Leaderboard

I hope they can get it to market for the same price as 100LL. I hope it has less issues than G100UL

it's progress from a company that actual makes fuel for living. I think we have supplies of paint stripper for the next decade. Hopefully GAMI cuts a deal with Home Depot so it's more readily accessible.

I could see if it was bud light…..

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/september/04/swift-earns-astm-approval-of-100-octane-unleaded

Swift 100R is now ASTM, https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/september/04/swift-earns-astm-approval-of-100-octane-unleaded By far the most promising for European flyers: it's already sold in Germany and EASA approved, it's used for PPL training in C172S by one school.

Because I went full electrial (electronic magnetos and instruments) I never felt confortable not having a second alternator in my M20C (E). So I came through B&C back up alternators. They had been approved for PA32 and for Bonanzas. https://bandc.com/product-category/alternators/certified-alternators/standby-alternators/ I decided to look at the unit and with my IA and AP we did the installation and got the field approval for the system. The unit work flawlessly and it lowers my anxiety... the stand by battery never provided me with the necessary state of mind. Oscar

I got mine from peerlesselectronics.com

The benefit of a consensus standard like ASTM is that it has had eyes on it and approval by a very broad set of stakeholders, including engine and airframe manufacturers, refiners, distributors, etc., etc. The result is that the likelihood of post-deployment issues goes way, way down. This contrasts significantly to the STC process where one guy can do all those functions including being the DER for the FAA.

I agree that an ASTM standard is important to production and distribution, but face it, we could have an ASTM standard for rubber chickens. The question is, can you burn it in your engine?

Full detonation testing on a big bore engine. (Which is an FAA requirement) Also hp per cylinder is not the only measure There are issues of volumetric efficiency and effectiveness. I am not saying it won't work, I'm saying it needs test results that has not been revealed.

The Lycoming IO-360 is one of the highest strung engines out there. It is making 50HP per cylinder. There are not many engines out there that make more. That turbo beast you mention is only making 52.5HP per cylinder. But it has more displacement 91.6 cu in vs 90 for the IO-360, so HP/cu in is very close.

I just bought a used gear set in excellent condition for $140.00. It is the 20:1. My M20F has 5000 hours and the gear is still in great shape, so with the spare I think it will last longer than me. The key is to lube them with the proper grease frequently.

I think Eric’s point is that on a DC motor, there is no “positive” or “negative” wire. If you connect one wire to the positive terminal of a battery and the other to the negative terminal, the motor rotates in one direction. If you reverse the connections, it rotates in the other direction. If you just want to test the motor, try it and see for yourself.

Because one of the concerns with Vne is flutter, and the onset of flutter is a function of both indicated and true airspeed, not just indicated. A decent article is available at https://www.kitplanes.com/wind-tunnel-36/

I would buy a used electrical component only as a last resort - who knows how much life is left in it? The Safran catalog still lists the 6041H53 (p 26). I might contact them. I replaced my 28v 6041H220 relays with Safran parts. SE&P_Relay_Catalog.pdf

lol I don’t think he’s listening. Maybe if you say it a third time.

I don't think Swift will struggle with 100R in IO360-A3B6? we will know soon for sure. I recall at Oshkosh this year, they mentioned 1000 engines being tested for 100R. However, they admitted challenges for Conti 550 and Lyco 540, for these engine, G100UL is probably the only choice for now... Recently, Lycoming has proved that TIO540-J can run on 96 MON octane with adjusted pressure-timing, so even Swift 100R fuel can get their way into these, here is the fun part, these engine may need to use GAMI PRISM or TCM PowerLink, these need to be certified, things could be heading that way as well, if the price of these magnetos is right...

Except our market is so small and probably most importantly our market is not growing - it is stagnant at best and probably shrinking. So no-one does enter. And the PE firms keep consolidating those still standing. PE is doing the same to the FBO's.

But isn't that the logic that Arcline Private Equity/Hartzell, Vance Capital/McFarlane, Tempest, etc or Extant Aerospace uses to "value price" (i.e. jack up prices) today? They look at it and say - "if $2K doesn't seem bad then let's raise it to $3 or $4 K.....It might smart a little but it keeps their $100K planes going another 25 years...."

