Leaderboard

The engine is back on again and I got her back today! Excited to do some flying! She's purring like a kitten. Of course there are a few squawks, but nothing major. Break-in is essentially complete.

wow, sounds like you got it under control now, I got my cowl off and will give the turbo a good wiggle and will see how it spins, your video was scary, 1650 dF is still a tad high for TIT and the probes tend to read up to 100 dF low before they fail completely, might be a good idea to test the probe while the turbo is out, I had a KS probe and that failed within 300h, got about 80h on the Alkor now and that still looks good, think going above 1600 dF really burns these probes up fast

I sure felt safer before ADS-B. I used to fly through the airspace south of KCHD just looking out the window with my head on a swivel. If I didn't see any planes, I felt safe. Now I fly through there and see all the planes on the IPad and it's terrifying! (-:

If you want the yaw damper but cost is an issue, keep in mind that the GFC 500 is a modular system. It’s very easy to add the yaw servo later if you decide you want it. The servo mounting will be there because it attaches to the same bracket as the pitch servo and the CAN bus and power are easily extended with from existing wiring. Installation is simply bolting in the servo and attaching the bridle cable and some changes to software configuration.

I flew to Biarritz, then north to Deauville - Normadie, east to Saarbrücken and then home with basically the same view Hours and hours for three days of nothing but high fog to the horizon in every direction. It was eerie...

Well, sort of. Done properly, they could decrease separation while increasing safety.

Time Flies! Three years ago today (11/19/2021) I bought the Acclaim up in NJ and then flew it back to TX the next day.

You can read what Airtex uses : https://www.airtexinteriors.com/catalog_items.php?cat=wallpanels

In turbulence, I've turned the yaw damper off and on to feel the difference. It's significant. When off, there is some definite yaw happening, which is expected as the left and right wings encounter different bits of turbulence at different times. But press one button, and nearly all of the yaw motion stops like magic. As pilots, the yaw motion in turbulence probably isn't that big of a deal. I'd be fine without the yaw damper, but it does marginally improve my quality of life in turbulence. For inexperienced passengers though, yaw is perhaps the most unnatural dimension of turbulence. I'd also bet that yaw feels worse in the back seat where you're further behind the center of gravity, and thus swinging farther left and right. If you don't fly much in turbulent air, it may not be of much value to you. But I'm very happy I have it, since convective turbulence is an issue a lot in NC. If you're looking for ways to justify the expense, I think you could make an argument that it's also a speed mod! The natural yaw of turbulence causes the plane to briefly travel somewhat sideways through the air, and yaw is corrected by air flow hitting parts of the airframe that it normally shouldn't. If the tail swings right, air will hit the right side of the vertical stabilizer, and possibly parts of the plane's body, pushing it back into a straight position. That must increase the drag profile. Or you could use a yaw damper to keep the airframe pointed as straight as possible through the air flow.

I don’t have an explanation for this and I suspect Brian is correct because he has likely forgotten more than I will ever know. This upgrade was pretty early in my journey. I bought my ovation in the early hours of my ppl training so the vernacular was pretty foreign to me. I owned 456gx which was a2004/05 ovation with an stec AP and did not have waas. the first chance I got, I added a 345 transponder and was told I had to upgrade the software to install the transponder. I know I had data logging after this because I used savvy and got gami’s. I suppose it’s possible it had waas and no one knew, but I was told it did not have it, and the historical listings on aircraft.com says it’s non waas as well.

Thank you both! I'm sitting in SLC waiting for a delayed connecting flight with a maintenance issue. I thought, "Hey, I'll fly commercial so I don't have to worry about weather and timing!". Brilliant. Ah, the age of just-in-time, oversold, etc. Billboard could say: "If you were in a Mooney, you'd be there by now."

