Leaderboard

You may continue to have that choice for years and years to come . . . or the EPA/FAA/LMNOP may choose to regulate 100LL out of existence as fast as possible. We sincerely hope not. In fact, we have been lobbying the EPA to NOT make any rash, sweeping declarations that will accelerate the banning of leaded fuels. There is a time when leaded fuels will be completely gone, and that will be to the benefit of us all, but that time isn't today or tomorrow. It's important to understand that GAMI doesn't want to be or plan to be in the business of making or selling fuel. We created a formula, which will be liscensed to someone else to make, distribute, and sell G100UL. Go out to your airport and look at the name on the fuel truck. That will be the same. The little sticker that says 100LL will change to G100UL, but the big name on the side of the truck will still be what it is today. They and the FBO will determine what you pay for that fuel. We couldnt' demand a higher or lower price if we wanted to. So, I don't have any clue what the PUMP PRICE will be. However, I do have some detailed calulations of what the manufacturing costs will be. Again, this is tied to volume. At current, relatively low, volumes, the cost of manufacture may be about $0.80 per gallon higher than the cost to manufacture 100LL. As volumes increase, and some materials sourcing improves, that may drop - maybe quite a bit, maybe not. As with 100LL, that changes with the price of crude, and with the price and worldwide availability of the other constituent components. There may also be some transportation savings. There are some factors for and against that. Some of those things we just can't know yet. Jpt

I'm going to throw in my $0.02. I actually think his reaction is a reasonable one; he knows the plane has been sitting, he knows 'stuff' is going to get found, he knows Savvy is thorough, and....he's looking for a buyer that recognizes the first two and knows what he is getting into. I assume the plane is priced accordingly. No offense, but he may view you as someone that will take awhile to be super thorough because you don't want a project! And, after finding a bunch of stuff, even if not significant, will want a steep discount or walk. A related story: when I was shopping one of the A&Ps (at an MSC, no less) asked 'how' I wanted the pre-buy done. Having never gone through the plane purchasing process I had no idea what he meant. He explained, "Do you want me to come up with a list of things so you can negotiate with the seller, or just look for red flags?" Your seller maybe afraid you're going for the former rather than later, pre-buy! I'm not sure what your goal is, but mine was to buy a 'flying' airplane; I did NOT want a 'fixer upper' despite the fact I'm very mechanically inclined. Do you want to buy to fly, or not? I would have NEVER even looked at a plane that had been sitting for this long. My FIRST criteria was how recently, often, and consistently had the plane been flown? That criteria ruled out a surprisingly (or maybe not) large number of candidates. What did NOT bother me was a high time engine assuming my first criteria was met. That is how I got a good price; the engine was around 2100 SMOH and the plane was priced accordingly. I was prepared to OH the engine at any time, and I'd still have been okay price wise. Well, it's been over five years and I'm coming up on 2600 SMOH. I'll get off my soap box, now... Good luck!

That’s a pretty reasonable position; not a red flag. I also think it was a tactical mistake on your part to attempt to negotiate splitting costs on items before you know what those are. As a seller, I wouldn’t agree in advance to splitting any unknown costs from a mechanic of your choosing.

The problem with going with your gut, is that for a first time buyer, there is little gut to go on. When I bought my plane 22 years ago, I didn't know squat. I might have bought what I thought was a pretty one, with all kinds of problems. But I was lucky and ran into Don Maxwell and Jimmy Garrison early on. If you have been an aircraft owner before, you know a lot more about what to look for. If someone discovers Mooneyspace when they start looking they should be eons ahead of where I was.

early in my flying years departing a controlled field, I could not read back the taxi instructions correctly. This cycle continued several times until the controller, totally frustrated with me, issued progressive taxi instructions. His next clearance was to a corporate pilot that signed on with a snide remark about amateur pilots, who immediately failed to readback the correct clearance. Image my delight in keying the mic and saying "not so easy is it"

Austin, Once G100UL has nationwide coverage, there may be little to no price difference between it and 100LL. Right now (today) you can buy 100LL for $5.08 in Mojave, CA or $8.39 in Santa Monica. That's a $3/gallon swing in prices. As the volume of production increases, the price will come down some. At the same time, as more and more airports get eliminate leaded fuels, the volume of that production will decrease and those prices will rise. As far as the STC is concerned, I envision a time when that will no longer be necessary. People who live in certain areas may never need an STC, but people who live in early adopter areas will. When Eagle wraps up in 2030, they may have that figured out. Or, they may ask for another 5-10 years of taxpayer $$ to flounder around. So far many people have decided that roughly the cost of a tank of fuel to help deploy unleaded fuel is a good use of their money. Others may spend $500 on a pair of shoes, or dinner and a concert. Everyone has a different sense of value and they each have to do what makes sense to them. Jpt

