Leaderboard

Have you considered doing no upgrades at all until you complete your IFR training? Perhaps unpopular opinion: spending a lot of money on avionics upgrades at the start of IFR training isn't a great idea. For one thing, it might take as long or longer to get a shop to complete the upgrade than it would take to complete your training in your already airworthy, IFR-capable airplane. And as you've already observed, you don't know what you don't know yet. Better to get a bunch of hours under your belt before upgrading, because while there are a few factual truths about equipment and capability, a lot of resto-mod panel design boils down to personal preference. The panel you already have is adequate to train for and pass the instrument rating practical test, at which point you'll be proficient in one airplane. Perhaps the most proficient you'll ever be for the rest of your life. That's a great place to be when thinking about what kind of instrument flying you're really going to do, and what equipment you want to feel safe and comfortable while you do it. Some ugly truths to consider, from an old CFII: A lot of pilots who start instrument training never finish. Some pilots who finish instrument training decide never to fly in IMC, particularly those based in areas of the country where there isn't much piston-single-flyable IMC. Some pilots who fly IMC limit themselves to "gentleman's" IFR conditions, e.g. punching through a thin layer that's a couple thousand feet above the ground. Some pilots with instrument ratings and fancy panels are actually quite bad at basic instrument flying, and are hindered as much as helped by all the gizmos they've got in the panel. I don't say these things to discourage you, just to inject a dose of realism before you break out the wallet. Prove to yourself you have the perseverance to complete the rating. After (or while) you do, lean on friends and/or rentals and/or AATD simulators to gain experience with additional equipment. Then, with rating in hand, decide what kind of IMC flying you're actually going to do. At that point, you'll be in pretty good shape to think about upgrades.

Meh... that's debatable. I'm not a Luddite about autopilots ,and I'm not saying you're outright wrong. I've had good IFR training experiences with students in autopilot-equipped airplanes. If it's there, I incorporate it early and often in the training (including failing it, though honestly I get to teach plenty of autopilot "failures" that are simply pilot error in using it). And I am definitely not saying an autopilot isn't both an operational and a safety advantage in real-world IFR flying. I'm just not convinced it's "immensely helpful" during training as you say, and I don't really think it's critical for the OP to get one in his airplane right now. My experience may be biased by easy access to a pretty good AATD, which I regularly put IFR students in when we're going to do intensive cognitive stuff: first time making them fully responsible for an entire instrument approach sequence with no help, introducing new types of approaches, etc. The "pause" button in the AATD is incredibly helpful during those exercises, and I guess a reliable autopilot is sort of an equivalent if you're limited to doing all your IFR training in a real airplane.

My company tried the "free lunch" of offshoring some engineering projects to places with labor that cost a quarter or a tenth of what the previous developers cost. It took three times as long to write the specifications because the new guys were not at all familiar with the software they were trying to fit their new stuff into. And even with all the effort on design specifications, what came back was riddled with errors, and had to be fixed here. Classic case of "write code until it's designed, run regression tests until it's coded, and then push out release after release for beta until the unwitting users (both internal and external) help get the code fixed, and the documentation written". There is no substitute for well educated developers with years of experience with a particular product, and I can't imagine AI is going to change this.

I've done a bit of hunting on this topic as I have a 79 J with a C41. I have only flown 3 types of autopilots, including this C41 and it is the most capable. I am actively avoiding flying others So my opinion is very novice, at best. For steering, the C41 takes input from your Attitude Indicator as well as your Directional Gyro (or HSI if equipped) when in Heading mode. In NAV mode, it uses the CDI. So you'll need to provide it with that information. You can do this with an Aspen or dual GI275 units. Apparently the G5 works for the DG/Heading info but does not work as the AI, so if you wanted G5's you would need to keep the old vacuum AI. There is a GPSS add-on you could get as well, but I'm not sure that is needed if you were to use modern gyro-less instruments. I have a 530w GPS in my plane, and a G106 CDI. The CDI can be driven by a NAV radio source (for VOR tracking, etc.) or it can be driven by the GPS. The C41 adjusts for the needle deviation on the CDI. I think for future compatibility it would be smart to use dual GI275 and a garmin GPS. Then if your C41 ever dies, you could go the G500 autopilot route and not have wasted too much.

Also to clarify, to me run-up, preflight, and before takeoff are three separate things. I was just saying I separate my final before takeoff checks from the run-up. I wasn't even referring to the preflight inspection.

