Leaderboard

As many of you are aware over the last couple months and escalating today in an epic nature the site has been invaded by spam bots. It reached a level that was no longer manageable so I have set all new accounts to requiring manual approval. IF YOU JUST REGISTERED A NEW ACCOUNT: Please contact me using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the site requesting approval. Make sure to include your username on the site as I won't know you by your real name and your emails might not match. This might take up to 24 hours so please be patient. Going forward these are the changes I am proposing: All new accounts will be created as a "basic member" that cannot create content but can browse the forums. All current members will become "verified" members. No action or fee required to keep using the site as you already are. To become a new "verified member" you will have a couple options. For instant and easy access you will pay a small fee. Probably a one time $3.00 fee something like that and your account will be verified for life, no additional payments required. A free alternative and slower method will be available where the new user can email me a copy of their ID and something like a utility bill to prove they are who they say they are. As part of this I have upgraded the forum software to include their "commerce" package which will enable the site to automatically take payments for a number of things like membership fees, selling items, etc. I have been considering this for a while since it will automate the current donation system that requires me to manually upgrade accounts after donations which can take time and is prone to errors (such as PayPal emails not matching user emails and me not being able to find accounts to upgrade). So in the near future I expect to change the current "donate $10 or more to remove ads and get Supporter level access for a year" to something more like a $25 per year auto-renewal membership that is completely managed within your member area of the site. While going from $10 to $25 seems drastic, I need to pick a single amount for all users and $25 is actually what the average donation is now from the past 12 months. Also consider that the minimum donation has been the same $10 minimum since 2008 (hard to believe I have been operating this site for 17 years!) and I have been considering raising it to $15 or $20 for a while now. Note that all current Supporter level members will remain as such until it has been 12 months since their last manual donation. I hope this all makes sense. Please feel free to post your comments below. I might not get to reading them all so if you have something really important to tell me please use the in-site messaging system. Thank you all for your patience as we dealt with the floods of spam over the past couple months. It was frustrating for all of us I know. Craig

Hello all, After a rough couple months of spam-bot invasions I have decided to make some critical changes to the way new users to the community are validated and how Supporter level memberships work. Here are the key changes: When a new account is created here it will be placed in a group called Unverified Members. This group can browse the site but cannot create any new content. To upgrade this account to a Verified Member you have two options: a) pay a $2 fee for instant validation which is good for the life of the account or b) contact me @mooniac58 with a picture/scan of your valid ID to prove you are who you say you are. The old manual $10 minimum donation for upgrade to Supporter level has been replaced with a $25/year automatic subscription system that will renew every year on its own unless you cancel it. No more waiting for me manually upgrade your account, etc. Those that purchase the $2 instant validation will get a $2 credit towards their first year of Supporter level access...so $23 for the first year and $25 thereafter. Generic Donations: Separate from the membership plans, users can still donate arbitrary amounts to support the site using the new donations page. Those that donated prior to today with the old system will continue to have Supporter access until 12 months from your last donation as long as that was $10 or more. These are the current membership levels for members: Unverified Members - New accounts, can browse site, cannot create content or message others. Verified Members - Either paid the $2 fee or proved in another way that they are a real person. Can post new content but not in classified forums. Limited to 200MB total storage for attachments, photos and other files. Supporter Members - Signed up for $25/year subscription. Do not see advertisements on site. Able to post non-commercial topics on the classified forums. Storage limit of 1GB. Sponsor Members - These accounts have paid a fee to have a limited number of commercial posts on the forums (usually 1 per month limit). Some final notes: While I am confident new spam-bots are not being registered on the site, I am quite sure that they have dormant accounts that were created in the past that still exist undetected. For this reason we have and will see brief uprisings where they rise up and make a bunch of spam posts. We will ban each of these as they occur and wipe the content. I don't expect much of this and the past few days have been clear skies here. If you created an account prior to August 5, 2025 and did the normal email based activation then you are in the Verified Member group. No one was downgraded during this process and you don't need to do anything to validate your account. Please do not do the $2 validation process (I am still working on hiding this option for everyone except unvalidated accounts in the site). I will be making small changes here and there to try and make it more clear how new users validate their accounts. For now I hope newly registered members find their way to this topic to get the instructions. Eventually I hope to figure out how to customize the site more to guide new members through the process better. And lastly a big thanks to everyone who has supported this community over the past 17 years! Craig