Yes it’s easy within Schengen+EU as no immigration & customs are required * In southern countries like France, Italy…the flights are still “international” one still need to file mandatory flight plans, possibly gendec, make radio contact at borders…as these countries puts ICAO requirements above Schengen/EU laws, however, this is merely an ICAO reporting requirement: no restriction on where you can land and you don’t have to see anyone. * In northern countries like Germany, it’s easier as Schengen/EU flights are considered “domestic or national” (sub-ICAO): I flew Belgium-Germany-Austria without flight plan not talking to anyone except airport guys, this sounds more like “just go” UK (and Switzerland) need more planning: one have to comply with some immigration and customs rules like sGAR, these are not difficult once one gets used to them (it’s like eAPIS in US or Canpass in Canada) For fees (and Avgas), it’s manageable in small and medium airports in countries with light GA tradition Germany, Poland, France, Switzerland, Belgium…if you go to Spain, Italy…one tend to sick to private small airports while big airlines airports have pricy handling and are waste of time: imagine Signature price tag with bureaucracy and no red carpet. This is tough on GA flyers, you can’t fly north forever: you need to go south for sun, food, beach…

Early bird gets the worm…but it goes down easier with some coffee!

I appreciate the help guys. Unfortunately it was a little too far gone for our taste. We just got a 77 J model with everything we wanted. Completed a full annual without any issues. Loving the newer J model airplane. I appreciate all the help here!

Sure. A couple of months ago I was asked to assist with recurrent training for a client who was returning to aviation after a long hiatus. Despite the layoff, he was a good stick, and flew the pattern nicely. But only after I took his iPad away. On the first downwind leg, he has his head absolutely buried in the iPad, and was extremely concerned about a couple of other airplanes on or entering the downwind. I s**t you not, he spent more than 50% of the flight time on the entire downwind leg with his head in his lap (I know because I watched his eyes, like I do with all students). Meanwhile, he allowed the airplane to accelerate to over 100 KIAS (this was a 172), climb almost 200' above traffic pattern altitude, and was unable to conduct a stabilized approach. Again, he had no problem maintaining reasonable speeds and altitude profies in the pattern once I took the iPad away. When I asked him about this, he said he felt it was important to get acquainted with the "new technology", and talked about how much safer he felt with it. But no one had ever given him any training on how to use it, and he was stunned to hear me say he was making himself less safe. I did my best to do so politely, using some of the data discussed here. He finished the checkout with another instructor, and it's unclear to me what impact my training had on him. Another: last week I was established on downwind with a student in a specific training scenario (power-off 180 in a significant crosswind), when an airplane from the flight school down the road reported inbound on the VOR-A approach to my home drome. I'm very familiar with the approach. The MDA is 600' AGL, and flown properly, inbound aircraft are established at 600' AGL well before crossing the downwind leg for the runway on a perpendicular course, enroute to a midfield flyover and missed. There is no conflict between the VFR traffic pattern and this approach, when everyone has eyes outside (and augmenting that with ADS-B traffic data is great). But rather than continuing to simply report position, the inbound aircraft identified us by call sign and issued us an instruction to do a 360 to accommodate them. I've had this happen a couple of times, and I'm always incredulous. But that's actually not the relevant part of the story. Doing what they asked would have both compromised my training scenario and created another conflict with an aircraft behind me, so I replied "unable", to which the response was, "we have you on ADS-B, we'll blah, blah, blah", at which point their aircraft blindly maneuvered to head directly toward the location of our downwind-to-base turn, and climb right through the pattern altitude. I presume this is based on what they saw on ADS-B based on their last announcement, but who knows? In any case, they clearly had positional awareness, but not situational awareness. Another example, less interesting but still to the point: traffic is congested enough in our metro area that a "common training frequency" has been established, which all the local flight schools would like pilots to monitor if more than a few miles from any particular airport. I'm unconvinced this is helpful, but I'm not a jerk, so I do monitor it, and do my best to be polite. I routinely get calls to my N number from aircraft that are multiple minutes away from a possible conflict, asking me to "say intentions", and wanting to negotiate separation even greater than what the professionals who staff ATC require. Again, I try not to be a jerk about it, but the minor irritation is that it unnecessarily distracts from training; and the major issue is that I've seen it create bizarre panic on a couple of occasions when more than two aircraft happened to be vaguely in the vicinity of each other, but not anywhere near a real threat. If you've never seen or heard things like this, I respect that. But don't tell me I haven't seen and heard it with my own eyes and ears. There is definitely fixation and distraction going on out there. The bottom line argument in this thread isn't whether ADS-B is "bad", no one is saying it is. The opposing positions are between "Traffic displays are easy to use effectively, never a distraction, and represent a huge safety improvement", vs. "Effectively using a traffic display is complex and can be counterintuitive, and it provides a moderate benefit against a tiny risk, at the possible expense of a small increase in larger risks". In this respect, your comments about airspeed indicators are actually a great conversation piece. We have a finite amount of time to be "heads down" in the cockpit, so what do you think the risk is of taking time away from checking the ASI while in the traffic pattern, in order to look at your traffic display? Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you can do both at the same time - you're an excellent pilot, you can pat your head and rub your tummy, etc. But the accident data is right there in black and white: huge numbers of takeoff and landing accidents, very tiny numbers of midairs, and this hasn't changed since ADS-B became commonplace. As an instructor, should I really be telling other pilots, "I see you're looking at the airspeed indicator a lot, you really should spend more time on your ADS-B display"?