@Greg Ellis thanks for the tag. As you know, I am a Whelen dealer so I stock and have in my inventory the G3 LED landing and taxi lights (PAR-36 and PAR-46 sizes). For the money, they can't be beat. AeroLED's flagship lamp, the Sunspot is more expensive and it does not perform as well (photo taken from a drone below). Both Whelen and AeroLED put a lot of power through their lamps so cooling is an important design consideration. Typically cooling occurs on the back side of the lamp with the heat sink. When you look at the size of the heat sink, there isn't much on the AeroLED so in a static environment, it powers down rather quickly as it heats up. The G3 does too but not to the extent of the AeroLED. As previously noted, that can shorten the life of the diodes. Getting airflow over them (while flying) helps cool them but it can be tough to accurately measure the effects that has on them, at least from what I have seen to this date (really no data). Another consideration besides measuring raw candela output is the lens and how does it perform for the pilot? I had Whelen go out and take photos from a drone hovering above the aircraft to get a good visual of how it looks like in a real environment and they speak for themselves. For $399 versus ~$700 for the PAR-46 size (assuming singular landing light on the nose of your C) it is better and can't be beat. Here is a link to my website. PM me, email me at gallagheraviationllc@gmail.com, or call me at 1-833-425-5288. https://www.gallagheraviationllc.com/WAT-G3-PAR-46-LED-Landing-Light_p_134.html <- G3 PAR-46 link.

Also airports like DFW have red lights at every taxiway intersection to the runway that turn on automatically when an airplane begins its takeoff roll down the runway. Also the airplane sitting at the end of the runway waiting to take off will also have a double row of red lights light up in your face when an aircraft (or vehicle) anywhere down the runway taxi points enters your runway. Now delta was probably already passed those lights because they are usually at the first 1500ft but if i read JFK diagram correctly they are at the intersection of 31L and 4L but do they only work for those on the runway or do they also work for the taxiways down the runway? but AA would have had them in their taxi lane and they would have been on. You are trained to never taxi over or takeoff over red lights. You must call tower and explain you can’t takeoff because the red lights are on. It was a safety feature put in at dfw and jfk just to stop this very thing from happening. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/rwsl/

Great questions. The first thing to think about is that engines cannot burn liquid gasoline. The fuel must be vaporized and well mixed with the appropriate amount of air to combust. The carburetor or fuel injector nozzle does not vaporize the fuel but instead breaks it up into tiny droplets in the proper proportion to the airflow which vaporize and mix with air more readily. Once the engine is running the cylinders warm up and provide the heat to vaporize the fuel. During starting when the engine is cold, the only heat source is the compression heating in the cylinder. To prevent vapor lock at high altitude, avgas doesn't vaporize quite as readily as mogas so it is harder to get the fire going than in your car. Also, automobile engines generally have higher compression ratios than aircraft engines, and the higher the compression ratio, the more heat generated by the compression stroke. Sticky valves are caused by deposits on the valve guides. Burned valves are caused by failure to rotate. If a valve sticks open, the cylinder will have no compression and will not generate power. If a valve sticks closed, exhaust gasses cannot escape and will dilute the incoming mixture charge to the point where it will not burn. Depending on the cylinder design, if a valve sticks open, it may contact the piston. If a valve sticks closed, it can result in a bent pushrod. Skip

There are differences between the Whelen PAR 36 and PAR 46 bulbs. I have the wing mounted PAR 36 and was disappointed in the Parmetheus Plus. I didn’t do enough research. According to Whelen’s published 3rd party test data, the PAR 36 Parmetheus Plus is less bright than the stock incandescent bulbs. I upgraded to the G3 and they are now brighter than the incandescents. I am very happy with the G3s. For the PAR 46, according to Whelen’s data, the Parmetheus Plus is about equivalent to the incandescent and the G3 is brighter. Skip

@M20Doc is the best there is up there. How big is canada though?

Along with their screaming passengers

these new G3 Whelen lamps are seriously bright.