I can see from your posts that you are a relatively new Mooney owner. "1. I assume this part is not correct - not supposed to be bent like this, correct?' and "When you start to articulate the seat upwards, the left side gets higher than the right side, it also leans from front left to back right." There are older posts here that highlight that heavy pilot/pax re: 300 lbs (even 200 lbs in turbulence) will damage the articulating seats. "2. Does anyone know the part number for this part?" A good place to start is the Illustrated Parts Catalog and the Service Manuals found in the Downloads Section (you can also find the M20J manuals free on the internet but MooneySpace Downloads is your best source). I think you find that is it #26 in the parts diagrams 140216-501 "Bellcrank Assembly" "3. Where is the best place to potentially source this? " At this point have to chuckle - not trying to be a smart ass but after all you did buy a Mooney. Mooney owners need to repair & rebuild and scrounge in many (most?) cases. Yes the Factory does make some parts but this is not one of them any longer. Articulated seats are one of the most sought after parts yet least available. In the post last year @LANCECASPER had a used pair for sale for $3,300 and wanted $1,500 for one base frame alone without cushions. You will not find them in at any aircraft salvage scrap yard - they are the first thing sold. They are made out of aluminum. LASAR used to rebuild them but that was more than 10 years ago before they sold and moved to Oregon. They would reinforce the aluminum. I don't think they do it now. One owner posted here that he made one out of 4130 steel tubing -"cut and drilled the tubing myself and had a local FAA repair station do the welding (exhaust overhaul shop). The only paper work was $75 for the welding job. Don't bother with the original aluminum parts they will break again. I have seen four of them broken" Your best bet is to have the seat disassembled and straighten/weld/repair/add doublers for likely cracks that you find.

In UK, it was a requirement to be able to operate public transport in PC12: you have to plan routes and keep glide into airfields from cruise altitude, and you have to be able to return from takeoff with dead engine once reaching standard pattern altitude (they forget to ask for demo of ILS on 1:20 glide with idle engine from FAF and some headwind ) In PC12, your wing is way "too optimised" for this task, you are climbing 1:6 and gliding 1:16 with 2000ft short field capability In M20J, I am on 1:9 climb and gliding 1:11, I need some extra runway to make it back ! In C172, I am on 1:10 climb and 1:9 glide, these maths do not add up even with 0ft loss after the turn, I am not making it back to the point where I lifted the wheels, one need some wind (or long runway) to make it work but not too much for tailwind landing On short runways, these 180 or 360 turns tend to work in something that climbs 1:1 (power), glides 1:30 (clean) and lands 1:5 (flaps), I have done plenty in gliders after winch cable breaks, the lowest was 360 turn from 300ft agl (I should have landed ahead, however, I had enough adrenaline for the whole day !). I tend to be skeptical, how these 180 or 360 turns after EFATO work with aircraft that have shallow climb, steep glide and can't handle short runways, I am also skeptical about the human factor or the required reaction time.

I agree, one need to stay on full power at VY, to optimise their profile, there is some value in VY climb as it's near best glide and does not require lot of attitude changes between max power and idle power, also, if one measure risk in time, then Vy is the speed to fly up to some (power off) pattern altitude. There are some who claim that VX climb to altitude is better, however: * EFATO at VX attitude is likely to lead to loss of control (stall warner rings quickly) * Pitch attitude at VX is nowhere good to see what landing options are? * Consuctive and unnecessary climbs at VX do not sound good for long-term engine health (high CHT) and cause a lot of stress on the engine during the initial climb, so it is likely to lead to an EFATO one day. One day I heard someone suggesting they do climbs at VX instead of VY as it allows to "stay over airport vicinity at pull chute altitude" (BRS/CAPS), at some point one can only say "each to their own"

That's who I called. They have my RFQ. We'll see.

It now has an ASTM standard associated with it that it can claim compliance to. This is relevant to acceptance in the entire production and distribution chain as well as insurability of the various pieces.

Yes, the KAS297. I also enter the desired altitude into the GI275 as it offer altitude call outs, alerts, TOD, BOD and what I call the banana on the map to show my both. My navigator is a GTN750. Works great but definitely no Alt. Select or ROC via the GI275.

Even 2k doesn’t seem bad for a part to keep a ~80k airplane going another 25 years.