I don't know where you heard about that reputation and I certainly have not seen it other in isolated situations. It's these situations that need to stop the fighting and bickering. This is the single BEST place to talk Mooneys and it's important for all of us to make it a welcoming and productive place for Mooniacs to hang out and share experiences (good and bad) that others may glean valuable information. I'm sorry if someone made comments about your weight. That's not right in any fashion. Also, if you went back to all of my posts, you will see that I have not attacked or said negative things about anyone personally. Including you. We want everyone here, let's help this forum have a really good vibe.

@Aaviationist I don't have a dog in this fight at all, but I have seen too many good and productive participants on this forum leave because of personal attacks. Yes, tons of people have differing opinions and that can be healthy and hopefully sharing these differing opinions, we learn. Personal attacks are different that just having differing opinions and are not welcome here. Please change the tone before more people leave.

I flew up to Rotterdam where the street art is off the charts. The biggest challenge of Rotterdam is pop-up thunderstorm cells. I studied the weather, and studied and studied. Everything said stable weather the whole time. Then the morning of departure, boom! Pop-up thunderstorms at both ends of the runway. Luckily they disappeared as quickly as they came, so it's wasn't a big deal. I don't have too many pictures of the flying, but here is one, plus examples of the super cool street art with one work in progress

Due to the significant pitch up when flaps are retracted in Mooneys, especially the long body Mooneys, I have taught to retract the gear 1st, trim down, then retract the flaps when going around. I always taught the student that the drag of both were comparable. While most POHs say retract the flaps 1st, in this case I think safety is more important in my opinion than an incorrectly written POH. Finally, in the Acclaim Type S the POH does have the gear being retracted before the flaps in a go around. I recently saw a YouTube video of a recent test conducted in a Bonanza on the given topic. For the Bonanza the conclusion was that the flaps should be retracted first. I decided to run the test on my airplane, a Bravo M20M. At 4,500 feet I slowed the plane to a steady 105 knots ( 5 knots below maximum flap extension speed), engaged the autopilot in altitude hold mode and extended the gear. The plane stabilized at 87 knots for a drag reduction of 18 knots. I retracted the gear and returned to a stabilized 105 knots. I then extended full flaps and waited see where the airspeed would stabilize. It stabilized at---87 knots, the same as with the gear extended. Demonstrated conclusion: Confirming my earlier statement, for safety reasons, the gear should be retracted while trimming down before the flaps are retracted in a Mooney go around.

I’ve done this in my M20J. Making it from 600’ depends on the wind. It’s dicey if the wind is calm. I can always make it from 800’ and if there was much wind on takeoff you have to be careful if the runway is short because you’ll be landing with a tailwind. I brief 800 as my minimum turn back altitude under normal circumstances. You might consider that in some cases the best option might be to keep the gear up to stretch the glide and land somewhere flat on the airport gear up if you can’t make the runway. When Don Maxwell had to do this he told me he almost forgot the gear and put it down in the flare. He heard thump, chirp in short succession. He wouldn’t have made it if he had put the gear down earlier. He also had multiple long runways and taxiways available - things to consider when you brief.

