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.

Also rember that VS/VV is GS dependent. So with these big boys scorching air molecules at 7 miles a minute, a 600FPM delta on either airplane going 7 miles a minute ground (for the sake of no-wind simplicity), puts you at a pitch attitude of 0.85 degrees nose up or nose down. That's less than one degree, for the math challenged. In other words, the damn pax farting cause themselves a more noticeable G-effect than 600fpm on an airliner at cruise. The media sucks almost as much as the pedestrians who buy their propaganda suck at life. Cowards shouldn't be allowed to vote. /stirpot

do we know if the flight was a long XC? The fuel exhaustion cases tend to occur when people stretch those long distances upon encountering stronger than expected headwinds. I really hope it was fuel starvation rather than exhaustion, we don't need any more "pilot ran out of fuel" fodder to an already dying avocation. Mechanical fuel pumps tend to be likely causes of the former. I know a Cirrus owner who had this happen on descent. Engine stumbled and they glided for a half dozen seconds or so, until they did the mechanical thing of pushing everything forward and click the boost pump on. Voila, got their engine back. As another poster said, it is a Conti after all. That checks tc

As a military servicemember and a private aircraft owner based 3 miles from the Mexican border, I cannot begin to express my frustration and disdain for the thugs at CBP, particularly the Air and Marine. Some of these folks are actual co-workers of mine in the Air Force Reserves. They can't look me in the eye and give me a straight answer. I can tell you most of these GS-12/13 folks take the position that "it's just my job" and they disassociate themselves from the idea that they are tresspassing against their own brother. The pragmatism of keeping that GS job and retirement going for themselves and their families trumps these contentions, which to them as the perpetrators seem as mere academics. I personally find it a cowardly way of earning a living, but those are fighting words that I would reserve for any of them in person rather than over an anonymous web board. One thing is true. I have positively scratched out flying internationally via GA due to these potential outcomes, particularly being based on the border myself. I had plans to visit my family in Puerto Rico via GA as part of a bucket list trip, but that is now only going to be accomplished when I can make the trip non-stop. On the other board I'm asking how to increase my arrow II's fuel capacity to be able to accomplish such a thing. I guess I should have bought a Mooney J; even with the standard 64 gal it would make Ft Lauderdale-Aguadilla,PR non-stop. I'm doing it one way or another. I'm not letting these thugs rob me of the freedom I fight for every day I put that flight suit on.

FWIW I went through a similar back and forth on my Arrow's -C1C. Early S/N were 25*, later they went to 20*. Mine was a 73 but got re-engined with a '79 Lyco that got stamped at 20. At annual the AP caught the last owner had it at 25*. I started sweating bullets about the performance loss. Got the airplane back and did a test flight. No change. Zip, zilch, nada. Cruises at the same true on the same fuel. I suspect my climb rate is infinitesimally less and the takeoff run will be equally so adjusting for condition. Not enough to warrant chasing rabbits for a re-timing. I also suspect that it will run rougher when attempting LOP at high altitudes. I was able to run the thing at 7gph around 12,500 without roughness, exactly the same as I was doing at 25*. The argument about starting easier I also didn't see. It should have been harder to start at 25* in the first place, but it hadn't been. So maybe on a dyno would see it, maybe at top end RPM and WOT you'd see it, maybe at super LOP you'd see it, but for nominal cruise power settings and your middle of the road takeoff climb, you probably won't know any different. Of course as with all these things, YMMV.

I thought a B-hub add-on at overhaul time would bring the total cost to $4500. That's a lot less than 7K. Reference post #4. Somebody's got plain wrong numbers because 7-10K vs 4-5K is a big disparity in quotes. Running a non-B hub until it needs replacement and then coughing up and additional 3AMUs at overhaul seems like a heck of a lot better deal, not discussing the non-economic personal valuations of time and feelings on taking the aircraft to the shop at 100hrs et al. BTW, is anybody out there who has had a non-B hub actually fail the eddy current inspection? I know the non-suffix hub is not unique to Mooneys (Pipers got them too) and from my cursory read on this matter, it seems like the usual Airworthiness Directive Standard of "one failed among 9000 operating units, compliance is mandatory", which we call in the military: STANDARD, SNAFU. But I don't have the numbers. It doesn't sound like these things were failing en masse....

For comparison my warrior II cost me 30K to acquire. Fly it 220hours a year, 2100SMOH engine on condition with no expectation to overhaul. Routine 420NM mission trip, done enough to rack up such hours. Fuel has been the biggest expense. Insurance 450/yr. Hangar 125/mo. Total for the year is projected at around 15K. If I were to throttle back to the more common <100hr/yr use, total outlay would run around 10K/yr. My biggest concern would be what comparable maintenance premium operating a C model would have over the profile I just described. Well, for one assume both the annual and insurance doubles. So there's a grand. The rest is a wash because the gas mileage will be the same (all these contraptions hover around 14-16NMPG). The real question is what's the real deal lurking behind a 30-40K Mooney listing in terms of airframe corrosion, gear mx and leaking fuel tanks. When I look at lesser performing Piper Arrows with more expensive engines to maintain (mechanical fuel injection angle valve cylinder engines are a false economy in my book) and yet commanding a higher price I ask myself whether it's because of something all those Arrow owners don't know or is it something all Mooney C owners know that prospective buyers don't. That gives me pause. Otherwise someone explain to me that disparity in pricing. Given my experience with the PA-28 airframe I'd say the corrosion woes in early mooneys are reflected in that pricing disparity?¿ For sub 300NM trips from a purely utilitarian POV you're better off with a 4 seater fixed prop fixed gear sample to be frank. The one thing I would say you are getting with a 180-200hp retract is the climb rate and the headwind performance. Oh how painful it is to climb my warrior to cruise altitude or to look at the groundspeed with a 10knot headwind. It adds up.

Um, I don't know much about the particular carb on the mooneys, but assuming they are equipped with accelerator pumps, the whole business of pumping the throttle before cranking in an updraft carburetor setup is an engine fire waiting to happen in the unfortunate event of a backfire. Does the 20C have a primer? I'd be using that instead. I used to pump indiscriminately before and during engine cranking and then someone illustrated the pitfalls of doing so in the updraft carb. Cranking while pumping will help you get gas upstream, but pumping BEFORE cranking is just pooling fuel on the bottom of the box and setting you up for a bad day. At least on my warrior I utilize the primer with the boost pump on, and no throttle movement. It does the trick hot or cold. But again I'm not sure if the Mooneys have primers.

I think for the added expense and wonky starting idiosyncrasies, the mechanical FI system doesn't really stack up in the fuel savings department. If it were automotive EFI it would be one thing, but this is one where I find the IO- an inferior answer to my quest for efficiency. WOT, carb, lean til rough (and never cook a cylinder as a bonus on top of it), and 10gph or less depending on altitude... and cheaper overhaul. and cheaper cylinders. and...I digress EDIT: To add First post. Don't own a Mooney yet (currently own a pa-28-161) but have my eyes set on 20C hopefully in the not too distant future. Forum has been a great resource for information so far!