Leaderboard

You can't justify your behavior, your actions, your thoughts by speaking poorly about the company whose policy you abuse. This is about you, not them. Trying to rationalize by "not needing it anymore" to fit their policy is B.S. The policy is meant for people who buy something with the intent to keep it and realize they don't need it. It's not meant for people to "rent" their tool; that's not the business they are in and you know it. While it wouldn't meet the common legal definition of theft, I think most people do view it as theft. We all know that some people with low morals violate the social contract to their advantage... advertising it to others/defending the behavior when called out on it take it to a whole other level. Just donate the tools to the airport, EAA chapter, etc if you don't want to take them home. Be a good person. Be an example.

Uh, just to be clear, I've done the same thing with those RENTAL programs. As you say, those programs are PROMOTED! That is not what is being debated. What is in question is if going to a store, say Walmart, and actually purchasing a tool, taking it home and using it, then going back to Walmart and getting your money back after using it.

You think? Mine is 55 years old, >2700 SNEW. Never overhauled.

Ecklers Power Seat Regulator Coupling (55-57 Ford Thunderbird) Believe it or not, that is what Maxwell shared last year. I ordered two just to have.

I go out and practice stalls in all different configurations and attitudes maybe once every other month. Yes, i do turning configered stalls as part of that. While you should never get there unexpectedly, I believe it makes you recognize what’s happening quicker and drills the recovery into subconscious so it doesn’t require thinking about it. I guess I just think doing it once in a while will make you a better stick and rudder pilot which doesn’t hurt any of us. I would say (and this might not apply to you), that anyone a little nervous about doing stalls by themselves should fly with an instructor with the goal of building their confidence enough to do it alone and unafraid from now on. I volunteer to sit right seat for anyone who needs that and wants to come to Spokane.

My buddy’s C is still on the original bottom end from 1961. It’s not hard to believe at all.

Big update and total success story ! DOM and IA flew to my hangar today. Inspected the damage. Installed new pushrod tubes, pushrods, gaskets, etc. Installed new filter , fresh oil , Did a ground run, leak check for 20 mins, drained oil , new filter , cut and inspected the just previous new filter. Eveything looks fine. Went and flew it traffic pattern for 35-40 mins and zero leaks, oil pressure is normal , temps look good. Going to give it 10-12 hours on this oil & filter and inspect one last time. Taking oil samples on each of these. Great experience! Thanks !!!

I think we all really appreciate the time, effort, and money everyone at EarthX has put in to bring new technology to our aging fleet. And the time you've take to help improve our understanding through this forum. Not many companies take the time to help the consumer in that way. Thanks!

Well, B100-06 is the correct part number. Textron has them in stock. $45 with an 8130 seems like a good price to me to keep my landing gear working. -Matt

@EricJ Here's an example of what we are talking about: Guy wants to have his buddies over to watch the Super bowl but his TV is too small. So, he heads over to Walmart and BUYS a 100" big screen, takes it home and he and his buddies watch the game. Next day he takes it back for a refund. Now, the store CANNOT sell it as new; open box special is probably the best they can do. But, hey, this guy doesn't care about that.

Not "exactly". The "Load A Tool" program consists of specific tools, likely already used, that get loaned with a deposit to cover the cost if you do not return, It is not intended to be taking new tools off the shelf, removing/ cutting off packaging (many times "tamper proof" hard plastic) and then returning them used, dirty and greasy, packages taped back up (or NOT) and put on the shelf to be sold as "NEW".

How awesome would it be to find that some 50's hardtop convertible used Dukes acutators?

I guess I'm not being clear. We are not talking about KEEPING a tool from a rental program where they just take your deposit as the purchase price. The 'discussion' has been about going to a regular store (WITHOUT a rental program) and BUYING a tool. Taking it home, using it once, and then going back to the store, returning it, and getting your money back because you NEVER INTENDED to keep the tool.