Here it is! I had to try a couple scanners because of the holes for the spiral bound pages and I cleaned up the final scan a bit. Let me know if you find any issues. I already uploaded it to the files section as well, just waiting for approval. The Backwards Tales Rev 8 - Coy G Jacob.pdf

It’s still going to happen! I’ve just been extremely busy with the full time job which I’ll be retiring from in January. After 40 years, I’m going to be done with being on call 24/7 /365 and worrying when I’ll get the call that one of my airplanes is broken somewhere. I’ve moved to the UP, Michigan, last April and have been commuting for work to Waukegan IL Fridays and Mondays. Lots of driving. I did have a conversation with the composite shop and we’re still good there as they have people who can make molds! I’m to far into it with the research and money spent to walk away. What I need is time which will be happening soon. Thanks, David

Short answer: NO! Long answer: HELL NO! Sorry, but if you've never owned and are NOT an A&P this will be a huge mistake. Off the top of my head: 1) How did the owner "inspect the cam" on a Lycoming? (HINT: you have to split the case!) 2) He replaced the fuel caps. So, how much water got in the tanks, and for how long while it sat outside? 3) Why was the prop replaced? Prop strike? If so, then you need an engine tear down. 4) Did you glance at that panel??? KX-170s and what looks to be a first-gen DME. If you pay to have this done you are going to spend more than finding a nice J that is ready to fly. The TIME this will take is likely to be measured in years. All, IMHO, of course. Be very careful of advice to take this one on as a project...just sayin'

Actually i find that non pilot passengers handle it way better when you pre brief them what is about to happen and that you are intentionally doing it and it’s normal. Then when it happens it’s a non event. I even say there it it is reach down at a normal speed and turn the selector valve. Whereas the complete surprise followed by yelling a cuss word while jumping in your seat and snatching the switch over i find generally puts them in hysterical mode with even pants wetting and swearing never to fly with you again.

I have an update to share. It turns out the gear really is cracked. I had a magnetic-particle inspection performed last week and it revealed several cracks in the area. Neither Don Maxwell nor LASAR are able to repair this, so I am moving forward with the salvage gear. I will have an MPI performed on this one before installation to verify it is a good part.

These things rock! Got us above the thin smoke layer across Oregon and northern Nevada. Yes it took 17,500’! But she’s real fast up there. Got to see Burning Man too. 6 in the pattern on adsb as we went by - no thanks!

For those of you that are waiting for your slot with Paul at Weep No More, it's well worth the wait...Just picked up my aircraft from Paul this morning couple of things to consider if you make the trip and decide to fly back on a commercial airline. Wilmar is about a 2hr drive from Minn/St Paul airport, Paul introduced me to Geri (320) 979-8818 and she took me to the airport and picked me up 2 weeks later, very nice individual and cheaper than Lyft or Uber, IF you can get anyone and there are NO one-way car rentals. She also has rooms for rent that are very reasonable, and if you chose to stay at a hotel, the Super 8 is reasonable and actually really nice rooms, just DON'T take the rooms next to the stairs..made that mistake. I know Paul has a long wait list, but he does have cancellations, he booked me 18 months out but had a last minute cancellation and texted me to see if I could make the short suspense to get there so overall, I waited 6 months. He gave me a quote, stuck to it completed the job when he said it would be done for LESS than the others charge..now I can look at getting it painted. Also, Paul is co-owner of the MSC there on the airfield so if there is other work you need taken care of, just ask him about it.

It’s a long story. I worked for the giant biomed company (Roche) for 20 years till 2010. Then worked for the automation company doing missile and semiconductor projects for 10 years. I was planning on retiring 3 years ago. A month from my retirement a guy I used to work with at Roche said they were forming a new biotech startup. He asked me if I would lead their software development. I told him HELL NO, I was so done with life in the fast lane. He said “What would it take?”. I gave him a crazy high number. And damn it, he said OK. Then after a year or so I did something really stupid. I invested a shit ton of money into this enterprise. Now I’m one of those private equity investors. I asked the CEO for the day off today. He said he didn’t care if I took the day off as long as I came back next week. So I have to hang around until this enterprise is successful. We are close. Two very major huge companies are interested in acquiring us. Then I will have that PC12 and the Mooney will be the play plane.