If you would have done touch and go’s in your initial Mooney training, you would have been prepared for this. I’m just trying to cause trouble here.

Leaks in slip and ball joints when the exhaust is cold are normal. They should be there to indicate that the pieces have room to expand into each other and seal as the system warms up. The gasket should be fixed, but the leaks around the probes are not a big deal and are best left alone beyond basic tightening of the clamps. As others have said, leaks in the cowl are not nearly as big of an issue as leaks in the muffler that feed the cabin heat. It is also normal to see CO, sometimes a lot, in the cabin during ground operations or at high angle of attack.

Ai appears to be fantastic at helping one narrow down options by suggesting all the absurd and impossible options first. It’s real gift is making something ridiculous sound plausible. it appears to be nothing more than a higher level tool, which in the right hands can help, and in the wrong hands does more harm than good. Garbage in, garbage out, it is not a panacea. Not yet anyway.

I strongly support @Vance Harral's opinion. You can learn everything you need with your current setup, and upgrade later when you know what your real-world needs are. Plus an avionics upgrade will ground your plane for a long time now, so you won't be able to start your training. You don't need an autopilot to do your training, but for real life use of an instrument rating (and overall use of your plane), I would definitely think an autopilot would be very useful. Unless you are flying short flights, it gets boring and tiring to just keep heading and altitude in IMC (or VMC for that matter) for a long time. You can definitely do it, but it is a chore after a while. So before worrying about FD or WAAS, I would spend the money for an autopilot. From what I hear a GFC500 is very nice, but the cheaper option mentioned above seems fine too. (AeroCruze?) Since the audio panel is pretty much independent of the others, I would do that now if it does not ground you for too long. Finally, you could get a one-time database upgrade for $120 or so. An altimeter IFR check should be around $250-300. These costs are pennies compared to an avionics upgrade, just do them and start your training. (You can legally fly for 30 days in IMC, and after that use the GPS as a VMC-only tool. Most of your instrument training will be done in VMC, so you can still shoot practice approaches even with an expired database.)

Those leaks don’t usually cause a CO issue. They leak into the lower cowl and are blown out. If you got a CO alarm you need to remove the heater muff and inspect the muffler for cracks.

Far from a “phantom scenario” when you consider how much in common it has with a go-around. Mark already mentioned the key element that i didn’t mention is rudder control. The need for the pilot to build the reflex that right rudder must be matched by throttle; especially in your missile. Similarly you may feel the same way about doing soft field takeoff’s. But they are an excellent maneuver in improving rudder control proficiency. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funny story. Project came up that was previously worked on for 15 months,the contracting company internal and some of their india outsourcing. Quoted it as a saving project, code for a lot, close to go away quote. About what they already spent. Well, i took it over, got rid of everything, did proper engineering and completed in 2 months, with automated testing, documentation and all. Software engineering is a black art with science sprinkled in...also, like many trades it is the experience you pay for

The late Ron Blum looked into stall spin accidents in the traffic pattern and found that they occur on departure far more often than base to final.

If one seriously practices engine out glides to an airport followed by the spiraling down to a landing understands the Best glide is only a priority to get to the airport. Once above the airport the priority is to do a series of spirals abeam the intended landing point, which should be the IFR landing zone or about 1000’ past the threshold. At this point it can be very helpful to slow down to near minimum sink speed which is very close to stall speed. Not just to give you more time aloft but to help guarantee you finish your last spiral near pattern altitude and then just have to do your well practiced power off 180 to a landing. Anyone that isn’t practiced at being able to slow down to better position the aircraft where it needs to be for the final 180 is very likely to either go off the end or come up short. The spirals while positioning the aircraft are much harder to do than the glide to airport and will use all of your skills in dealing with the winds and being able vary your speed in the spirals to keep you where you need to be. It’s something i do with all my transition training students and frequently on flight reviews. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree pointing the nose to the sun to do a power on stall isn’t that useful. But it’s the wrong way to simulate a power on stall. Most accidents involving power on stalls are departure stalls with the nose below or near about 15 degrees. This is happening because the pilot is pulling with too much back pressure well below Vg after take off and is often compounded by being at a higher density altitude than their normal departure. The more realistic way to practice this is to greatly reduce the power with nose only at about a normal departure climb and allow IAS to continue dropping till about 10 kts above stall speed and then add 65% power and continue pulling back the nose till stall and you should get it to stall between 15-20deg pitch. This is much more realistic and can be done straight ahead or with some bank to practice recovery and see how the plane behaves. Think of it more like a high density altitude departure stalls although the accident records show it doesn’t need the high density altitude to happen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This forum is a repository of make and model specific technical information, opinion, and general discussion. I’m not really making the argument to you so much as I am to future readers who are just embarking on their journey into Mooney operations.