I have looked at a LOT of planes in the last 8 years. Many of them hangar queens. some of them like this, sitting and out of annual for many years. looking back at the ones I passed on I have seen some start up, fly off and be totally ok, and others that went down, (one of them, that I know of, literally). from my very small experience it seems just as likely to go either way. What I took from the corrosion comments wasn’t that sitting is worse than flying, but if it was corroding when it was parked and eight years without an annual, lots can happen. that being said. The condition the plane was in when parked is also a real factor. If the guy treated it the way you would hope, there is potential for a diamond in rough, and even if you have to replace an engine and be a little upside down, a pristine interior and paint is no small factor either if the airframe is sound. I think you should follow your gut, do your due diligence, understand what you are getting into with aircraft ownership, prepare for the worst and hope for the best. If you feel good about your purchase with realistic expectations you won’t regret your decision. The upside of having to rebuild the engine is you will have a solid engine to care for and build confidence. Lastly, airplanes are like boats, houses and classic cars, they are ALL projects to one degree or another. Yes, even when new, I owned two brand new ultras, and they both had squawks and issues.

Here he was refering to the G100UL meeting or exceeding the pertinant characteristics of D910 that are important to the operation of your engine (performance, detonation, vapor pressure, etc). He did not mean that it would meet the letter of the D910 spec. It won't. If it did, it would be 100LL. Jpt

Well I listened to the tape, he was instructed that 4L was his departure runway, he was instructed to cross 31L. My theory is his mind was turned 90 degrees because he saw AA 185 depart 31L which added to his confirmation bias what he saw was a 4L departure when in actuality it was not 4L but 31L. When he came to the bars he was already cleared across 31L and he believed he was crossing 31L when in fact he was crossing 4L. Again, in his mind, nothing to read back because he believed he was crossing 31L for which he had clearance and indeed read back the clearance.

I took the weekend (mostly) off, so I may have missed some stuff. Someone said " I’m concerned that GAMI has chosen not to have their fuel certified (a la ASTM) at all." The reason was twofold. 1) We actually started heading down the ASTM path, but a significant portion of our early intellectual data was stolen during that process. Basically, there was no way to secure that path. We had a few certain individuals who were quite determined to be bad actors. We didn't see a fruitful way forward. 2) There wasn't a clear path to get from ASTM spec to fleetwide certification. The shortest path was still via STC. If you obtain an ASTM spec for your fuel, you still ahve to have that blesed in some way to be able to use it on the aircraft and engines. The FAA didn't then have a method for doing that. I'm not sure they still do ~12 years later. As far as how G100UL compares to D910 Avgas, it's like this: The 100LL fuel wasn't created to fit the D910 spec, rather the D910 spec was created to describe THAT fuel. Any fuel that isn't THAT fuel will have a myriad of small deviations from the spec. They may or may not be deviations that have any practical impact on the use of the fuel, but they will have deviations that won't fully meet the spec. John-Paul

First let me say that I am not an “anti-vaxxer,” I got fully vaccinated as soon as I drew a slot in the lottery being held by the governmental agency, which at the time was the State of Minnesota. I have been boosted twice since. I flew many Angel Flights during the roughly two years COVID kept the world under wraps, never once getting it from or giving it to a patient. I got it once a year ago when it seemed the world was reopening and we had some family over for Thanksgiving. All, or almost all, are in health care fields and were fully vaccinated. I was fully vaccinated, but the newest booster had just come out and I had not been able to find one yet. One person had it and everyone, vaccinated or not, got it. All survived. I also want to express my deepest sympathies for the deaths and destruction caused in Switzerland and elsewhere. I just have to say that the statement that you can’t get COVID once vaccinated was a misconception is simply not true, or rather, the statement may be true but it is not what we were told. I was there. I read. I understood what I was being told. We were told the Pfizer vaccine was 96% effective in preventing the disease and the Moderna was 94%. You could not find the Pfizer vaccine in the beginning at all, because of that “information.” Here in the US we had a truly appalling misinformation campaign from our own government and official spokespersons. I think we all learned the lesson, if we needed to after so many tall tales coming out of Washington, that anything they say cannot be trusted. Some may have known that the only purpose of the vaccine was to prepare the body to fight the disease, but that is definitely not what we were told. As for the safety of the vaccines, I opened the news this morning to read a piece that the FDA is concerned about heightened TIAs in persons who have had the Pfizer. I have a little more sympathy for those who were concerned about the safety of the vaccines, safety was ignored. I will still get vaccinated, but they are not all wearing tin foil hats. Humanity was poorly served, that is all I can say. We were more misinformed by those who had, or should have had, the official information than by those simply spouting unfounded opinions. The unfounded opinions from the opinionated we can generally figure out for ourselves, but the misinformation campaign from the CDC and others, well, it took awhile for us to understand the depths of their dishonesty.