Correct You can see it better in the pictures that @LANCECASPER posted when selling his seats Articulating Seat Frames or Complete Seats - SOLD - Avionics / Parts Classifieds - Mooneyspace.com - A community for Mooney aircraft owners and enthusiasts

An electric motor is just coils. Coils don't have polarity, just like resistors. These motors are made to switch direction, so the case isn't grounded through one of the wires. On the schematic for my airplane the motor is shown with two wires, and they are lablled 'grey' and 'red'. They connect to the electrical system through relays which switch the polarity based on the gear selector position. So there wasn't a straightforward answer to the question you asked, and I was trying to give you the best, shortest answer that was relevant and would also highlight that (as both an A&P and an EE). Exchanging information productively and reliably requires effort and attention from both sides. Antagonizing those that can help you and that tried to help you is ultimately not in your interest.

Yes, I wasn't keen on used since that's what I have now, but I wasn't having any luck on any of the part numbers new. So thanks for the OEM catalog. I didn't know that. I did contact Safran's distributor. They had no stock go the 6041H53 (14v) but will check with the OEM. We'll see.

I agree with the guys above. Instead of looking for the Mooney part number (unless it’s actually available, which in this case it’s not), pull the original manufacturer and part number off the part. If it’s been superseded, you’ll need that part number. Search by that manufacturer and part. It’s amazing what you’ll find. Make sure your mechanic is ok with using parts that are from the original manufacturer instead of being blessed by Mooney (even though they are the correct part).

For engine, I am sure it works nicely in 200hp NA engine like mine, for "big bore turbo" 300hp, well it has MON 100 Octane index, what else required? or missing? For airframe, being ASTM makes it on tight tolerances when it comes to aromatics, hence, reduces the surprise element when it comes to material compatibility There are empirical data that it worked on Swedish registered SR22 (G5 with 310hp NA engine), also in 280hp uncertified machine, however, these fall under use at own risk. For someone in Europe, the most important thing, it's "Avgas 100 Octane, no lead", so no issues producing, importing, storing in airports, wr love labels down here [*] and this one has the right label and it seems to work [*] as it's an "ASTM Avgas", it's easy to process by authorities, at least they know how to tax it, while some "STC juice" is likely to be hard to process, no one knows how to tax non-ASTM fuels in EU/UK? so one can't have it

Atleast it will be an option and even if the cost of the backspring, still a cheaper option than we currently have..that's why I'm hoping there is going to ve another vendor stepping up.

The question remains....will it work in the big bore engines.

Top and bottom panels installed without using dome nuts. That’s a challenge. How did they put that together? Anyone? Can you access through the fuel sender hole in the cabin? It’s not very big, but I think less challenging than the filler neck on top of the wing. In the end, you may end up with the suggestion by @Aerodon and cut access holes in the panels. I’m thinking the panels would have been made on a fixture so the hole pattern ‘should’ match.

at some point just destroy the removable panel for access and replace with a new one?

Food for thought, I had an intermittent issue with gear going UP. I tapped on the contactors and voila! It went up! I replaced both for good measure. And then, it still didn’t work right. Long story short, the light tap of a hammer in the general area created enough vibration to break loose the real problem, that turned out to be a limit switch actuator. YRMV.

Also look for crosses to other part numbers, or a MS number or such that might expand the part search. Also, if you can find a manufacturer name and PN on it, sometimes that can help.

I would think it got that way by cranking the crank further than it was meant to go. As in demand as those seats are, finding used parts is not likely. I would find a good TIG welder and have it repaired. My step dad (rip) could straighten that out like it had never been bent. I probably could too. He taught me most of his secrets.

Ol hags.

The ‘approved’ way, would be to pull the panel on the top of the wing, then you have access to the nuts. Remove the improper hardware, install dome nuts, reseal the panel, and reseal the top panel. After cure check of the sealant, leak check the tank with full fuel. I don’t think you’ll have any luck trying to reseal the hardware fishing through the fueling port. I think you’ll end up pulling the top panel, regardless. Making a big mess with sealant inside the tank could create a safety of flight issue. If your tank sealant is in otherwise good condition, you might get by (for a while) just resealing the hardware that’s leaking. Probably remove the hardware, strip the area, reinstall the hardware, and then sealant. Not sure if your A&P would concur with that option. It would not be IAW any Mooney tank repair guidance I’m aware of… surely (?) Mooney used dome nuts in the tanks in the B model. You might check to see if the other tank uses the same hardware. When was the last tank work done in the logbooks?