It’s weird to me that people say, “if your an A&P or know an A&P who’d be willing to work with you…. It could be a good value”. My time isn’t free. I can work on my airplane with my time, or I can use my time to generate dollars. You aren’t getting a deal committing huge amounts of time to something. You are paying for it with your time, which could easily be used to generate money somewhere else. I do owner preventive maintenance a lot on my airplane. I do it for 3 reasons: I enjoy it, It’s less effort (we don’t have many available shop options close by), I become functionally more familiar with my airplane (and thus, safer). It has very little to do with being “cheaper”. It’s not.

I thought of your “dispute” when I saw this yesterday. I say you’re a lucky man with first world problems. Apparently it could be much worse…

This whole thread seems to be getting a little silly. Some obviously like to run their tanks dry and some don’t. Each to their own. Personally, I don’t see any great (actual, not theoretical) risk in doing so and I see no operational necessity to do so routinely.

This is not a reasonable argument. Sudden and unexpected fuel selector failure is not a significant risk and you are not significantly increasing safety by your methods. By the time you've run the tank dry, you've probably already operated that system 5 or more times during that flight. There are way more fuel starvation accidents where the pilot neglected to switch fuel due to high workload prior to landing than there are fuel starvation accidents where the selector failed in flight. In each and every one of the former, having run the other tank dry would have saved the situation. If any of the latter have occurred at all, only a subset of those (where there was not an airport suitable for landing withing gliding range) would have caused a problem. I have an airplane to be useful and the range is part of what makes it useful. If I were to cut that range in half or less, that would make it much less useful. Now there are some of us who only fly for pure pleasure to get up in the air. In that case, yeah, sure, never go below 75% fuel. But that's not what I do and the additional safety of never needing to switch fuel tanks in flight is probably lower than the increased accident rate due to increased number of landings anyway.

The first instance sounds like vapor. Js do get vapor in the fuel lines. Most of the time it doesn't cause a problem but LOP at high density altitude it can cause roughness. You can see it in the fuel pressure fluctuations if you have a digital engine monitor (the factory gauges seem to filter it out by accident or design). When I used to fly float Beavers Part 135 we only filled the rear tank for long flights and it was considered poor form to leave any gas in it for the next guy that might have a heavy load. So we would run it dry by watching the fuel pressure and when it started to drop you had a few seconds to switch to a tank with fuel. Once I got distracted by a radio call and I can tell you that pax HATE it when the engine quits. I know that Deakin advocated it, but I just don't see any reason to run a tank dry in flight. My CiES fuel senders are plenty accurate.

