 AMUs in labor and parts to various avionics vendors and sheet metal shops. I would immediate begin work on installing Arrow III tanks on my Arrow II (48 gal usable to 72 gal usable upgrade, currently not available in STC nor does the FAA have interest in entertaining a non-cost-prohibitive 337 request) and rip my panel out and install experimental AHRS-based PFDs to forever be free from mechanical gyros, crappy heading inaccuracies and partial panel nonsense. I would additionally be able to replace my autopilot for pennies on the dollar and have a more robust AP. Oh and throw in a wing paint job after the tank modification, in there for good measure. Could I do all of this today? With the exception of the tanks, probably, but they want all that extortion money. So I sit on my hands and don't contribute to the economy instead, as a matter of principle. My flying is more dangerous (IMC behind mechanical gyros) and I'm less likely to burn that avgas and support businesses because I'm worried about certified maintenance kabuki eating me alive getting stuck broke off-station. Oh well. Im not paying their racket money though. Sorry Aspen, I'll buy your PFD if you match Dynon's pricing. Otherwise, I can wait. So, we're here already on the legal front, but the FAA yet again is robbing us from the opportunity of moving ahead. It rest solely on the FAA's head right now. They're the enemy. Not Congress.