This link is making the rounds on airline pilot union boards. The new range is, apparently, fact. The cause for the new range is speculation. https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-faa-has-very-quietly-tacitly This might be good if your EKGs have raised the FAA's "interest". A local AME has opined that the FAA is too slow and too disorganized for this to be a reaction to anything and this was something probably in the works for years...after that he added, "But I'm not going to get any more boosters".

I am not sure how that works. Will any fuel blender pay a royalty (or some other term) to GAMI to use your formula? Have fuel makers previously paid a fee to someone to use their formula? Or is it like a patent; they only paid it for a period of time? If they pay GAMI for every gallon they sell, I would assume that will be added into the price paid by the ultimate user. Or will it be like other patent situations; someone will steal your formula, change it by a tweak and call it a new product? Then does the FAA step in and say "to be used in aircraft, it must be GAMI's exact formula"?

It's been a very long time since I've flown in cold temperatures in South Florida, but recently we've had some cold overnight temps. On those days that I fly after a cold night, the engine shakes for several minutes after startup and I was wondering what could be causing it. By the time that I start up, the outside temperatures are typically in the high 50's.

As a rank amateur, this incident reminds me that I've managed to botch the ground communication and/or taxi instructions in one way or other when departing every single large busy airport where I've been. That goes for KMDW, KFLL, KTEB, and KOPF. Once cleared for takeoff, the challenge at these places rapidly abates, and I no longer feel in over my head. Thankfully I've had no runway incursions to date, but this thread is a great reminder to respect that red sign with runway numbers on it, think carefully if I'm cleared across that exact runway at that intersection, ask if I'm not sure, and verbalize looking both ways when crossing.

I saw this as well. I was immediately skeptical not only of the reason for the change but that the change happened at all. After reviewing, the change is indeed as you said a fact. I am interested in hearing from folks who might know the reasoning for the change. Almost all of the literature on line (NIH, Harvard and others) suggests that the normal range for a PR interval is 120-200 milliseconds with exceptions made for the very old. Interesting piece below that references data from the pilot population. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/pr-interval#:~:text=The PR interval%2C measured from the onset of,AV conduction may be a more appropriate term.

For some reason I thought there were versions without the “plastic” vanes, but I don’t have any documentation for that.

Wow, Shadrach! That was an outstanding piece of writing and logic.

Doesn’t the Dukes pump need a filter?

Yea I mean WRT cruise speed... I leave out of Galveston a lot and I rocket (pun intended) right up to 10.5 and go straight over all the Houston mess. So believe me I know!

I can chime in with rocket numbers from experience with 2 aircraft. The only difference aerodynamically is that one does not have a step and it has a smaller towel bar type antenna... The other has a step and a blade antenna. Both have smooth bellies. What Dan says above is the most important takeaway for the rocket... The juice being worth the squeeze. I typically fly 30/22 at 17.5 GPH... at 10k I see around 185 KTAS and at FL210 I see about 210 KTAS at the same settings. You can basically Rule of thumb ballpark an extra 2 knots per 1000 feet. You can put the power up higher, but you absolutely trash your economy. You will easily burn another 3-5 gallons for 10 more knots. I have only seen this make sense in really big headwinds that couldn't be avoided... and it didn't save any gas but the time was shorter with the same burn or close to it anyway .... so why not. That all being said, I love the rocket. The power is great for climbing, taking off at high elevations or at max gross where I still see 1000FPM at about 130-40 KIAS. Then you pull it back and still go fast pretty economically. In a tailwind, you can get silly. Pull it way back to 26/22 and about 14 GPH and still true 165 (10k) or 185 (20k). When you have a 30+ knot push you would be foolish not to. When I am really stretching it, I will descend at 19/22 at about 10 GPH 500 FPM... and If I am up at FL210 that could be 40 min of descending.