Pilots are the best obviously! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After I got my ppl (about 35 years ago, damn im old!) I thought the same way. Why not top it off? If landing with 1 hour is good, 2 is better for sure? And sheesh, I need to stop anyway. I think that’s a normal (and probably reasonable) way to start out. When I went to USAF pilot training we always started with tanks full, but I quickly learned that to land with an hour of fuel, I’d have to fly a max of about 2 patterns and land. Then, in the Eagle we would commonly land with about 2000lbs of fuel which sounds great, but then you realize that fuel burn on takeoff is in excess of 50,000 pph. At normal settings, it’s 30 minutes or so. Sometimes not comfortable, but if you followed the rules about having an alternate and spoke up when you needed to divert or were minimum (or emergency) fuel, it works. Why did we do it? Because otherwise you can’t get the utility out of the airplane. And Im not suggesting doing this in a Mooney either, but you trade utility (range and load) for fuel. Now, as a corporate pilot, I do this every day. It’s easy with foreflight because the planning profiles are accurate, the winds are accurate, and you can recalculate your plan as often as you like. I commonly depart with half fuel in the Meridian so I can carry 3 or 4 pax instead of 2. I am also happy to tell my boss that I need more fuel if the winds or weather change and I drop a person off the trip to add gas. I don’t get into regulatory minimum requirements with him, but I tell him I want a minimum of 1 hour fuel at landing (or alternate) and I stick to that. Now how about you and your wife in the Mooney? By all means, top it off every flight, but when the kids come, start looking at options. I would fly my M20F 525nm to my folks with my wife, 2 kids and bags. We generally landed with ~15gallons, but I couldn’t start full. I would leave ~2 gallons in one tank and 13 in the other for landing. Once I flew 600nm with them and I did run a tank dry to ensure I had everything in one tank. Landed with ~12 gallons. It’s a non event if you’re ready it barely stumbles. My family was ready and were interested but not scared. Ive also run a tank dry in my K to empty it and check fuel gage accuracy. Now that I know how accurate the CIES gages are, I wont plan on it going completely dry in cruise but I can maximize remaining fuel in one tank and the utility of the airplane by getting within a couple minutes of dry on the low one. And since Ive tested it in cruise, if I do it accidentally (I screw up), I know how it will restart. To do this, you have to be willing and confident in checking your plan as you fly, ensuring that it works, and WILLING to divert if it’s not going to meet your personal mins. Just last winter at Boeing Field in Seattle, I followed a citation down the ILS in a PA46T. It was pretty foggy, but I thought we would see the lights. He went missed, and I was on the approach but much slower than him so I thought I still had a chance. I also went missed, but I did see the lights right as I started to add power. On the missed approach the citation asked to go back around and try it again since he had also seen the lights. I thought there was a reasonable chance that the fog was moving and he would land. Approach asked me what I wanted to do? I said I want to divert to the other side of the mountains and land in Wenatchee, which was VFR. He said do you want to try the approach again? I said no I want to divert immediately. And we went and landed comfortably with an hour of fuel still. You have to be willing to make that call.

Paid $400 for a product that wasn't as promised.

Made it back to Canada today from Iceland. Vancouver tomorrow.

If you say so…

The problem with stopping the prop is that you have to fool around with the starter to bump it enough to get it to be horizontal. And doing all this while you’re in an extremely critical phase of flight, and you also gave away your ability to go around in case you get a little too slow and slam it in which damages the airplane more. I just don’t think the perceived upside is gonna be nearly as good as the downside. There was a guy that did this I think with a traveler, and he was fooling around on the flare, bumping the prop trying to get it to stop horizontal, and it kept windmilling past that back to something not horizontal, and then he ended up hitting both props on the ground anyway, but he made it really hard landing because he stalled it because he was distracted. Don’t forget the potential for severe back injuries, because the seat frames in older planes are not designed to crush down like far part 23 seats are. There’s no shock absorbing system because the gear is up. I think the only upside here is that you might say the insurance company about $20,000. But you’re still going to have a claim, and they’re still going to raise your rates, and the additional part of the claim is gonna be more than the money you saved them, so I don’t think it really moves the needle all that much in the regard of upside.

For a moment I was admiring your carpeted fuel tank.

Thanks for posting that to make us aware of the seriousness of the matter. Please repost any more that you get like that so that we can keep track of...this serious situation.

Totally unrelated but does anyone know how to contact Ethiopian Airlines customer service?

Thanks for all you do Craig! The content and info exchange here is certainly more than worth the minimum $25 a year.

