Scudrunners

I have a mixed feelings about them, main negatives are narrow cockpit and no right side door. I see they improved the new ones, but alas...mucho dinero


They were always advertized as tough planes with welded or one piece this and that and still POH limits them to standad +3.8 g. With this aerodynamic limit, what was the point of that approach and design?


In your opinion, did they just want to be different on paper?

The new ones unbutton rather nicely on the bottom giving not bad access. The previous were all access holes and a bit of a nightmare.


Pretty cool looking little airplanes and I enjoyed the very limited time I flew a 201. Friend has an Ovation and criss crosses the US regulatly with it seems pretty reliable but of course pricy.

You thinking about buying one? Always thought it was a nice looking aircraft, although the type has had more owners than the singing frog in Bugs Bunny. I'm going to guess that it's a maintenance heavy type what with retractable gear and other complex systems. Here's a link to the Mooney pilot's club...

http://www.mooneypilots.com/

I have about 400 hours in an M20J, and
have instructed in them over the decades.

It's a bit of an odd airplane, structurally - it
has a tube frame fuselage with metal wrapped
around it.  You have to pull the insulation and
inspect for corrosion on the tubes.  SB 208B if
memory serves.

The wing is an amazing piece of bridgework, if
you pull the interior out.  Compare it to an RV
center section sometime.  Guaranteed orgasm
if you're a civil engineer.

I found the four-cylinder versions to be a bit
under-powered, and the climb rate suffered,
although they were very fast because of the
low drag.  Get a six-cylinder, IMHO.  They
are not light and the four-cylinders climb like
a buck fifty at high density altitudes.

They do not carry ice well.  Never flown the TKS.
I had an O2 with cannulas, used to fly it
hanging off the prop at 13,000 feet.  Best time
from YQT to YSH was a hair over four hours with
negligible tailwind.  Did you know you can pick
up ice over Lake Superior in August?  Neither
did I.

Landing gear is intricate and can be tricky,
and nose gear is easily damaged by line crew
if turned too far.  Needs good maintenance,
many expensive bits.  Don't land it on grass
unless it's really smooth.  Four hockey pucks
is what you have for suspension.

Installed a stormscope and a decent autopilot
and one of the first G430's, which transformed
the airplane.  Still couldn't handle ice, but gosh
it could take you from one 3000 foot paved runway
to another 3000 foot runway quickly and efficiently.

Also installed a second electric attitude indicator,
didn't trust the vacuum pump.  Had a red warning
light on the dash.

Always wanted to do the 100 gallon tank mod, so
I could fly non-stop from Ontario to Key West.  With
the stock tanks, you had to stop once (Norfolk).

Really a two-person airplane, plus baggage.

Just remember to put the gear down.

Oh yeah, learn to get the speed down on short final. 
Mooney pilots like to approach too fast and float the
first half of the runway.  You really seem to get hit
with ground effect with that long, low wing.

Maintenance.  The Mooney is a pain in the ass to work
on.  Everything is cramped and difficult, because it's such
a compact, low-drag package.  Reminds me of a Japanese
sport bike - had to recently pull all the goofy fairings and
the radiator on one, to change the spark plugs with a
special tool.  If that seems reasonable to you, you're
going to like working on a Mooney.

Even if you buy a Mooney that has been perfectly maintained
with no regard to cost (top 1%), the cost of the annuals
might surprise you.  A really cheap one is going to be
$10,000 if you just toss the keys at an AMO.

If you buy a "bargain" Mooney that needs some TLC, your
maintenance costs are going to be substantial, as you
get caught up, changing stuff and fixing stuff that's been
deferred by the previous owner, who knew he was going
to sell it soon, so why spend money on fixing it?  If he
spends $30,000 on maintenance, it might increase the
value of the aircraft $5,000 (in your dreams).  Not a
good use of his money, so no one ever does it.

If you can write multiple $10,000 checks a year to an
AMO with a smile on your face, an older retractable might
just be the airplane for you.

Me, I did all my own maintenance and got a buddy to
sign the books.  Parts cost alone will make your eyes
water, my time on the weekends and evenings was free.

I think I still have the landing gear tool in my toolbox.

[img width=500 height=255]http://www.lasar.com/img/mods/mod-33-35_lg.jpg[/img]

Free advice:  be choosey, and find an AME that's worked on
Mooneys before (that doesn't run screaming when you walk
up to him). 

Don't just let a Cessna AME learn on your airplane.  Likely
he will be a thief but as long as he knows Mooneys, he won't
hurt your airplane, only your wallet.

[quote]If you can write multiple $10,000 checks a year to an
AMO with a smile on your face, an older retractable might
just be the airplane for you.[/quote]  :o

Can I ask how that compares to your Pitts? I am assuming it's a lot cheaper to maintain....

Completely different airplanes.

Pitts is tube and fabric with a fuel-injected Lycoming
with inverted fuel and oil.

It's really no different than working on any other
tube and fabric airplane.  Learn to touch up the
paint cracks.

Main thing about the Pitts is lubrication, to avoid
metal on metal.  You don't do that, expensive
maintenance will follows.

I walked up to a strange (to me) S-2C recently,
and noticed:

1) the tailwheel chains were loose and needed
a link taken out of each side.  Connectors were
ok, tailwheel tire was worn unevenly

2) wheel pants were secure, though inner fairings
on the calipers were gone.  Had just been repaired.

3) javelins were good

4) ailerons had slop, bearing rods ends needed
replacement, no lubrication at previous annuals
Not a safety issue.

I have been flying a Mooney MSE recently. This one has speedbrakes(and lots of other cool stuff) and they can be extended for landing. Even so, it can be easy to be too fast and it will float. I believe that the published approach speed is for max weight, so if light, shaving a few knots off on final could be beneficial.

And make sure to latch the baggage door. One guy didn't and it bent over backwards damaging it.

The toughness was probably an advertising tool.

The M20J I flew didn't have speedbrakes so I
used the gear instead, to keep the CHT's up
in the descent.  Gotta keep the MP in the green.
Good thing I had a Lycoming.

I've flown a 421 with brakes and it was the
cat's ass.  But on the L39, the boards don't
seem to do anything under 200 knots.

Free advice for people flying their first retractable
piston prop (could be single mooney/bonanza/comanche,
or twin):

You can go down, or you can slow down.  But you
can't do both at the same time.

Just remember, please lean the shit out of the mixture
in the descent, unless you like buying cylinders.

And it goes without saying, cowl flaps closed in cruise
and descent.

Rules are completely changed with turbo-prop.  Friend
of mine has a turbine 421 conversion, no speed brakes
required, no goddamned cylinders to crack.

I'm a bad person, but I like to ride the barber pole down,
and pull lots of G down low to piss off the airspeed.