I'd advise moderate caution here, as over the history of flight simulation there have been numerous simulators that don't model post-stall characteristics very well. I don't have a rundown on specific, modern simulators, such as the Prepar3D software used in the Redbird devices, maybe they are very good. But I'm old enough to have played with some sims that just sort of "give up" once the simulated aircraft stalls, and seem to assume normal recovery technique is applied at the moment of stall rather than modeling what's actually happening. If the goal is to set muscle memory as guided by an instructor, what the simulator actually does/shows may not actually be all that important. But if the goal is to see what a spin looks like, I think a better bet is just to look at the numerous youtube videos from the cockpit, of real spins in real airplanes.

We spun the 172’s quite a bit when I first started. We even broke a few gyros, and when the flight school said we would have to pay if it happened again we stopped. I have flown aerobatics several times, in warbirds, citabria, aerobats. I enjoy the tossing and turning, and g’s. I am not intimidated or fearful of stalls or slow flight. Shortly after when I got my ovation to finish the ppl, I had read enough here about Mooney spins that I had no desire to try. I also, either because of where I fly, or perhaps how, seem to always have the challenge of too much speed. I can’t recall a time where I found myself slow with it being 100% intentional. I do not visit uncontrolled fields very frequently, and atc in south Florida seems to prefer slam dunking me from cruise altitude 90% of the time so I’m always trying to figure out how to slow down enough to use flaps or gear. That being said, I’ve read enough compelling reasons that suggest some practice is warranted, and hope to never find myself lacking of things to learn.

The devil is always in the details… sample size as well as time in service are what is needed. The company started in 2013, started seeking certification for aircraft in 2017, and got the first approval in 2019. I do not know how many they have had in service, nor the status of complaints/comments they have received. As far as the vans that lost an alternator, I would be cautiously suspect of any experimental aircraft’s issues. I am not directing this to the poster who commented, but more broadly to the genre. I am certain that there are many disciplined and competent builders who do as good, or better than certified airframes. But based on what I have seen over the years, this is not the norm, it would be the exception by pretty large margin. I also don’t believe the majority of the crazy things I have seen were done to be cavalier or in disregard of best practices. Most have been rationalizations or shortcut math that attacks a challenge from only one perspective. Point being all alternators are not equal, and with a certified aircraft you pretty much know the components limits. With experimental it really is the wild wild west. I am eager to try the batteries simply for the UL, my only concern was fire, the potential for alternator issues is new, and my alternator is NOT cheap. With two batteries, I don’t really concern myself with the time I have to get on the ground in the event of a failure. If I lost both alternators and both batteries I would be landing at the closest airport. perhaps @EarthX Inc would share some of their statistics with us, with regards to battery interactions and alternator failures, fires, overheating etc etc.

Kind of a tangent, but simulation can give a small idea of the looks of a spin. One day, after som instrument currency work, on a lark, I decided to see if a Redbird TD2 did “normal” spin and recovery.

Britches get a little heavy, think i have permanent heart damage from the hard fast beating. I was a solo student, no real world spin experience just book. Clarification i didn't really soil myself, an audio recording would have been fun

C150s and C172s spin like that. They roll pretty much inverted when entering the spin. It's a lot of fun. Like this: When I was young I used to go spin the 150s a lot because I thought it was fun. When I inadvertently spun my Mooney (because I was stupid), it rolled upside down just like a C150 and then headed straight down, just like a C150. It felt really familiar, so recovery was nearly muscle memory, even though it'd been decades since I did it in a C150. When my Mooney spun it just felt familiar, because I'd practiced it a lot for fun in other airplanes that behave similarly. Who knows what might have happened if that hadn't been the case.

Part 91 allows the nap on shag carpet to be used as a back up attitude indicator if the primary fails . . . lol

You are welcome and thank you for taking the time to say this, it does mean a lot to us.

I went ahead and read the faq on their website: https://earthxbatteries.com/faqs/ basically, it’s only limited by your max alternator output. They claim it only draws ~60 amps for 3 minutes following a normal start so it won’t hurt anything. I would feel more comfortable with a lower draw. I might be a fence-sitter on this one and see how it turns out.