Last week we were at 4500' off the California coast by Santa Cruz. We were just starting Commercial training. Before doing any of the new Commercial maneuvers, I start by doing slow flight, then Power off and Power on Stalls. The airplane, a 231, has been upgraded to 2 G5s, and the GFC 500 autopilot. As such, when operating outside of the ESP (Electronic Stability Protection) envelope the ESP needs to be disabled in the G5. Additionally, the AP circuit breaker needs to be pulled because, if the airplane is operated outside the envelope with the AP off for more than 10 seconds, the AP will automatically turn on and engage the servos in LVL mode. I hadn't pulled the circuit breaker, but we had slowed to just above the stall and, unbeknownst to me, my student had used the electric trim to trim up fully. Pulling the CB disabled the electric trim. First, we found that the stall warning switch was inoperative, but continued the exercise anyway. Power was added to maintain altitude on the backside of the power curve and the nose was lowered to increase speed and lower the AOA. To relieve yoke pressure trim needed to be adjusted down. With the electric trim off the student tried to trim down with the trim wheel. It wouldn't budge. The student said that he couldn't control the pitch with the yoke, the force was too strong. At that point I added my control input to the yoke. The force was so strong that with both of us locking our arms straight out we couldn't overcome the pitch up force. I tried to unlock the trim wheel with both hands--unsuccessfully. In all of my flying I have never had a flight where the outcome was in doubt. But for a few seconds that's exactly what I thought. Knowing that the 231 is somewhat nose heavy and on final at 75 knots with low power setting on a 3° slope the plane was controllable, I pulled the power. That did relieve some of the control pressure. I tried to unlock the trim again with the trim wheel. No dice. It was totally locked up. We were on flight following with NORCAL, and I was about to declare an emergency, when I decided to turn the AP on and see if the power of the trim servo would unlock the trim. I pushed in the CB and waited while the system went through its PFT. It took a few seconds, but ultimately finished successfully. I had the student try the electric trim---and it worked. The trim became unlocked. We had dodged a bullet. I said, "Let's head back to San Jose. We're done for the day". I got no argument. Epilogue: I told the student that until we found out the reason for our issue, we wouldn't be flying the plane. The maintenance shop was able to recreate the problem. I called Paul Kortopates and related the issue. He told me that a Service Instruction had been issued on December 14, 2016, SIM20-88A Stabilizer trim stop screw Modification. I've attached it here. It applys to the M20J, M20K, M20L, and M20M. It was to be done within 100 hours. On this airplane it apparently had not been done, so the force of the electric trim on trimming up for slow flight had pushed the trim wheel past the stop and locked it up. I'm posting this because for those owning aircraft to which it applies, you should confirm that it has been complied with. Otherwise, you might be put into an unrecoverable situation the likes of which we were lucky enough to have overcome. SIM20-88A Stabilizer trim stop screw Modification.pdf

The first video on our RTW trip is online. It’s quite short and provides an overview:

Apparently his position is that it's acceptable practice to abuse those whom you don't respect. Yeah, like this.

There are 2 ways the J’s where modified to increase MGW: 1) only on some eligible J by serial number, Mooney provided a SB to increase it from 2740 to 2900 lbs. 2) Rocket Engineering STC to replace the IO-360 with a TCM IO-550-A with a much larger increase in MGW. Of course both increased the J’s Vs1 above the MOSAIC threshold of 59 CAS since the J was barely compliant at 2740 lbs. The J SB mod to 2900 lbs can be undone without too much effort as mentioned above but couldn’t imagine returning a Missile to original j status but still possible to do at great $. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This would be like me saying "I will just ignore the AFM for my Missile (IO-550A) STC conversion (MGW 3,200 lbs) on my 1980 M20J and revert back to the old original POH numbers for my "2,740 lb MGW Mooney M20J".....

Unless your J and been modified in some what to change the POH numbers, the answer whether it may be flown exercising sport privileges is yes. I just did a MOSAIC presentation this morning where I gave some aircraft examples. I didn't include any of the Mooneys, but the one that got a lot of surprised looks was a V35 Bonanza.