Lance time is flying by to fast, no pun intended. I’ve finally moved my acclaim above my bravo. This weekends trip to the gulf coast finally did it, approximate fuel savings $250..and about 40 minutes faster. Flew approximately 1000 miles using 70 gallons and truing 190 LOP 13,000, 4 gph less. D

As much as some above wish to dismiss the accuracy and usefulness of ADS-B, it is the backbone of NextGen real-time traffic avoidance. TCAS is well along in evolving into ACAS ( Airborne Collision Avoidance System). ACAS is aimed at reducing dependence upon visual separation procedures and interaction with ATC that is using radar. (they refer to that level of dependency currently as a "deficiency"). ACAS systems use ADS-B information and selective interrogations of nearby aircraft to determine their position and velocity; this information is passed through “threat logic” to determine proximate traffic, issue traffic alerts, and issue collision avoidance “resolution advisories” to flight crews.Resolution advisories provide flight crews with vertical guidance (climb, descend, remain level, donot descend/climb) as appropriate to avoid collisions. In order to achieve a high level of safety, the alerting criteria used by current ACAS systems often overlap with the horizontal and vertical separation associated with many safe and legal procedures (e.g., visual separation operations). ACAS monitoring data from the U.S. indicate that as many as 90% of observed resolution advisories (RAs) are due to the interaction between ACAS II alerting criteria and normal ATC separation procedures (e.g., 500 feet IFR/VFR separation, visual parallel approach procedures, level-off with a high vertical rate, or VFR traffic pattern procedures). This new ACAS system will address this deficiency. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/dah/tcas_acas https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2021/ADSB/P05-FutureADS-B-ENG.pdf https://www4.icao.int/ganpportal/ASBU/Element/Pdf?IDs=153&ShowPart1=true&ShowPart2=true&ShowPart3=true&ShowPart4=true Also there is talk of a ATAS (ADS-B Traffic Advisory System). It is intended to be "This low-cost alerting capability for general aviation reduces the number of aircraft collisions." The standards have already been set. After receiving an ATAS traffic alert, the pilot takes action appropriate to the operational rules in effect at the time. Unlike TCAS II systems, ATAS does not provide resolution advisories or maneuvering guidance. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/adsb/pilot/atas Bottom Line: Future flights will be more reliant on integrated technology and autonomous real time data systems..... that may mean "more head down" looking at the panel.......and less time talking to ATC.....