I would suggest that everyone knows where the line is between taking advantage of a business and following policy. this is where the moral line lays. some people’s conscience will permit them to cross over the line and others will not. I tend to err on the side of not buying with the explicit purpose of using and returning for one simple reason. When I was 6, I lived next to a Cracker Barrel which at the time was a convenience store. I stole some candy and when my father saw me with it, and asked me where it came from. When I told him, he brought me back to the store and made me tell every single person in that store that I took the candy and to apologize to them. While humiliation was probably too advanced for a child that young, I knew what I did was very wrong, and that impression was indelible. I think about it every time I get close to my line and it still to this day prevents me from crossing. I’m not saying where the line is, that’s for each of us to decide for ourselves, but I’m willing to bet if all answered honestly it doesn’t vary that much.

AutoZone has had that loan-a-tool program for years since it sells a lot of parts for them. It makes good business sense. Completely different than what the person was suggesting be done at Walmart, where they don’t have that program that helps them sell auto parts.

This is hyperbolic. Per the M20C POH performance tables, the difference between 2600 and 2700 RPM at the same manifold pressure is about 2% across a broad range of takeoff altitude and temperature. 2640 RPM is in the middle of that, so call it a 1% degradation in power developed, assuming all gauges are perfectly precise and perfectly accurate. That number is so small as to be completely lost in the noise for actual takeoff performance. Unrelated factors such as density altitude, runway slope, minor cam lobe wear, dirty air filter. etc. are all going to have a much greater effect than 2640 vs. 2700 RPM. Bear in mind also that even if this is "fixable" with a governor adjustment in the field, you must have realistic expectations about what can be achieved. Odds are that tweaking the max RPM adjustment screw in situ is not going to give you exactly 2700 RPM, but rather something like 2680 or 2710 (with a flashing red indication on your G3X), etc. Such is the curse of modern digital instrumentation. Be careful what you try to fix, lest you create a bigger problem than was there in the first place.

These are my thoughts. I don't know the tolerance, but I'm happier to be below 2700 than above. With that being said, I do want it adjusted up to hold 2700. I go to climb RPM (2550-2600) after gear/flaps up so hitting the full 2700 is more about making good on performance numbers for ground roll and 50' obstacle clearance. Since I never operate on anything remotely close to the limits of the performance charts a few percent off of doesn't seem too risky. Still happy to have the discussion with varying opinions though.

IMHO, you have found a GREAT shop! They made a mistake, owned up, fixed it, and at YOUR location. BRAVO!

It's been a couple of years, but I was very happy with both price and turn-around from Aero Accessories in Van Nuys. Been trouble free since the overhauls (yeah, I did both mags at the same time; not the smartest thing, I suppose)

I got your message, I’m waiting until I’m over this flu before I fly with anyone. I’ll let you know as soon as I’m cleared… -Don

Do what, exactly? All kinds of stores MAY offer rental programs, e.g. Autozone and all the ones you specifically listed. That is NOT what we are talking about.

Dang, price is right too!

Holy crap, that is it. Thanks for the reference!

Aerocomfort is incredible. You may be able to save a bit here and there with local guys, but I do not think the overall quality can be matched. I cannot recommend them highly enough. I have two flawless and impeccable experiences with aviation upgrades/repairs since I started my journey. Aerocomfort was one, and wetwingologists in FXE was the other. on time, on budget, and better than expected quality.

Original engine logs have NO evidence of an engine damage repair ever done. Low time airframe and engine is factual. This Mooney sat and sat. So “anything is possible”. I have contacted Lycoming and informed them of the findings. Waiting for response. I have been told by others that the holes on the crank are consistent with a metal hardness test, usually performed at the factory.

I think that's a prudent approach to new technology, or even to a new application of existing technology. Especially as it relates to a critical application such as an aircraft electrical system. This has a bit of the G100UL feel to it....if your plane is perfect you shouldn't have any issues, but if your plane is old, poorly maintained, etc. then it's 'your fault' not our product. Despite having been 'tested' and having been issued an STC, designed around and for a different technology, this, IMHO, is a real risk for a new tech/application. I have no personal knowledge of the internal construction or BMS design of these EarthX products. The following is only general information comparing AGM lead-acid with typical LiFePo technology. The key figure, IMHO, regarding charge is the internal impedance of the cells. LiFePo have much lower impedance than a similar capacity (A-hr) AGM lead-acid cell; LiFePo can be less than 1 milli-Ohm per cell whereas lead-acid is more like 3 milli-ohm, and as high as 10 milli-Ohm. Beside the obvious ability to draw significantly more initial current, the consequence of the higher impedance in lead-acid cells is that the voltage jumps up (due to the higher resistance) which then tends to limit the current, even further as the resistance increases with temperature; this is the cause of the 'tapering' off seen after the initial charge surge. AGM lead-acid charge rates are usually limited to C/5 to C/3 (6.5 Amp to 11 Amp for a 33 Amp-hr battery) vs 1C being acceptable for a LiFePo. To be clear, I am happy there is a new company developing products for GA. I have no animus towards EarthX. I am only advocating caution and an 'eyes open' approach to adapting LiFePo technology to our small corner of GA. Too many years as an EE seeing the introduction of 'new' stuff uncovering unintended consequences. Until you field a product to a significant population for a reasonable time, you just don't know what's going to happen.

