Leaderboard

A person who buys tools to use and return is a thief. Whether someone respects the retailer or not is just a flimsy justification for theft. My older brother worked in loss prevention at Walmart for a few years, and back then on items less than $100, by the time they added in their administrative costs of paying employees to process the return, it was less expensive if someone stole the item from the store than bought it and returned it. Over 90% of returned items never hit the shelves again, they were wholesaled out or thrown away. There are valid reasons for returning something. Using the item for its intended purpose and then returning it is not one of them. The only reason Walmart tolerated it was that people came back every week to buy something else. Plus they just raised the prices for the honest people to cover all of the dishonest people. But to take pride and brag about buying something, using it and then returning it explains everything about character, or complete lack thereof. That isn't who we are on this forum.

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.

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!

We appreciate that using a lithium battery in your Mooney may seem novel and new and raises questions. That’s exactly why we are here on this forum, to address your questions directly and provide clarity. Advancing technology often feels uncomfortable because it challenges what we’ve always known. We welcome questions, but it’s important to base discussions on facts, not assumptions. LiFePO₄ technology is proven and trusted in aviation. LiFePO₄ batteries have been in use for over 50 years, starting with the U.S. military, and EarthX alone has logged more than 25 million flight hours across tens of thousands of aircraft over 12 years. Every safety and compatibility consideration has been addressed. LiFePO4 batteries use the same charging profile (voltage) as lead-acid, so no alternator or regulator changes are needed. The internal resistance of the ETX900-TSO is approximately 4mOhm. The internal resistance of the Concorde RG-35AXC is also approximately 4mOhs. We hear your concern that this new technology might damage your 50+ year old alternator. The EarthX Mooney’s typical peak charge is 15-20 amps that lasts about 3 minutes. EarthX is particularly fond of the Mooney aircraft and is a proud owner of an M20K with an EarthX battery in it for 3 years now. Up until now, you had no choice but to use a lead-acid battery in a certified aircraft, and the companies that cornered this market had no competition. Competition is good. It breaks monopolies and creates opportunities for better solutions. When companies compete, they strive to create better products that improve safety, reliability, efficiency, and deliver advancements.

This thread is a dumpster fire.

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.

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

If you are asking about EarthX, we are in good old Colorado USA, and a veteran owned business too if that is of interest.

If Mooney, in whatever parts distribution arrangement they have with LASAR, is not generating enough revenue to cover 1) variable cash costs, 2) the cost of real depreciation (real wear and tear of plant/machinery/tools) and 3) some meager return on the current cash investment (working capital) then they need to: Ruthlessly Cut Costs Aggressively Raise Prices Some combination of Both If they (Mooney/LASAR?) need to double or triple the price of Mooney built parts in order to survive, then they need to raise prices. The market will adapt. Mooneys will be scrapped and salvaged more frequently for what had been a repairable FUBAR in the past. Owners will seek out and rely more on salvaged parts. Owners will rely more upon OPP. Yes there will be more downtime for repairs while people scramble for parts, Yes the cost of owning a Mooney will go up, BUT the market will find equilibrium and Mooney will survive as a parts only business. Everyone acts like raising Mooney parts prices is the end of the world. But look at how Mooney owners react to other rising (some would say crazy) costs: In another topic right now there are Mooney owners that have no qualms about doing some combination or all of full avionics upgrades, MT props, EarthX batteries etc. (i.e about $100K) to gain a few pounds of UL. In another current topic, an owner of a 1961 M20B is looking at spending about $17K+ (and 2 year wait) to reseal 52 gal. fuel tanks. No-one is complaining. Everyone raves about "value". In a 2023 topic, an owner of a Bravo suggested it was realistic to budget about $120k for everything that needed to be done during a Lycoming Factory Rebuild. Of course the cost will be higher in 2026.... In a topic last year to a new pilot about a "new Mooney purchase" it was advised to plan on $75-$100K for avionics, $20K for strip and paint (probably low..), $10-15K for "interior refresh"., etc. No-one was complaining. Owners love to brag about the "value" of spending $80K++ on avionics/autopilot. The point is that you rarely see a post saying "These costs and prices are ridiculous. I am selling my Mooney and getting out of GA because I cannot stomach these eyewatering escalating costs". An exception is the unfortunate fatal crash of N79338 whose 2-owners ago in 2024 said here on MS, "I have neither the time nor the money to take care of 79338 at the moment." @Schllc, in a current Modern Mooney Discussion topic on "LASAR Prices" made the case that LASAR is sincerely trying to keep Mooney parts sales afloat, albeit the "Assurance" plan was "clumsy" and "convoluted". That is why I say that Mooney and LASAR should just keep it straightforward and charge the prices that they need to remain solvent and that "the market will bear". The market will seek equilibrium. It won't be the end of Mooney ownership. Higher parts prices may lure more suppliers like Univair to reverse engineer some parts. It is "capitalism" at work.