I'd tend to agree I believe during training use of autopilot should be very limited. I often tell my students it is "inop" as when SHTF I expect my students to be able to fly the plane, not have the plane fly them. It's use in primary training I find to be a crutch and not a tool to propel them forward. That being said I find it to be a great tool once you are proficient at instrument flying. In terms of actual instruments learning on a six pack is great, it will only make you better once you have glass. I would recommend a solid GPS for now. (430 is fine for that you can practice ILS for precision approaches.) A key upgrade for efficiency would be a Flight stream 210 if you are going to keep it to me. Makes inputting flight plans and changes 10X faster. Once you're out actually flying you'll have enough time to know what you actually want. I fly my plane in pretty bad weather so for me personally that means WAAS, and multiple ILS for redundancy. I've put 400ish hours on my mooney with standard 6 pack, extra CDI with Glideslope, GTN650 and KFC200. With that I've flown to mins several times and find it very capable. We are moving to glass this year but that is very much a luxury and not a necessity. That being said I also fly for a living so I get to stay proficient by virtue of how often I fly in weather.

Seems if you want the original 2740 MGW to apply, you would have to undo the mods done in accordance with the Mooney SB including going back to the earlier Vspeeds on the IAS and backing out the AFMS changes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Done 1st and 2nds which are basically the same thing for 90% of it Frankly it doesn’t take any remotely impressive physical attributes to strap yourself to a seat and move a yoke, pedals, and push and pull some knobs. Heck 14yr old girl can PIC (solo glider, which is somewhat more demanding than a 172). Frankly if I had my way basic med would replace all classes of medical, which the numbers and logic fully supports.

I'm not sure what useful load has to do with one's ability to overcome the elevator bungies in order to hold the plane at a flyable attitude. I would think the Missile would be heavier in the nose requiring more nose up trim, making it less dramatic than the superleggera, E model which would probably pull straight up into a violent, hammerhead stall, cartwheeling across the field and killing everything within a half mile. There are certification requirements with regard to the effort required to overcome mechanical control forces. Given that there is almost no aerodynamic load at rotation speed, the only significant force to overcome would be the mechanical resistance in the system and the bungies (for those so equipped). I should think that even someone who is...what was the term I saw you use in another thread to describe those who prefer to use a tool for the fuel selector? Was it "Gutenabled"? Yes, that's the term...I should think that someone that you, yourself might refer to as "Gutenabled" would have the strength to manage a full aft trim situation on take-off. Given the gutenabled can probably do it, a person of your fitness level should have no trouble at all. If you're concerned, perhaps you should take some of you own advice when it comes to the gym. Blah blah blah indeed. This place is getting almost as windy as the FB group.

I do not disagree with @Vance Harral @AndreiC @Ragsf15e at all. An autopilot is by no means essential for instrument training or checkride, but I do firmly believe that it is very helpful in reducing workload. Sometimes all we need is a Lemmethink button.

Are you asking if it qualifies to be flown by a Light Sport Pilot? Or are you asking if it could qualify to be certified as a Light Sport Aircraft if it were built new again?

CO alarms can go off during taxi and climb, cabin leaks, if they go off in cruise things get dangerous fast, would not fly the airplane and have heater muff inspected asap as stated supra

I just didn’t want to push that hard.

Oh come on. Full aft trim…raising flaps on the go around… Let’s see, what are some of the other deadly scenarios that are supposed to be killers that really aren’t?

That does make a lot of sense. The original was a million lines of code, and the AI version is only 100 lines of code. If it duplicates the functions of the original, I'm totally in favor of it. BTW, I'm holding you personally responsible for the outcome.

This attitude is winning lately, and I can't really argue with it. But no one seems to know where the next generation of Senior Developers is going to come from, when there's no time/patience/money for Junior Devs. That's a future problem to be solved by someone else, I guess. In the mean time, the employment landscape for legions of young software developers is a wasteland of filing literally thousands of applications (because both the producers and the consumers of the applications are using AI, natch), who are drowning in bitterness. On the other hand, I'm sure that 50 years ago someone claimed there eventually wouldn't be anyone with enough machine language programming skill to write compilers. Hasn't happened yet.