I cant wait to make that switch. Break... This is quite the thread. Gami wants $550.00 for my aircraft for the STC... I do have to laugh though. All the talk about saving money on oil changes and overhauls that has been spouted... all GONE with the idea of paying a dollar more per gallon... An oil change for me cost 150 dollars including oil analysis. I do them every 30 hours. That 5 bucks an hour operating cost for oil. Assuming that Synthetic oil wouldnt cost more (yea right!) and I double my interval... that saves me 2.50 per hour. To buy a Factory new engine for my aircraft would cost 70k with a 1600 TBO... That is 43.75 an hour. Assuming I get DOUBLE TBO before I replace with a NEW engine... That saves me 21.87 an hour. Between those two "savings" I will be saving less than $25.00 an hour. I average about 20 gallons an hour burn.... So 1.00 per gallon more immediately evaporates most of the savings, which to calculate I have given EVERY advantage possible... If we consider just a factory Overhaul at around 35k... well, I wont be saving a dime when I burn 100UL. That all being said... I am tempted to purchase the STC just for resale appeal AND for fear that if this thing takes off and we are left with no other choice... why wouldn't they raise the price of the STC? I get how the FAA system works, but I just cant help but find it really funny that the FAA gives FLEET WIDE approval (every engine/airframe ) yet they would violate us if they catch us using it without having handed GAMI $2.00 per HP.... what a complete joke. Aviation is so fun!

How about this try? scan0025.pdf

Looks like a broken link?

and you think that makes a material difference?

I know mine did that too, so I always leave mine in the up position. However, since having the motor overhauled I have noticed it does seem to stay up even if the switch is off. Lee

I do f know what airline procedures are and I don’t know if it helps but it can’t hurt. Whenever crossing a runway despite instructions to do so I always look left and right just like at a stop sign in a car - just in case. I’m not sure if it helps if I would see an airplane a mile or two away on a long runway - but it can’t hurt. But minimal effort. e

I think you nailed it. Confirmation bias is a very serious issue to keep in check. Since the capt is tasked with taxiing the aircraft the pilot monitoring which is the FO has more attention they can use to verify and backup the capt’s turns and route. But throw in new call outs like the FO now makes the before takeoff announcement to the FA’s to prepare for takeoff and that attention is now diverted away from helping the capt not turn on the wrong taxiway or cross the wrong runway. AA claimed the FO catches 60% of all taxi errors. That’s a huge loss of safety when the FO is tasked saturated or is trying to do new procedures and callouts on the line without having been able to practice in the sim first.

FWIW. I had the parmetheus plus previously, and the G3 are noticeably brighter. Only downside is they draw a little more current. G3/plus are both cheaper than pro. No experience with the other brands. But haven’t been inclined to switch brands.

the melting point of polyethylene is 230F. if its 60F, that's 170F increase in temperature for 3 watts of power, it would take 137 (continuous) minutes to heat 4 ounces of poly from 60F to 230F. LEDs recogs are not going to melt the lenses

On my transition training I asked the Navy Cmdr at the end "if I was safe". He said something about above average of the people who come to Mooney Safety School and yes you are safe. He said "always be airline smooth" and also I know he requires you to always be on the centerline landing and taxi. So Flight Reviews if the nose wheel is on the ground it better be on the centerline. I have a row of rivets on the cowl that line me up perfectly on the centerline. While they are simple concepts, they require a great deal of precision and practice to pull of constantly. The other interesting part is there are less pilots than PHDs in the USA. So then you have a very small part of the population needing to be very accurate in their hobby.

Yes - it is set up per the Continental book specs. When you say "25 ghp max FF" you mean at sea level. The Auto-Lean then reduces mixture and fuel flow per the chart below. Mine tracks within the ranges with one caveat - When at speed the ram air produces 1 inch hg denser air with is approximately equivalent to the pressure altitude produced by 1,000 ft. So when wide open at 6,000 ft I am seeing the fuel flow and performance for 5,000 ft. If I slow down at 6,000 ft and then open the engine wide open then I see the book fuel flows for 6,000 ft.

My concern would be that if an airplane has been sitting a long time without being inspected and maintained that any corrosion that did start would have advanced uncorrected.

Geez, 28 pages of this stuff? I’m glad I switched to JetA a decade ago.

The way I viewed it was that I was getting nearly J performance with my F (has all the speed mods, but admittedly still not as fast) and so what if when I sell it doesn't get what a J would? Why would it? I paid less up front; I didn't buy a plane as an investment! I may not have bought my F as a forever plane, but I didn't buy it as an entry point plane, either. I found one that had everything I wanted: IFR WAAS, A/P with Alt Hold, engine monitor, fuel flow, no eddy-current prop hub. In fact, in five years of ownership I have not spent a dime on upgrades. Why would I? I really don't want glass or the latest Garmin radio; those would not provide any functionality over what I have. Consequently, I don't see the need to worry about recovering my upgrade "investments." I do wonder if a J with the same upgrades as an F would really recover more. That is an interesting question. Say you spent $40K on both. I've always felt you'd be lucky to get half that, $20K, back. How much more would a J get back vs. an F? $5K, $10K additional, I can't imagine more. BWTHDIK? As far as upgrading to another plane, I think I'd need to win the lotto! I certainly wouldn't go to the expense and effort to go to a J or K. Pilatus PC-12 or nothing!