I teach the impossible turn maneuver to all kinds of Mooney pilots; even a past student pilot. With our good glide ratio and some practice this is not a hard maneuver. But i don’t think anyone can learn to do this from a video, but hopefully the video inspires folks to seek out training on how to do this since few will pull it off without practice. This is why we first start off with simulating the departure climb to a safe altitude, pulling throttle, waiting 3 sec for startle effect and commencing a 360 degree turn to measure your altitude loss. Every single person has improved significantly with some coaching and practice with each successive try. We’ll add 50% buffer to their altitude loss to derive their personal minimum turn back altitude. Usually by the third try they’ll be ready to make a successful try. I’ve successfully done this with student in calm winds to winds over 30 kts always returning to the departure end of the runway. With strong winds you have a whole different problem than making it to the runway but slipping down steeply enough before you’re out of runway. There are important considerations i am not going into here but my intent isn’t to instruct in this post but to encourage everyone not practiced in this maneuver to seek out expert training and practice in it to be proficient. As pilots we can’t have too many tools in our tool bag not to mention knowledge and proficiency adds to our safety immensely. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I missed this when it was unveiled at Airventure last month. It sounds like Piper is planning to sell brand new Seminoles with DeltaHawk engines, using an STC that Piper owns. https://generalaviationnews.com/2025/07/24/piper-unveils-seminole-powered-by-diesel-deltahawk-engine/ This is the more mature 180hp variant, not the more interesting 200 or 200+ variants. But still, getting more of these in the wild in certified aircraft will tell us a lot more about the long term viability of the powerplant. https://www.deltahawk.com/engines/ Given all of the painful recent decisions on UL avgas, I’m happier thinking about diesel again …

