All Activity

She stated at the beginning that she was only going to use the first 4000 feet = 1210 m of runway, and based on her runway exit, she used a bit less than that. English and European fields are generally smaller than American airports, but I've taken my C in and out of 2000' = 610 m grass runway, but never loaded heavy. I've also been based for almost a decade at 3000' paved fields with few options, but am now getting spoiled with 5000', full length taxiway and multiple Approaches.

I recently interacted with Scott, also privately and I will never again nor will I watch his content. I did watch this video just to see what he had to say and it's more of the same from him. He is not a truth seeking individual, is arrogant and presumptuous and unwilling to hear, really listen to, the other side. That's my opinion of him. And this video confirms it for me. He will not admit that yeah sure G100UL is way worse on certain materials than 100LL. No, he seems to think that it's either us dealing with whatever the fallout to switching to G100UL will be or not flying at all. Well ok, sir, have that position. But at least be honest about it and don't pretend getting a new paint job, o rings, gaskets and sealants is just easy peasy and super cheap to do and everyone will be able to continue to fly. Be honest and say that all GAMI did was test on a single 172. Be honest and say that your tiny leak became a major leak very quickly. Say it how it is. G100UL eats most of the materials used until now and most of the planes will need extensive investment to make them compatible with G100UL, if at all. And no, 100LL doesn't have the same effect. It's present but way way less. Bah it's all just so stupid. Someone in the comments of his video says it well: "This problem would have been solved 30 years ago if the EPA and FAA had simply told the industry back when lead was removed from auto fuels that leaded avgas would be sunset in 20 years and they thus had that long to find a solution. This would have forced the airframe, engine and fuel makers to work together aggressively to find a solution and I am 100% confident a solution would have been found." This is the real problem. We were let down by regulations. But more on the side of certification. Hopefully stuff like this will be a solution (although I'm not holding my breath):

If all you want is XM and not ADS-B in you can get a GDL-51 used on Ebay for between $400 and $500. But you can also get a used GDL-52 there as well and save a few hundred dollars. Other Benefits: The GDL-5X series adds AHRS so you will get synthetic vision on your Aera 796. It also offers the ability to bluetooth more than one device, such as a tablet or phone, which of course a GXM antenna didn't have. I have had my GDL-52 for a few years and I really like it. I also have an Aera 760. No regrets on either . The unit being on the glareshield is a non-issue. You can wire the Aera and the GDL 796 together power and data: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/aera795datapowercable.php?clickkey=20142 If you're really concerned about heat, I added one of these to my GDL-52 since I'm in Texas: https://www.ebay.com/itm/326232198845?_skw=garmin+GDL52+heat+shield&itmmeta=01K43AK1MQ410T7B0K2AK2KK16&hash=item4bf4f44ebd:g:~QIAAOSwjchmu4-3&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA8FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1eyp3x8I%2Fs1Btxy0dFt6x6w2YyLHRpg5wt3wZui21zsCD1YVRVS1kpPHQ3NZUMDOz2sQeeCTELa%2Fp6Cl5kX2h8e1QWm5sv9ezOycs4IkaOIX8AAdfvSnFl2mSpeShl2uKIssPqtVj35Bkh8CDUbDR213xlWz5j3dTunrLHl%2BuW3MGYtpWyM27yUHtNteepfv1WIr4nMzazhzMCBJZw28cG6an30u%2BKMk1%2BpWI7KoLns9kN7%2BVv9I3gxPB058KRh8xyCt9WOYItLd2ezgke2toP%2FKVIftWjzdswcAghFM2hGsQ%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR76azOqgZg

think I answered my own question, only need XM, have ADSB through GTX345 transponder, there is a GDL51 receiver that can be outfitted with a small external antenna, receiver stays under glareshield, small antenna gets mounted on glareshield

Scott Perdue wrote: “I have to add a mea culpa- I got the AOPA Baron Fuel Leak at Oshkosh wrong. There was a 100LL leak, but there was also a G100UL leak and the culprit was an overfill and the cork gasket failed. Just wanted to correct the record. Once a video is up I can't really edit it without taking it down completely. I also made a note in the video description.” It was highly public with the G100UL leak on the Baron with the black goo under the wing as Osh24. I’m not sure where Perdue obtained his background research for this video. I suspect GAMI? Certainly makes it appear that Flywire is GAMI’s new advertising spokesperson. https://flyeagle.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AOPA-Baron-Fuel-Cells-Report.pdf "Given the areas of stain and stickiness observed during the receiving inspection, we expected the left hand auxiliary cell to leak as well. However, the stickiness could have been caused by seepage into that cavity. The stickiness of the leaking main cells was in keeping with the number of leaks found. There is no doubt the patch may have been partially loose given its location however, the extent of the detachment in situ is in question. The removal and subsequent handling would have further separated the repair. The important question is why the repair began to detach. It may be possible that the missing internal rubber may have allowed the solvents in the fuel to penetrate the fabric and the exterior rubber coating and then getting beneath the external repair. This is most likely the reason given how the repairs are bonded." There’s more to the story than “move along folks nothing to see here” that Mr Braly likes to suggest. It’s striking that Mr. Perdue would suggest in a video that “surprise, it was only 100LL that leaked.” This suggests that his video isn’t researched and educated but just parroting support.