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/648893d6ed845c1087937b37/648893d6ed845c1087937c06_INSTALLATION-GUIDE.pdf Here’s a screenshot…

This is a cool picture and certainly shows that the Stanfield stack is busy. But it also illustrates the emotional effect of zoom scale. In this clip from the image above... ... there are four airplanes inbound on the approach to KCGZ, and another two in the vicinity, in addition to the ownship. Sure looks busy. But the distance between the VOR and the airport is 8 nautical miles. The very closet airplanes in this image are about 2nm apart, and the case that is nearest to head-on probably has a closure rate of about 200 knots groundspeed, or about 30 seconds of time at 2nm. Certainly worth paying attention to, and having the depiction on ADS-B is useful. But none of the airplanes in the picture are (yet) in a "near miss" scenario by anyone's definition, even if they were all at the same altitude; and everyone is less close than the traffic pattern at many uncontrolled airports on a Saturday morning. It's also worth noting that while your average GA airplane is about the size of a house, the icons in the depiction suggest a single airplane is about as big as the entire city limits of Casa Grande. My experience working with clients is that these issues of scale/zoom are often poorly understood, leading to inappropriate fixation. For better or worse, this is what I think about every time someone posts an ADS-B depiction of all the airplanes inbound to Airventure being "crazy"; or says something like, "you just don't realize how many airplanes are out there"; or expresses certainty that a threat they saw on ADS-B would have speared them but for their superior situational awareness and valiant maneuvering. Of all the bad things that could happen to the airplanes in this picture - basic loss of control, mechanical failure, etc. - a midair is the lowest risk by far, even given what it looks like on the display. Presumably the pilots in this picture are all working on their instrument skills, and that training results in significantly more risk reduction for them than the risk of the stack itself. To hear some on this thread characterize it, operating in the Stanfield stack or something like it without devoting a significant amount of attention to traffic displays is a death trap; and yet as has been noted, the stack was around for decades before ADS-B traffic became commonplace. That doesn't mean ADS-B traffic is worthless or that pilots shouldn't use it. But the folks saying, "If it saves even one midair it's worth it" are ignoring a crucial part of the calculus, which is, what other risks increase and how much additional maiming and death is caused by fixation on a very small threat, to the exclusion of more significant ones? In a world of finite resources, fixation on shark repellent instead of swimming lessons may be a bad idea, even if it conclusively prevents a single shark attack.

As of right now, there are 7 airplanes in the stack...

What about the scenario where you're turning final and either you don't have visual but are faster than the aircraft in front of you, or you turn final and someone descends into you? Both are the blind spots that have resulted in accidents. Also from the standpoint of one aircraft on the DME arc for an approach while another is on the straight in on the same approach going slower. These are things that I've seen routinely at my home field. I guess what I'm saying is that the difference in traffic deconfliction and midair collision is sometimes blurry at best; but they're on the same continuum. You'll never have statistics on how frequently ADS-b contributed to safe deconfliction. But you're right in the sense that when aircraft are on the verge of touching my eyes are out the window and not on a screen of any sort.

I have been flying approaches at the stack for 30 years. most of that without ADS-B. The stack was as busy back then as it is now. I'm not aware of any accidents there, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were. As far as near misses are concerned, when in the stack, you are in a constant state of near miss. Back in the day, there were more position reports then there are now. Now you get yelled at if you make too many position reports. I think in some ways the modern navigation tools makes it a bit more dangerous. When your only guidance was the inbound leg, compass and clock, planes were more scattered around. now everybody flies the exact same patterns. I think this increases the risk a bit. The most dangerous thing at the stack is when a non-participating airplane flies through the stack. not on the frequency and probably unaware that there is anything special about this airspace. It happens all the time. It is at a VOR, so it is not unusual to fly over a VOR in uncontrolled airspace. They should put a big red box around the area. There is a small note on the chart that there is intensive student activity in the area, but it doesn't do justice to the situation.