Fair enough. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This has been a very interesting and educational thread that has stayed mostly on topic. I’m surprised that it hasn’t drifted into the AOA indicator debate, oops. As for my pre flight run up routine I like to use the CIGARS controls checking for full deflection elevators aileron brakes and rudder (which is confirmed during taxi) Instruments, including a full scan and setting of all Gas set for correct tank. Attitude this is where I confirm trim and desired flap setting.. Run up 1700rpm includes magnetos prop cycle and carb heat. Safety seatbelts door check. I guess this would fall under the flow category I’m sure I will receive criticism for this but it works well for me. I remember flying my 150 and doing lots of stalls and what I thought were spins it was pointed out by my instructor that I was actually doing diving spirals and it wasn’t until I took an unusual attitude and aerobatic syllabus that I learned how aggressively you had to move the controls on a 152 aerobatic to get into a proper spin. when doing my flight review my CFI likes to get me to stall buffet by using the above example where you are slow behind the power curve with a slight nose up and pull back this seems to be a more likely situation compared to the radical climb into the sun approach which I can’t imagine anyone flying like that unless you’re flying a full on aerobatic plane

Very thought-provoking. I can definitely see the rationale. I got a lot out of learning the 6-pack and aggressively managing flows and checklists while keeping up my scan during primary training. I'm "probably" not as good at that now OTOH for someone who is an adult with resources, and has committed goals, I can see the time savings of making an educated assessment and getting multiple things going concurrently (I'm projecting, though several other people here have just decided to get PPLs and bought a Mooney, so it's not isolated). I do share the concern it would take longer and might interfere with your training timeline. I do agree you'll really appreciate the fancy stuff a lot more, and have a sense what you want (e.g. HSI under-rated) once you've been doing The Thing for a while. OTOH clear comms is a huge benefit with no downside, so maybe the audio panel alone is a nice treat and will make IFR training better. Plus then you'll have spatial audio, BT for later clearance calls, etc, already. Sounds like you'll need a DB upgrade anyway for your GPS and getting a pitot/static cert. But that's gonna be true either way.

So, I’m a professional software developer. I should be writing software right now, but I’m goofing off with Mooneyspace. Visual Studio keeps trying to force more and more AI stuff down our throats. Most of it is just annoying. Every now and then it will give a code suggestion that is like it read my mind. But about 80% of the time it is just gibberish. And it gets in the way of what I need to do. It isn’t really helping. If I go to Google and search for a code example of some syntax or function I want to use, the AI will generate example code to illustrate what I was looking for. Except, it is garbage! It is a hodgepodge of many posts on the subject. Usually a mashup of the Stack Overflow at the top of the search results. It often has stuff in it that was deprecated years ago. I just think that AI isn’t ready for prime time yet. Any business executive who fires all their developers with the expectation that they are going to be replaced with AI has drank the Kool Aid. Just my two cents. But then I’m old school, I’ve been writing software since before most of the current developers parents were born.

I'm in Tennessee. You are correct about me getting some time under my belt before upgrading. My Mooney isn't IFR certified at the moment, so I need to purchase the Garmin updates for the 430 and have the airplane certified. That is going to be about $1000. So I was trying to decide if I wanted to upgrade first and then do all of that, or do all that, upgrade, and then do all of that again. The local shop that gave me quotes said they could have me in two weeks from now and I'd only be down 2 weeks, so that wasn't bad. I have considered what you are saying though in just flying it for a while. If it wasn't for the stupid audio stuff that would be an easier decision. I'm not worried about finishing, I'm not the kind to start stuff and quit. I actually bought my first airplane before I even took a discovery flight and used it to get my PPL. I sold it and bought this Mooney to do my IFR in and hopefully keep as my XC airplane for me and my family! This feedback is really helpful though and I really appreciate it!

I had oil there to, under the T-Drive #23 and #42. Soon as I change the Oil Stick Hose it was dry at #23 and #42 + around all those parts. I had to clean that area several times and at last I found that I had that small leak at the Oil Stick Tube. It's located forward of the T-Drive on right side. Use borescope to check at Oil Stick Tube, it fits to see under. Or if you remove bottom cowling. It was not enough to the ground run to get the leak and oil mess. Had to fly 30min...

One point to keep in mind is that a spin is a combination of roll and yaw. It takes both to spin. You cannot control roll with ailerons because the wing is stalled. But if you use rudder to counter the yaw, the airplane will not enter a spin.