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

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely. Use-and-return is a scam and it only causes prices to go up for everyone. If someone does not like a particular retailer, for whatever reason, they should just shop elsewhere, but not cause deliberate harm that will affect all consumers, not just the retailer. Sad to see that members of Mooney community would engage in such dishonest conduct.

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.

Just picked up my ‘76 Ranger from Aero Valley LLC in Paul’s Valley OK with its freshly installed Aero Cruze. I’ll do a better PIREP after a couple more flights to gain experience in regular use. Flying OK to OH, I just wanted to get straight home and let it fly the magenta line all the way back. Initial impression is it’s worth the money I spent. All in about 10k. G500 with associated equipment was 30+. So about 60-70% of the performance of the Garmin at roughly a third the cost. Real test will be support five years from now.

I’m mean no offence, but it reads like you’ve created a boogie man where one does not exist. What you’ve described really isn’t a big deal provided the maneuver is conducted with adequate altitude. A stall break is not a potentially unrecoverable situation nor is a wing drop. In my experience, people who are uncomfortable with stalls tend to build them up in their mind to be something far more dramatic then they actually are. I’ve heard lots of new pilots tell, “there I was flat on my back” stories about practice departure stalls with a 40° wing drop in a C150 that has turned into a 110°wing drop by the time they’re back in the pilot’s lounge. Mooneys can have aggressive power on, stall characteristics. A poorly rigged airplane can exhibit unexpected behavior as well. That being said, the airframe is not scary to stall. With practice, one can recover from a full break, power off stall in <200 feet. The aircraft is docile in slow flight. In the clean configuration, I have held my aircraft in a falling leaf for nearly 1000 feet of altitude loss while holding the wings within ~30° of level. Everyone has a right to operate as they see fit, but I think it’s a bad idea to scare others away from working towards proficiency. Avoiding slow flight does not make for proficiency, especially in an airframe that the statistics show is prone to being floated down the runway in ground affect and off the departure end in a blaze of tire smoke.

Embarrassed to say that I have been using the same ipad mini since ~2014 and it still works just fine. It’s been years since I could load the newest FF, however, it still gets updated maps/charts, syncs flights with my phone, displays traffic/weather in flight and even pushes/receives flight plans with my G3x. A year or two ago I wiped it and reloaded only FF. It worked just fine as it loaded the same old version.

First, thanks for all who post helpful material on this forum, especially diagnostic ideas. You saved me a lot of time (and probably money as well) with a landing gear problem. Yesterday I flew from my home field to work, about 25 nm. All was normal. On the return flight, the gear only came up part way. No breaker popped, and rather than try to get it to retract for the short flight, I put the gear lever down and thankfully had a green light in a second or so. On the jacks, I could not get the gear to retract no matter what I tried, so off with the belly panels. Per the suggestions on this thread, I focused on the 2 relays first. They appeared normal, almost new, and they had power to them when the gear handle was up. I then went to the "up" limit switch. There are 4 wires going to the switch, but only 3 have the terminals visible. When I went to check whether there was power to any of the terminals, simply touching one with the probe (with the ground not yet established) energized the motor. Strange. I ended up removing the switch, and sure enough, the one terminal I could not see had a loose screw. Touching the other terminal apparently moved things just enough for contact to be reestablished. I cleaned everything, reattached the 4 terminals, and everything works as it should. Once again, thanks to those who are willing to share their expertise. It is much appreciated.

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.

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

It looks like they were doing a hardness check to find the depth of the case hardening. Probably the safest place to do it. I also suggest contacting the factory.

I see pilots play with the prop constantly and it befuddles me. I'm a simple guy when it comes to the prop. In all constant speed singles I teach that there are only three prop positions. to think about 1. Takeoff. Full forward (but not above redline) 2. Enroute climb. That's optional in most airplanes, typically small, and primarily for noise and vibration mitigation unless your airplane has a continuous power limitation. 3. Cruise. Whatever you happened to choose that day. I don't see a reason to change cruise setting for descents . And the position for landing is just the takeoff position.

That’s a common leak point. It never means you need a complete strip and reseal. I would check the fuel sender gasket first.