Realize that with some of those cabinet locks, they all use the same key. Same with the ignition keys, there are really not that many distinct keys. When the shop was assembling my CAP-10, they did not have an ignition key. So they grabbed a ring of spares ones. First one fit. One of my favorite keys stories was from the late 70s. A guy is drinking at bar, goes out, gets into his car and drives home. Next morning he comes out and sees a crease down the side of his car. He gets angry, but as he is looking, something doesn't add up. As he looks more carefully, it was NOT HIS CAR. Same year, make, model. Same colors. Same everything. Including the same key. He went back to the bar and the other guy showed up and they swapped. At the time, Ford (IIRC) only had 10 ignition keys.

Years ago a few of us were going to a fly in breakfast in my friends Cherokee 180D. I was flying from the right seat. Owner was in the left muttering to himself. I asked what the problem was. He said, "Damn you, you fly my airplane 4 knots faster at the same power setting." I pointed out that I was using the rudders (tailwheel and glider experience).

There is no amount of situational awareness that is going to have as big of a positive effect on your safety as additional flight instruction and practice will. And 5 people in the pattern when you are 15 miles out doesn't mean much anyway. By the time you get there the situation will be different. Listen to the radio and look out the window. There is no guarantee that everybody is talking on the radio. There is no guarantee that you'll see everybody near you. Yes, having ADS-B in will help some. I've never said it doesn't help. All I've ever said is that people are acting as if it's a huge boost to safety, and it's not. The only way to ensure safety in light GA is to not go fly. Not many of us want that. I mean, here we are, all on a forum for a specific manufacturer of light GA airplanes! I think the ADS-B thing is kind of like the Cirrus parachutes. They do provide some additional safety, but the amount of additional safety they provide is not necessarily the highest value. While it's sometimes fun to poke at Cirrus pilots for their excessive parachute expenses with marginal real-world safety value, there is real and measurable additional safety to be had by having the parachute. Is it as much additional safety as if they had spent that extra money on training? I don't think so. And if someone comes to me and says "I won't ever fly in a plane without a parachute, and you are putting people's lives at risk if you fly them in a plane without a parachute." I'll have the same discussion we've been having here. This thread is intended to ask the question "Why do people get so freaked out about not having this one feature when it is a lower return on investment for safety expenses than other possibilities?"

The data logger output are .CSV files, labeled/ named with timestamp and ICAO code of departure airport. Tons of data recorded with a sample rate of approximately 1Hz. You can upload it to Savvy, CloudAhoy, FlySto (very cool, take a look at it). Small trick when upload to CloudAhoy fails. Open a text editor (raw mode, not word) and delete the last line in the CSV file which typically is kind of „corrupted“ when the mains power is turned off while G1000 is still trying to write the file. Matthias

Getting the rigging right first is important but at the end, a very small tweak on the aileron trailing edge is very effective. On my first (very expensive) annual, a very popular (and expensive, and knowledgeable) MSC said the rigging was all messed up. They were also replacing a trim tube and some heim joints. Anyway, they used the boards and got her all squared away, then told me to go fly it and see what happens. Well, it had a pretty solid right roll (I have a video somewhere that I took to show them). The “big boss” of the shop looked at the video, took a pair of duckbill pliers and slightly tweaked the left aileron. You can’t see the bend, it’s very small. Totally straightened it out. So if you get there after the boards, it’s not the end of the world.

One note, it does look like #3 has a bad EGT sensor. It is fluctuating periodically. Going to get that looked at soon.

My original airspeed safety switch was a Dukes. Obviously it went to the pitot circuit though not the vacuum circuit.

Fair enough. I am hoping that by addressing the static rigging many of the issues will resolve.

Pretty sure it’s just data.cvs its not just engine data, it’s air temp, speed, heading, altitude etc

I wouldn't allow anyone near my flight controls with pliers unless more than one Mooney rigging expert told me it was the only way.

Yes it is Bellofram in WV. I’m waiting on a quote, should have it tomorrow.