Wow! Just over half the displacement, and almost a third heavier. Not sure I can take an extra 75 lb on the firewall, and they cleverly don't say if the 335 lb weight includes oil and coolant. Lycomung advertises 258 lb dry weight, and 6 quarts of oil is ~9-10 more pounds.

yep, chances are the GXM42 is shot, lasted 4 or 5 years, the only thing I do not like about the GDL52 is its sheer size, copilot view blocked

Nicely done!

She's great. A lot to consider and I suspect the hardest part is forcing yourself to point down rather aggressively and holding off lowering the gear as long as possible.

That’s the crux of it? It’s possible in 6000ft runway with cross runways ! I had to remind few UK GA pilots who were watching YT videos that we already struggle to land with engine into wind in typical British 1800ft runway

335 pounds, including the starter, turbo and exhaust SpecSheetBack-April2025.pdf

I believe that is the Black Vulture, not the Turkey Vulture. The head looks like the Black. The Black Vutures have big white spots on the bottom of the wings, the Turkey Vutures have a much more turkey looking head. Fun fact. What we grew up calling buzzards, is because of the German immigrants in the 1800's called them buzzards, because they don't have vultures in Germany. They have buzzards

I’ve done this in my M20J. Making it from 600’ depends on the wind. It’s dicey if the wind is calm. I can always make it from 800’ and if there was much wind on takeoff you have to be careful if the runway is short because you’ll be landing with a tailwind. I brief 800 as my minimum turn back altitude under normal circumstances. You might consider that in some cases the best option might be to keep the gear up to stretch the glide and land somewhere flat on the airport gear up if you can’t make the runway. When Don Maxwell had to do this he told me he almost forgot the gear and put it down in the flare. He heard thump, chirp in short succession. He wouldn’t have made it if he had put the gear down earlier. He also had multiple long runways and taxiways available - things to consider when you brief.

Search is your friend on Mooneyspace: https://mooneyspace.com/search/?q="POH BINDER"&quick=1&updated_after=any&sortby=relevancy - - - - - What I've used it the past which have held up well:

It's a wash for my C. What is the engine weight?

Just go to Staples or wherever you buy office supplies and get a standard binder as thick as you need. If you get the type that has clear plastic pockets on the cover and spine, you can print inserts and make it look as fancy as you want.

Typically #5 is the hotest on the TSIO-360 due to the air scoop blocking a good amount of the airflow. So maybe a bad probe?

I keep my ancient, browning booklet in the seat back pocket (because it's required), with electronic versions on phone and tablet. Checklists copied from the Owners Manual are pn my kneeboard, along with most of the Performance Tables for easy reference. It's amazing what you can fit on 8-1/2 x 11 paper printed in booklet format! Then do the tables in a spreadsheet and paste into the document. What an amazing coincidence that the kneeboard is exactly the size of a piece ofmpaper folded in half . . .

Summary of Scott's video posted above - G100UL is completely safe, provided that all gaskets, hoses, diaphragms, etc., made from anyting else than Vitol are replaced, planes are rapainted or get magic"ceramic" coatings installed Yet another attempt to gloss over the known compatibility issues of this fuel.

Mine came up in about 30 seconds with 4 bars. The GXM42's have a high failure rate and are not repairable. When I use my GDL52, it has a different 3 bar SXM display, but comes up quickly. I have not done a side by side comparison of the XM vs GDL, but the GDL has a battery and BT, so less wires. Aerodon

If you are willing to give up 20 HP, you could probably detune an IO-360 to run on UL94.

put POH into old 2" Jeppesen leather binder, with all the supplements it is almost full, nice memory piece, but probably weighs close to 1 lb, thinking about scanning the whole thing, have checklist on a knee board and emergency checklist in side pocket in pilot footwell

It may be worth losing 20hp for some IO-360 pilots as (and I'm just assuming here without reading tech specs) you get that 20hp back pretty quickly at altitude due to the turbo. My pipedream here is that MOSAIC gets expanded to allow "decertification" of our Mooneys and we can use experimental engines. The Deltahawk concept looks great to me.

I think we're safe because I scanned this in my office, not the principal house of a landed estate.

I missed this when it was unveiled at Airventure last month. It sounds like Piper is planning to sell brand new Seminoles with DeltaHawk engines, using an STC that Piper owns. https://generalaviationnews.com/2025/07/24/piper-unveils-seminole-powered-by-diesel-deltahawk-engine/ This is the more mature 180hp variant, not the more interesting 200 or 200+ variants. But still, getting more of these in the wild in certified aircraft will tell us a lot more about the long term viability of the powerplant. https://www.deltahawk.com/engines/ Given all of the painful recent decisions on UL avgas, I’m happier thinking about diesel again …