Finished installing the GeeBee seals. First off, after reading all the previous descriptions of issues with seals I was apprehensive...but in hind sight I think this was unfounded. I installed the new profile (larger bulb, less durometer) on both baggage and main. New GeeBee (left), Old GeeBee (middle), Mooney seal (right) Cleaning off the old seals: Baggage door seal looked different than the cabin door. Baggage door was the foam core rubber seal, but the main door was dense crunchy foam seal. Baggage door came off cleanly and way too easily, but the cabin door came off in chunks. The money was to use plastic razor blade scrapers to scrape off the foam between the rivet heads and get down to adhesive. This worked surprisingly well but was a little tedious in places. Main Baggage I used cheap thin plastic drop cloths from Home Depot with some painters tape to mask things and keep any remover or parts off the paint and out of the aircraft. It was an easy step that made clean up super easy! I took off the interior panels for both the doors. I initially removed the hold open arm on the main door, but it really didn't open that much more and I think you could easily just leave it on and be fine. But it makes it a little easier. If you do take it off, be mindful of the washers and the cotter pin when removing. Hold open arm parts: Door Cotter pin AN380-2-2 (MS24665-132); Washer AN960-10; Washer AN960-10L I then used white shop terry cloths (and a brass brush as needed) with a small spray bottle filled with Adhesive remover. Given the fumes I'd recommend good ventilation and a respirator/glasses/gloves. Depending on how thick and crusty your old adhesive is, dictates how much you need to use a brass brush. Some have described using drill mounted brass brush, and I found that I could control the use of a brush easier without worrying about damage to the underlying frame by hand. Being able to spray the adhesive and keep it wet as it softened the adhesive made it MUCH easier. With softened adhesive sometimes using the corner of a terry cloth rag dipped in some adhesive remover pulled off the top layer of the glue and that coupled with a brush turned it into about an hour+ per door. I think the 3M General Purpose Adhesive is less damaging to painted surfaces than other types of removers. I think overall it worked well and I had no damage to paint or any surfaces inside or outside the aircraft...although I did mask with drop cloths very well. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 6-pack of cheap plastic drop cloths from HD Plastic Razor Blade Scraper 3M 08984 Adhesive Remover Small 2 oz spray bottle Wood handled brass brush After cleaning off the old adhesive, I used isopropyl alcohol to clean off the metal, cleaned up the drop cloths/area, and reassembled the hold open arm and reinstalled the door panels. To prepare for door seal install the next day, I remasked using painters tape along the back edges of the doors to protect the paint from glue/from clamping. I threw a clean moving blanket over the wing walk and wing around the main door to keep things off the paint and prevent paint drips on the wing. QUICK ASIDE: I debated using the 2-part silicone cement that GeeBee includes based on comments here on MooneySpace about something like 3M 08001 yellow "gorilla snot" that has "more working time"...THIS WAS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED. First off, you can't use rubber cement on a silicone seal...so don't even try to use 8001 on a GeeBee seal. But I've used gorilla snot and it's stringy, messy, and goes on way thicker than you need. I think the cement GeeBee includes is Momentive SilGrip PSA529 & SRC18 Silicone Contact Adhesive. And a huge shout out to Guy as he has this packaged with mixing stick, measured bottles, a pipette for mixing small amounts, and even paint brushes to apply...its clear, just the right consistency to lightly apply just where you want it without running or dripping, and is SO much easier to use than 8001. If you're apprehensive about using GeeBee's cement...don't be. That's just silly. BAGGAGE TIPS: For the baggage door you want to install so that the "tail" of the "P" seal goes on the raised part of the door ~right around the edge of the door panel. You want to make sure you have enough exposed metal at the edge as there is a slight profile at the edge that will bind if you put the seal too close to the edge of the door. Also, by putting the tail on the raised section, it allows you to easily and smoothly turn the corners. The part closest to the hinge (top of the baggage door when closed) should be close to the raised section away from the hinge. So basically on the baggage door it's easily to follow the tail along the raised part lined up with the edge of the interior panel. Make sure you put your seam at the BOTTOM OF THE DOOR which is the higher part when you have the door open. MAIN TIPS: Get inside your aircraft and use a thin pencil stuck into the gap in front of the hold open arm. You can use a pencil to make a mark along the bottom frame of the aircraft to see where the seal should go. You can't quite get the entire bottom marked with a pencil, but you should be able to get enough to see the idea of where the radius of the door frame goes. Along the sides and top you want to center the "P" bulb roughly on the rivet heads, however you want to make sure that when compressed that the seal doesn't flatten past the edge of the door frame. Take a look at your door frame and it should be obvious where you want the bulb to hit the frame. Really the only tricky point is really at the front lower corner due to the gap from the hold open arm. If you followed the interior panel the seal would be in the gap and not sealing anything. With a pencil mark you can aim to have the edge of the tail at the pencil line to make sure the bulb is contacting the frame. Then once you turn the corner you can again align the bulb with the rivet line. I mixed up the epoxy into a small "baby food" size container that I got a 4-pack from Target. Take a small piece of seal to see where you need to apply the seal. So use the paint brush and apply a THIN layer of adhesive on the frame where you're going to put your seal. If you're doing both seals, then I'd suggest starting with the baggage door, then main. So apply thin layer of adhesive to the frame of the baggage door, then apply to the main door. You can use a hair dryer to "speed up" the drying. What I'd suggest is apply glue to both, then only use hair dryer on the baggage door and the main will dry while you're applying the baggage seal. Use isopropyl alcohol to clean the seal. Then start at the BOTTOM of the door (high point when door open) and apply a thin layer of adhesive on the seal tail up to the bulb (just the part that will lay flat). Use a hair dryer to dry until tacky. Then place the seal TAIL inside / BULB to the outside. Extra points to apply the seal end between rivet heads so that each end will glue to flat metal instead of right over a rivet. If you're at a point where you can apply glue to the hanging seal you can apply to 10" of seal and dry. But slowly apply the seal when the glue is tacky and press firmly to adhere. I used small clips from Harbor freight (I bought 2 x 22 piece packs and it worked perfectly) to hold the seal as I moved along, but with the adhesive properly tacky the seal will hold itself. When I ran out of clips, I'd harvest from the initial clips placed and move the clip train along the seal. The adhesive is pressure sensitive so press the seal firmly and it will hold. When you get back to seam, cut the end of the seal LONG. Then slowly cut a little at a time until it requires very slight compression to fit. This will allow you to join the ends together with cement. Then move to the main door and make sure the adhesive is tacky...if not, you can use the hair dryer, but I'll bet you'll take at least 20 min standard dry time to apply the baggage door seal. Clean the seal with IPA. I started on the bottom of the main door and worked towards the hinge. That allowed me to follow the pencil line and turn the corner. Then it was smooth sailing to follow just inside the rivet line. HINT: you don't want the center of the bulb closer to the edge of the door than the center of the rivet line. Basically when the bulb is compressed, you don't want it extending past the edge of the door. I think mine were actually centered on the inside edge of the rivet line. On the main door with a moving blanket on the wing, its easy to keep the seal laying on the bulb and apply adhesive in a longer length of seal. But still apply to the door in 3-5" increments and press firmly to adhere and then use the clips. Once the seals are in place, go back though and make sure the seal is firmly pressed to the door after you've removed the clamps. Then let cure with doors open for 12-18 hours. The next day is the moment of truth. If you closed the door prematurely, you could possibly glue more of the bulb seal down to the frame than you need. I applied a thin layer of silicone lube/paste to the seal, wiped off the excess and then closed the door. Firm, but not cumbersome. Seals well all around. If you need a new seal, I wouldn't hesitate to use the seal and kit from @Gee Bee Aeroproducts. I was way more apprehensive about this than I should have been. But give yourself a good 3 day stretch to make sure you have plenty of time to finish and take your time. Day 1 clean off old seals, clean up and reassemble interior panels. Day 2 to apply new seals. Day 3 lube seal and close, then leave in the sun to fully dry and cure.