@Vance Harral The wrinkle in this logic is that it's driven by the thought that "if an accident didn't happen and someone didn't die, then I don't need to consider it." Of course everyone makes up their own mind how much time, energy and money to invest in their own safety and enjoyment. But just because it's not a statistic that results in fatality does not mean it is meaningless. If it prevents even one fatality it's meaningful. Of course there's always more spinoffs in capability and utility, and these don't get "credit" in the myopic view of only accidents count. Certainly you have made your point clear that you think technology adds workload/distraction, and that you don't feel the average pilot puts enough education into their equipment. But you can't paint technology in the broad brushstroke of bad solely because you've flown with students that don't demonstrate mastery or capability. It doesn't remotely address the fault, and only suggests that your mindset is "it's over your head, don't bother with it." The simple solution is fly more, fly often, fly with others, and fly with instructors...and that's universal regardless for what your flying and what equipment it has. But we're talking nuance of equipment. In discussing nuance, polarity and extreme isn't helpful. Stay ahead of the aircraft and always be ready for a change. Listen to the CTAF after you start up to start building situational awareness. Look ahead at your destination to have an idea of approaches and runways in use. To suggest that you don't start to build S.A. solely because things may change sounds horribly misguided.

No, the smaller tanks only have one inboard sender each. The larger tanks (e.g., 64 gallons+) have an inboard and outboard sender, since the inboard can't reach far enough to measure the entire tank and still reach the bottom of the inboard part.

Secured travel board rental from nearby MSC. Correction: they only have the elevator board. The hunt continues. Mechanic going to chat with Lasar. Aaaaand, we found them locally(ish) after all. Will update back once we have had a chance to get the plane in the shop.

You don't see one of these off your wing tip very often...

That's a nice trip, I hope you enjoyed some sun in Biarritz ! It was sunny in Cannes, while flying north I managed locate that one single valley and mountain near Gap that stops the fog from going south, it did looks like a "fog dam" trying to hold it As you see the fog we get from Geneva (as you see it's always someone else fault in France: we get weather from UK and Switzerland ) was flowing in Rhone Valley with northerly winds and it was about to spillover toward Cannes

I consider the improved user interface a significant capability difference. For people who are very comfortable with the older buttonology it's not a huge issue. I go back and forth between my Avidyne, a G1000, and GTN and GNC systems, and the improved user interfaces seem like they're worth a lot to me.

You can contact the Arizona Flight Training Workgroup here: https://aftw.org/ The FAA is well aware, so perhaps you should talk to them as well. Many, if not most, instrument check rides use the stack (mine did), and ATC often keeps people away from there due to the traffic. The entire corridor from Phoenix to Tucson is filled with things like the stack and a large number of airports that are constantly flying jumpers at all altitudes and times of day...e.g., halo at night is not unusual, lots of glider fields, etc., etc. If you are really concerned about risk reduction you should talk to the FAA about this. I don't think people talking about a tool because it's useful means that they are "fixating" or "focusing" on it. I think it means they're "using" it, and that's a good thing! Heaven forbid we use available tools to mitigate risk when we can. Spotting an approaching aircraft on ADS-B means that the risk from that aircraft is increasing as it approaches if it is ignored. Why ignore it? An aircraft in close proximity is no longer your lowest risk. From practice we know that many such targets would never be noticed at all without ADS-B-in, no matter how much you scan outside, so it provides a pretty easy means to mitigate risks that might otherwise increase to much higher levels. I've puzzled why anyone would not think that's a good thing to do. As mentioned, aircraft that are decreasing separation are increasing risk. How close should they be before the risk is high enough that it is appropriate to use ADS-B-in? Could meeting that threshold have been avoidable if it were given attention earlier? How do you quantify this risk? What thresholds should be use? Should the threshold be higher if you have children on board? We all manage the tools that we have and we all have our own risk tolerances. Some people manage their risks right into their own fatality, sometimes taking others with them. I find it odd that anyone would discourage someone from using a risk mitigating tool or claim it doesn't work or isn't appropriate to do so. How do you quantify that? How close should someone be or how quickly should the distances be closing before it becomes appropriate to mitigate? Never? If not never, when? What are the risks that are higher and should be prioritized when another aircraft is approaching on a collision course? He's not claiming it's a solution. Using an airspeed indicator helps mitigate stalls, they're not a solution to stalls.