Be willing to pay for a J…. 1. Has fuel injected motor…can easily run LOP 2. better fuel mileage and speed…better than 10 knot speed advantage… 3. More room (less useful load) 4. Cowling can be removed in 10 minutes by one person 5.much better engine cooling design 6. Dry electronics (more difficult to upgrade) 7. Cleaner wingtip lines on newer J 8. resale value 9. no recurring AD prop inspection 10. better designed interior panels…easier to remove, reassemble, and to change out 11. Phenomenal fresh airflow 12. Oem parts much more readily available

Don't get me wrong, it isn't altruism. We hope G100UL is very profitable for us in the long run. It's a business, and that what businesses (hope) to do. I don't make any claims that we're GA warrior and environmental saviors either. I think the "lead poising our babies" trope is WAY overplayed. It isn't a zero effect issue, either. The writing was on the wall 20 years ago regarding 100LL. We chose not to bury our heads in the sand when we realized it was a problem we could solve and people would pay us to solve. That's the free market. Your statements about the STC process illustrates you have NO IDEA what it took to get this done. You said paying back our investment isn't a concern . . . maybe not to you, but it's sure a concern for those of us hoping to keep the business running. 6 months ago, we weren't 100% sure we would EVER get the STCs. 2 months ago, we weren't 100% sure we were EVER going to get to sell STCs. Like Guy said, Swift may be right on our heels. Someone we don't even know about might be quietly going through the STC process, and almost done, right now. EAGLE/PAFI may negate the whole STC process and the FAA may declare all piston engines able to use approved unleaded fuels by some executive fiat. I might get hit by a school bus tomorrow. The future is always uncertain. By selling STCs now for about the cost of a full tank of fuel, we hope to be able to get fuel to market sooner. That's not a trade secret, that's just sensible business. Some people out there will appreciate our efforts enough to spend that money to help us accomplish that goal. They know it will benefit us both in the end. Here's the other side of the free market. You don't have to ever buy the STC or the fuel. You can probably get 100LL for years to come. You can (maybe) switch to an electric airplane or a diesel someday soon. You can make and certify your own fuel. You can give up flying and take the bus. You have options. Trying to paint the owners of GAMI, or plain ol' employees like me, as some kind of gougers, racketeers, or money grubbers makes it plain that you don't know us very well. Anyone who does know us on a personal level will tell you that isn't who we are. That's just the truth. John-Paul

The initially reduced EGT on the purple cylinder seems to support that's where the problem is? CHT should be low there also. I'll let others weigh in on whether that's diagnostic of a sticky exhaust valve or a transient fuel issue could explain it (I suspect not but I don't understand the fuel injected systems very well). Sticky valve is no joke - I'd be hesitant to fly without it being address. Having it stick hard can lead to a very bad day.

Not to interject too much logic into this discussion but it’s very plausible that a subset of people would be “above average” compared to the population. For example, the average IQ of Google employees is probably higher than the average IQ of the dishwasher or grocery bagger across town. It doesn’t mean one group is better than the other but there is a selection bias present in both groups that makes the average member of that group not representative of the population as a whole. It’s entirely possible for pilots to all be smarter than average (or dumber). Or for people taking an advanced driving course to be better than the average driver (who didn’t sign up for the course). That being said, I agree that most peoples’ confidence exceeds their competence.

If you poll drivers to rate themselves on a scale of Poor, Fair, Average, Above Average, Excellent, 85% of them will rate themselves as Above Average or Excellent. I teach performance driving, and it is amazing how bad most drivers are, before proper training. And those are the ones interested in getting better. Also, for work, I am a certified instructor for a safe driver system that has been used be some major companies with lots of vehicles. And what amazed me was, that the stuff they teach, I figured out on my own. But even after training, many drivers do not get it.

The instruction actually says to remove the elevators, strip the paint off the counterweights, inspect them, repaint them, rebalance the elevator, and then replace it all. It's not trivial.

Those look solid but you can check with the strong magnet. "Hybrid" weights have steel plug... Mooney came with revised (Rev A) SBM20-345 with additional instruction. You may inspect the weight now (and at each annual) but you have to remove them which is not really practical.

Last flight of 2022, family Mooney trip to the Alps (Switzerland & France) Overhead Geneva after sunset Annecy lake Bourgogne plains Annemasse Lake Leman and Mt Saleve