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.

I love my Earthx battery. I modified my M20C and installed a IO-360 per LASAR´s STC. Among other things it moved by battery back. I ran the W&B and my CG was WAY back. So the EarthX battery helped me increase my useful load and by CG. The battery works great, it cranks much better than my old Concord. Now, with regard to the 15Amp... My plane is now full electric. Glass cockpit and electronic mags. Obvioulsy, this is a concern as the power consumption is way up (lets also not forget the electrical gear that needs to be lowered...). I also had one electrical power outage (the grounding cable of the alternator went lose). So how to solve this issue if to the equation you add my long x-countries... without any close by airports? I went the route of a back up alternator. I believe from a risk perspective this is the most effective solution. You have two alternators and if everything fails an EarthX battery that should get you to where you need to go... And I also have a smaller battery for the ignition (but the weight is neglible). So, if you ask me EarthX worked well for my mission. Oscar

This is often the fault of the CFI who provided initial training. And flight schools which don’t allow students to practice stalls solo. It’s easy to see why a product of either would think stall = death. Some years ago, I did a flight review for a CFI friend. His recovery from a simple power off stall in a 172 was to shove the stick way forward. Sensation was being pointed directly at the ground. I thought I was going to lose my lunch from the initial negative G.. I asked him, “are your students afraid of stalls?” When he replied, “yes,” I said “I think I know why.” I feel very fortunate to be a product of neither. In fact, my private CFI and I did a lesson just after solo which specifically included practicing stalls (yes, in the dreaded Tomahawk!). BTW, I did not receive spin training as a private pilot. I don’t even like spins. The ground going around in circles in front of me is just not my idea of a good time. But I’m not afraid of them and had no trouble recovering (incipient) from the two clients who have put us into one (I actually saw the first one developing and I allowed it to happen - it ended up being a great lesson).

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the irony that someone named Colgan doesn’t see the need to practice slow flight and stalls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407

You’re following slower traffic again, but this time it’s after a long day, you’re a little tired, and there are strong winds. You retard the throttle a little bit because the wind has increased your ground speed and you’re catching up to the slower traffic. Because you’re a little fatigued, you don’t notice your airspeed is decaying as you turn base to final. You start to hear the stall warning, but because you’re tired you think it might be the gear warning because you retarded your throttle. As you double check your gear, you stall because you haven’t practiced slow flight in so long you don’t recognize the warning signs until it’s too late. There’s a reason professional pilots practice all of this stuff, even though there is almost no chance they will ever “need” it.

I mentioned the incipient Mooney spin earlier. One personal practice it has led to is, if I am not familiar with the airplane - I mean that specific N-Numbered airplane, not just make and model, we climb up higher than usual and the first stall is mine.

Probably more accurate to say it's "largely" about security. Long, boring, nerdy post follows... Speaking as a grifter er, "development specialist" who works in the software industry, much of the public just doesn't (nor should they be expected to) think about compatibility test matrices and the need to keep them finite. It's all well and good to say a particular piece of hardware or software is "backward compatible", but no successful software company actually relies on that. They all employ a Regan-esque "trust but verify" strategy. Every change to the product must be tested on every combination of supported hardware and software. Let's use Foreflight as an example. Latest production Foreflight is 17.11, presumably 17.12 is in the works. Latest production iOS is 26.2. Foreflight has a test suite they use to prove functionality, and they're certainly running it on iOS26.2 and Foreflight 17.12.XXX as I write this. Well, you've got to run the 17.12.XXX testsuite on iOS26.1 too, because not everyone has upgraded to 26.2, and it's not a winning strategy to force everyone to upgrade to the latest iOS on every Foreflight update. So the verification process has two dimensions: Foreflight version and iOS version. Fine. Actually, there's a third dimension because Foreflight's version history is branched rather than linear. 18.XXX versions are co-developed simultaneously with 17.XXX (and 16.XXX and so on), and customers expect all of them to work. Actually, there's a fourth dimension because iOS version history is also branched rather than linear. iOS 26.xxx is co-developed with iOS 18.xxx and other iOS 18.xxx releasess. Actually, there's a fifth dimension because different iPads have slightly different CPUs and other hardware, and sometimes that triggers corner-case problems. Actually, there's a sixth dimension because Foreflight has to run on iPhones as well as IPads. Actually... well, you get the idea. There are surely additional dimensions I don't know about. Software validation engineers at Foreflight have almost certainly automated test matrix management. They don't have to write a whole new testsuite or hire a new person to push a particular button every time a new test element or test dimension is added. But... they do have to buy, set up, install, and maintain the additional test hardware and operating systems. They also have to hire more (or smarter) people to write the meta-software that reviews test results, identifies all the failing cases, filters "real" failures from nuisance failures (e.g. someone tripped over the power cord of one of the test devices), triages the failures, doles them out to individual developers for debug, etc. At the modern pace of new hardware, operating system, and software development, this rapidly gets out of control, because there's only so much test budget and manpower to go around. The obvious solution is to roll supported combinations off the back end more and more frequently. But since the manufacturers know this is a bitter pill for the public to swallow, they'll happily imply the changes are out of their control. And "security" is a good fence post to lean on, because it's not really a lie - there are indeed new threats all the time that exploit gaps in older hardware and software. Having said that, as an decaying engineer with retirement on the horizon, I'm aging out of my enthusiasm for it, and I certainly don't mean to imply anyone should be sympathetic to the test matrix problem I blather about above. The admittedly impressive technology that allows for continuous updates to everything in the universe has a dark side, which is that dumb updates that do as much harm as good are a lot more likely to make their way to the public than in the "old days". It also damages the whole concept of documentation, help, and support, because so much of the information about your product applies to a version of the product you are not running. I've tired of it, and the cynic in me feels like much of modern software development is just a jobs program for wanna-be tech bros who aren't actually very good at their job. And, uh... stay off my lawn too!