Maybe you misspoke (uncoordinated stalls?), but I think stall practice every so often is valuable to remembering what that portion of the envelope feels like. And practicing maintaining coordination near the stall. If I get rusty, stalls and MCA are one of those things I go out and do prior to landing refreshers. Simulated landings at altitude occasionally pushed into a stall.

Flight test completed for TC, plane is flying great. Picking up 2 new mains/tubes as I practice a lot of landings. Lasted 7 years so no complaints. Annual is due next month so I’ll get these, minor squawks, and corrosion treatment done. Plane will get some love from Maxwells for flight control tubes in the rear and rigging if needed afterwards… -Don

I wasn’t there. All I know is the video. I did text him a bit, he said they were having a hard time getting it into a spin. I think it was a power on stall with full crossed controls. He said as soon as they released back pressure, it would recover.

Hmm, works on my computer but Iphoney didn't like it. Here are my thoughts... 1. Is that shag carpet on the glareshield? 2. It went very nearly inverted during the "incipient" portion before stabilizing in a nice nose low spin. I think the Mooney is likely to do similar and be eye opening. 3. Did he have the power full/80% to start? I see the rpm drop off when he goes to recover, but it starts at ~2300 rpm. Not sure if that's ok or not? Other airplanes I've flown required us to be in idle before spinning to avoid excessive stress on the engine.

Agree. I was looking at it on my cell without cheaters. It does look like the area is ground out though and then punches. I agree that likely hardness testing….question is why. If they had an approved deviation, likely documented at the factory and that might be usable as approved data to keep using it. Fingers crossed for the OP.

I said the guy who bought my old Cessna was going to spin it, here it is for your spinning pleasure!

I don't know much about lithium batteries, but if my alternator craps out after 5 minutes of continuous draw at 70 amps, there is a problem with my alternator. I suspect all batteries will draw whatever they can get from the charging system until the state of charge comes up. Maybe one of our EEs can weigh in here?

Per the TSO testing and approval, and the STC testing and approval, there is no need to have limits on the charging amps. The battery is designed to accept the alternator output which also tested and approved to function as they state.

Thank you all for your participation in this thread and all the questions. Please note we provide answers to your questions via the manual; FAQ page; FACT SHEETS; and YOU TUBE channel to educate users on their charging system and the role of the battery to provide understanding and information. The extensive process and expense for any manufacturer to receive a TSO (Technical Standard Order) approved product, is a deep dive into the DESIGN of the product and verification of its functionality, reliability and safety. The next step in the process is receiving an STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) for retrofitting existing aircraft (such as the Mooney’s here) or a TC (Type Certificate) for new aircraft (such as the Cirrus G7 and SR20’s aircraft). This is where the real expense and time comes in as it must be completely and thoroughly tested to work as designed within the system it will be used in which includes the alternator and regulator, starting performance, and critical situations, such as an alternator failure for examples. This process requires FAA DAR’s (Designated Airworthiness Representatives), DER’s (Designated Engineering Representatives) and a plethora of other experts. The barrier to bringing new technology and improvements to the certified aircraft market, from regulatory, to the expense, to the time involved, is why many manufacturers choose not to pursue it. EarthX currently has over 350 airframes with STC’s and more are on deck for 2026 and you will see many new aircraft come standard with an EarthX battery in the future. We believe in the certified aircraft market and have committed to the process of what it takes to bring this technology to you as an alternative. The EarthX battery that is TSO’d and STC’d for your aircraft has been thoroughly designed and tested to work in your aircraft. (it does not “eat” your alternator).