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/fd03665a-9127-4f79-a429-ee3607a81548/downloads/Wayne Fisher on Landing.pdf?ver=1619678278351

The positive wire is relative to which way you want it to turn. If you want it to go one way, green is +, if you want it to go the other way, black is +.

Thank you to all for the great and thoughtful replies. As a pilot with 4000 hours in tactical fighter jets but barely 40 hours in single engine prop planes, I feel like a shiny new penny when flying my J. I'm absorbing every bit of knowledge and wisdom I can get my hands on regarding everything I never knew about flying "low and slow." Here are my big takeaways: 1. Absolutely have to be proficient in landing the aircraft in every flap configuration. Totally makes sense given all the reasons stated....and exactly what we did in fighters... 2. Choose the correct flap configuration for the conditions. This is where my experience falls short as Tomcats, Hornets and Super Hornets are always landed with the same flap setting (unless you have an emergency). I appreciate the discussion provided that lays out reasons for when to use each flap setting. 3. I need go slow flight and stall the aircraft in every configuration (not just full flap) so that I can document Vso for each and calculate 1.3Vso for each. 4. Have already learned the hard way that you have to fly this thing on-speed or just take it around! Thanks again for the discussion. If any of you are ever near KJNX, please stop by and visit (I'm the airport director)! Dave

I used to practice this in a PC 12. 800 feet was the altitude needed to successfully complete. Practiced in the sim multiple times prior to field. Actually worked well with room to spare. However, as stated above many variables to take into consideration.

One key takeaway for me is a Vy climb an altitude that makes the turn a possibility; I've been transitioning to a cruise climb prior to that. I'm very impressed by her flying skills and she makes great video. It's really nice to have see/get data from a Mooney. King used a J model to demonstrate the power off 180.

That’s from children chewing on window sills while watching cool airplanes fly by.

Ahhh...yes. The universal "it is for the children" argument that we are all supposed to buy without questions. By the same respect, it is morally or ethically acceptable for any airport governing body to allow or mandate sale of a product that has been misrepresented as "safe" while causing damage to aircraft? I guess it is, so long as it is "for the children".

Before you start tearing into things, try getting a large Gats jar and push up all the way to fully open the valve and get lots of fuel out. Do it several times. There may be some gunk under the seal which will clear out with a substantial draw. I've found most people don't pull enough fuel out to fully flush the valve on a regular basis. Do it several times to see if you can clear any gunk under the valve seat.

@dc0341 Go with the Saf-air ones. They're cheaper, you can change the o-rings in the future if they wear out, and currently come with fluorocarbon o-rings. The spring isn't that stiff and I don't find them much harder than my old ones. SAF-AIR SA53S (F-391-53S) - Mains SAF-AIR SA72 (F-391-72D) - Aux Monroy outboards if you have them Torque value 40-65 in-lbs max; use EZ Turn lightly applied and not on last two threads. You don't need much torque to seal and these are MAX, not recommended torque. Replacement o-rings: M83248/1-006, -012 (SA72), -015 (SA53S)

The latest IPN has articles on both SmartCharts and Dynamic Procedures. Interesting to note that Sporty's is normally a stronger advocate for ForeFlight but the two articles have very different tones with the excitement going to Garmin Pilot. Both articles are some of the better ones I've read detailing the features from an operational perspective. Dynamic Procedures article: https://ipadpilotnews.com/2025/08/foreflight-launches-dynamic-procedures/?utm_source=BlogEmail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=I25083A&utm_id=01K31B4FY38M7XVS8GR7HBGXF7&utm_term=READ MORE&utm_content=Should Pilots Buy an iPad with a Built-In GPS%3F %2B ForeFlight Introduces Dynamic Procedures&_kx=yegQcfXR2q3SPS36YNW7F3fQ9ATJJF-OKKIxkYzRyQY.XnPJzL SmartCharts article: https://ipadpilotnews.com/2025/06/garmin-smartcharts-a-pilots-guide-to-interactive-instrument-charts/?utm_source=BlogEmail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=I25083A&utm_id=01K31B4FY38M7XVS8GR7HBGXF7&utm_term=READ MORE&utm_content=Should Pilots Buy an iPad with a Built-In GPS%3F %2B ForeFlight Introduces Dynamic Procedures&_kx=yegQcfXR2q3SPS36YNW7F3fQ9ATJJF-OKKIxkYzRyQY.XnPJzL