Agree. They (some worse than others) screw up things that worked in favor of stupid little UI tweaks that I don't need or want. And, get off my lawn.

Your vacuum gauge and switch are probably connected to the AI. I would remove all other hoses from the vacuum manifold after the regulator and cap off all the other ports. Then see how it works. Then add the hoses one at a time and see how it works. You should be able to isolate it to the bad branch and troubleshoot it from there. The hoses are probably oid and stiff, so cutting them off and replacing them with new supple hoses makes it a lot easier.

I agree with the upset course, but I think we should all be able to do “full coordinated stalls”. I guess Id leave it to each of us to decide if the buffet or stall horn is far enough since that’s what we do on the private pilot exam now, however, I think it’s worthwhile for everyone to be confident enough to take their airplane to a full coordinated stalls. Turning, configured, power on/off, etc. these are easy to do and will improve your muscle memory and confidence in the airplane. It shouldn’t take a special instructor for this.

Id say restaurant. Someone dumped the fry oil in it too.

I have known women who have bought evening dresses for an event and returned them afterwards. I thought they were all crooks.

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 !!!

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.

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

It’s amazing how some folks spend super big bucks. Was reading a few months ago about a guy who had a flat, no doubt just the garbage tubes we are flooded with in recent years. Well he called a mechanic and paid like $400 or so to get it fixed… I’m thinking hmm, $60 tube, worse case buy and return some basic tools from Wally World or autozone, 30min or so of my time, done. Same with how much people pay for interior work, someone says it’s “aviation” and do sub par work for $$$, vs just taking the seats out yourself, buying some materials, take it all down to the local upholstery shop Aviation is one industry where understanding time and value, rolling up one’s sleeves, and not getting sold by salesmen, pays off the largest.

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.

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

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 signed 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.

I practice steep turns, slow flight, and stalls every few months. My rationale is that I want to maintain a feel for the performance edges of my aircraft; I personally think that skill/ability atrophies. While I don't intentionally fly in that regime on normal flights, I also believe that distractions and events might put me in a less than ideal flight regime. That's when recency of training and the feel it imparts might just save my ass. Yes, all you ace-of-the-base pilots know that you're too good for that to ever happen to you. I acknowledge it could happen to me, so I plan to LIVE with that limitation.

I think we are saying the same thing. Alternators are expensive. I would like to hear EarthX's take on the charging side of this as well. But when I asked that question years ago, it was very much "a 60 amp alternator should be able to put out 60 amps." I'd be surprised if that isn't the justification for the STC in our case as well. And I stand by my assertion that if that is the case, it's putting a lot of stress on our very expensive alternators. Look, I'm thrilled EarthX is giving us options. I'm sure there is a solution to this problem that gets us a much better, lighter battery. But, I'm not sure we are quite there yet, regardless of there being an "approved" STC. That doesn't guarantee there will be no problems.

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

I re-riveted one of mine about a year ago. The milled out areas were not replated, they were bare metal. I wouldn’t expect much corrosion while submerged in fuel, unless you have a chronic water in the tank problem.

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.