Thankfully he's not a member of the Mooney community - just a low life thief that enjoys stirring up controversy on on-line forums. Not that AI is always correct on technical items, but on something as simple as this it's usually right on. When googling "Is buying an item, using it and returning it ethical?" - here's what AI says: Buying an item, using it, and returning it is generally considered unethical if done with the intent to use it once (like "wardrobing" or using a ladder for a single task) because it's essentially free rental and can be costly for retailers, but it's acceptable if the item is genuinely defective, doesn't fit, or wasn't as described, as that's within reasonable return policy use. The ethics hinge on your intention and the retailer's policy, but abusing liberal policies to treat items as single-use rentals is seen as exploiting the system, which can raise prices for others and harm businesses. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] When it's generally unethical (Intentional abuse) "Wardrobing": Buying an outfit for a single event, wearing it, and returning it. Single-use tasks: Purchasing a tool, using it once (e.g., a ladder), and returning it. Fraudulent returns: Returning items damaged by the consumer or returning used items as new. [4, 5, 6, 7] When it's generally acceptable (Legitimate reasons) Defective products: The item breaks or doesn't work as expected. Poor fit/appearance: Clothes don't fit or look right after trying them on at home (not wearing out). Changed mind: You genuinely decide you don't want or need it within the return period. Explicit business models: If a store promotes "try-it-at-home" models where returns are expected. [1, 3, 4, 7, 8] Why it's a moral issue It's like theft: Intentionally using an item and returning it for a full refund is seen as borrowing for free, which is a form of theft. Cost to businesses: Retailers incur costs from processing returns, which can lead to higher prices for all customers. Abuse of policy: Liberal return policies exist for customer satisfaction, but widespread abuse undermines the system for everyone. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8] AI responses may include mistakes. [1] https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ethical-to-return-something-to-a-store-after-you-have-used-it [2] https://www.facebook.com/LasVegasParentZone/posts/whats-your-thoughts-with-people-using-return-policies-for-when-items-are-just-us/1265986425159594/ [3] https://www.quora.com/Is-buying-something-using-it-for-a-few-days-and-then-returning-it-immoral [4] https://www.quora.com/Is-it-unethical-to-buy-clothing-electronics-with-the-intention-of-returning-it-later-1 [5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969698921003453 [6] https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/what-is-viral-wardrobing-and-why-shouldnt-you-practice-it [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1hv7ek/reddit_is_it_morally_okay_to_buy_something_from/ [8] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/magazine/return-policy-ethics.html - - - - - Since the person we’re referring to is amoral - he won't have the moral capacity to understand this and will continue to dispute it.

Yes! Man can never have too many tools. Just don't ask my wife what she thinks of this approach .

January 2nd I flew one holiday visitor to catch a commercial flight in HSV. Flew up there under the ceiling which was at 3,000 ft. Returned IFR into worsening conditions. Uneventful and fun. Love winter IFR in Alabama. Seldom is icing a concern.

There is a model for this. Cal Pacific Airmotive owns the type and production certificates for the P-51 and TF-51 and is also an FAA repair station. They do a good business servicing the warbird community. Need a part for your P-51? They can supply it or make it if they need to. Need your P-51 rebuilt or converted to a TF-51? They can do it. They have been doing this successfully for two generations. But, having once had the experience of trying to resurrect a failing business, I know that the financial overhang from previous operations can present an insurmountable cash drain.

Pilots seem to overreact to a wing drop at stall. It’s not a spin. Not even close. It takes a couple of full revolutions to develop a true spin. Memorize and practice the PARE recovery. Google it.

I mentioned the seat rollers going from $10.64 in 2024 to $116.57 in October 2025 in another thread recently. I guess the fine folks at LASAR read that thread and didn't like us complaining and want to teach us a lesson. They have since raised the price even higher to $139.89 per each seat roller. What LASAR is doing here is absolutely harmful to the Mooney community and I believe that any financial contribution to them only contributes to making Mooney parts harder to obtain. -David