My subscription renewed yesterday, so i'm in for another year at least. Maybe this is the minority/outlier position, but... At this moment, I'm not overly concerned as a user from a functionality and stability perspective. This is obviously very bad news for the individuals terminated, and I'm glad the guy I recommended for an interview a couple years ago didn't accept the offer then. I'm not concerned about the existing functionality because the product is fully developed, and the adding of *new* features often leads to bloat and diminished usability. Intuit's Quickbooks Online would be Exhibit 1 here. It is possible, probably likely, that customer support will be degraded. That is regrettable as I have gotten over-the-weekend responses from them in the past. Pricing is locked in at least for this year, and the availability of a relatively easy competing and already cheaper alternative *may* keep a lid on price increases. However if the AvBrief report is correct, this group bought FF/Jepp for $10 Billion. That is a big number to service - back-of-the-envelope 1% per month. So it's wait-and-see for me for now. -dan

There was a Bonanza pilot who tragically lost his life last year after an engine failure. He overflew his intended, landing location, an 1800” open field, at 100kts without ever touching down and then collided with trees at at the opposite end. Deadsticking a bonanza into an 1800’ field without damaging the aircraft would be a tall order. Deadsticking a Bonanza into an 1800’ field and surviving is more doable. Getting the airplane, slow enough to actually land in the desired field is a good first step towards survivability. I can’t speak to the pilot’s training, but it’s clear that on that day he avoided slow flight. The aircraft never reduced speed to anywhere near stall. Using the backside of the drag curve is the only brake that an airplane has other than a slip (which should also be practiced). I do my best to stay proficient so that I’m comfortable using whatever is needed to get the job done, but I prefer coordinated flight at speeds under 80mph.

I haven't seen that. Quite the contrary. Comfort with slow flight means acute awareness of performance and awareness of how the airplane reacts in a configuration that you actually do quite often: landing. Not only how it acts in that configuration, but the advance signals it is heading there. That's the problem with the way most maneuvers are taught. They are taught as if it's just something the FAA says to do rather than what it means to the rest of flying. When I do an aircraft transition, we are definitely doing slow flight before landing. When I get checked out in a new type, it's also one of the things I do before that first landing.

Or, Garmin could hire a few of these folks too… -Don

Fired employees said the company that got rid of them is never going to make it now? Never happened before! lol I’ll stick with Foreflight as it’s just better, I also have a monthly logbook backup sent to my email so even in the near nil possibility of DOOOOM, at worst it’s a very mild inconvenience.

Dumping the logbook now is likely a very wise move. I'll do that this weekend. It won't turn to crap overnight, but over time it surely will fail to innovate and set the bar. It will get lapped by one or more competitors. Since it was created by pilots and many of there staff are/were pilots, they'll lose that intuitive sense of what is useful and what is not since the offshore workforce will with 99% certainty NOT be pilots. They're not cranking out an app for a bank or e-commerce site and eventually that will show up in product quality.

Everybody just be quiet. Absolutely do not tell Nick about Santa Claus...

Personally, I would not be comfortable flying any airplane for which I was fearful of performing any private pilot maneuver. Repetition is what builds confidence, and I would want to get a competent instructor and repeat any maneuver that made me uncomfortable until I felt confident. The flight review provides an opportunity to explore the entire envelope of the airplane every two years.

I just can’t imagine justifying the behavior because the company “doesn’t treat employees fairly/pay them adequately” (in his mind) as justification for despicable behavior. Then calls people that call his awful behavior out “WalMart simps”. WTF, over. He will never “get it”. He will rationalize all day long and call us the bad people. F that. What a douche.

@SilentT I'm trying to locate a PDF regarding Mooney spin characteristics written by Mooney test pilot Bob Kromer. Thought it might be in MS downloads, but it isn't. Bottom line is there are very good reasons that intentional spins are prohibited in Mooneys. From what I remember it is imperative to apply anti-spin control inputs immediately and agressively. I'll post the file if I ever find it. While a student at ERAU in 1977 we all routinely and regularly practiced the 3 basic stalls in the M20C, both dual and solo. They are certainly nothing to be fearful of, but a certain amount of respect is warranted as with any aircraft. There was one occasion where I spoke to a student, who, as an observer from the back seat on a dual flight, had the flight instructor fail to intevene early and an inadvertent spin was entered. The altitude loss was significant, and he felt they'd never recover. It had happened earlier in the week and this guy was still visibly shaken just recounting the experience. If you want to become skilled at spin recorvery, find a reputable company that teaches aerobatics in a certified aircraft. I did exactly this in 1994 in a Pitts S2A with a former IAC National Silver Medalist. This comprised every possible botched stall entry and covered both upright and inverted spins. Trust me it will be the best money you'll ever spend.