I would disagree with this. Down here we live in some of the most crowded airspace in the country. ADS-B helps me immensely in managing traffic, including very close traffic. I regularly fly as a safety pilot in "the stack", which very often has instrument students and others stacked in a hold every 500 feet from about 4000 to often 7000 or 8000 feet, in uncontrolled airspace managing separation only by self-reporting using an ad-hoc protocol. Conflicts are not unusual, and it'd 1000x harder (or at least more stressful) without ADS-B-in. You're in a small space with multiple diverse aircraft separated vertically by a maximum of 500' and often (or even usually) less than that due to inattentive students or incorrect altimeter settings or whatever reason. I was there a couple weeks ago in the stack with two helicopters, a King Air, and some other single engine recips. One of them, which wasn't one of the local large flight school airplanes, kept maneuvering into our altitude. Since we were maneuvering to maintain the holding pattern we could not always keep them in sight. ADS-B-in was the only reason we were able to maintain situational awareness with that traffic and the others. I won't go in there without functional ADS-B-in because the collision risk is just too high without it. Many of the uncontrolled fields around here often have a lot of traffic in the pattern due to flight school overflow from other fields. The risks are real. It's been a while since we've had a mid-air collision around here, though, I think the last ones were not long before ADS-B came into common use, which I think is notable and likely causal. Edit: I take that back, there was a collision between a flight-school helicopter and a flight school airplane in the pattern at a Class-D field here a couple of years ago.

I use the sensorcon. It wasn't a huge amount more CO or even enough to trigger the alarm. But it wasn't enough to make me look around. I don't recall exact numbers.

Had an epiphany late last night and confirmed the issue today after replacing a failed aircraft jack. It seems that the main gear shock discs are worn out enough that the weight on wheel switch can make contact when the gear is in transition in flight and with a wind load pushing the main tires back. This is causing the gear to not fully retract after takeoff, but is not a problem when on jacks. While retracting today, pushing on the tire causes the gear to hault retraction. Time for some new shock discs…. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@hubcap lives there - he's the expert. I tried Jack Stack while I was at the class in August and it was good.

I bought my airplane 32 years ago before my "perspective" change. I think my airplane may be one of the best equipped Mooneys in the fleet. The G1000 and G1000NXi are great products, but I like the flexibility of being able to modify my airplane as new and exciting technology comes to market. That can't be done with any G1000/NXi equipped airplane. I happily accept the 20 knot speed difference between my airplane and the Acclaims for the extra benefits I have with mine.

You are mostly right about all this, but the contact points are separate from the disk that holds the switch in the on position. The current sensing element is a bimetallic domed disk with a small hole in the center of the dome. The switch rocker is spring loaded to the off position. When you turn the switch on, a small lever swings over the disk pushing it down which pushes the contact points together. This lever has a small bump on it that snaps into the hole in the dome holding the switch in the on position. The current flows through the dome. If the current gets too high, it causes the dome to flatten out which allows the spring loaded lever to snap back to the off position, this removes the downward force from the contact points allowing them to spring open. The switch wears out because of mechanical wear at the little hole in the dome and the bump on the lever. The hole wears bigger and the bump gets smaller and they don’t fit together very tightly after they are worn. The contact points are very beefy and usually have a lot of life left when the domes wear out. BTW, I have taken a few of these apart after they have worn out to see how they work and how they fail.

I went to Cannes (LFMD) and then Elba (LIRJ) then flew back via Pisa & Genova and some cloud surfing over Alps before heading back to flatlands

Went to the Safford Air Show in Safford, AZ, yesterday. They parked the fly-in attendees between two taxiways. This is the F4F Wildcat leaving after the show was over. It's pretty easy to spot the Mooney in the crowd.

Larches and fresh snow in the North Cascades, as well as a I think it's the Entiat river valley from last Sunday