We have a 1987 M20J here with 2700 hours on it. It's never had a cylinder off. It still looks good on the borescope and the compression test and it doesn't use too much oil so I don't know where the end is, but it's not there yet.

I never go full flaps until committed to land and often I never go full flaps. Half flaps is take off configuration for a F. In a go around I am configured for maximum performance and than it is positive rate, gear, than flaps.

I am in the camp of, choose a gear operating SOP and stick with it. Always.

The only products Lucas made which didn't suck were their vacuum cleaners.

a properly painted prop wont do that. if they etch, alodine, and primer, and topcoat inside the proper window, it will adhere. This was not.

Do yourself a favor - once you get your ticket in that Warrior, fly a couple solo xc trips in it. Get familiar with being the true PIC. Maybe take a passenger up a few times. Flying alone is a huge part of the learning process and you should mix it in with your continued training.

I think that one he can "win" as it's an obvious typo on their $135 hourly shop rate:

Yes, in the cases i’ve seen though it resulted in high CHTs and chewed up the cylinder walls pretty bad. So cylinders were replaced. This is more of a Superior cylinder issue because the installing A&P has to assure proper ring gap at installation whereas other cylinders usually come already properly gapped so it can be missed when the installer doesn’t read the provided documentation and warnings that come with Superior cylinders. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there is a SMALL market for an "over-improved" E or F, and the right buyer will recognize value in one with an asking price that stands above the field and even flirts with J territory. I say that as an 18+ year owner of a '77 J that was looking for a modified E or F originally, but stretched to get into my J and I'm happy I did. It is of course entirely possible to modify an E or F to mimic a J in just about every meaningful way, but they will never be a true J in the market, and thus the value will always hit a ceiling. The debate here, IMO, comes down to value for the dollar and for the right buyer (like Greg in this case) it might make more sense to buy an over-improved $150k E vs. a $150k J. Greg certainly knows the Mooney line and he stated his mission is 2 people + bags and moderate distance flying, not all the way across the country since he can just hop on a company plane and do that now. In this case, a $150k E that has been thoroughly modernized with a panel full of Garmin including a GFC500 autopilot done by a meticulous owner/IA, yet still retains the awesome J-bar gear so he doesn't have to fret about actuator gears and other tidbits I'm thinking about. It has all of the J exterior mods so it is likely faster than my plane too. Comparing to my early J, I've done all of the exterior mods/upgrades to later specs and have an awesome paint job. I've got nice Bravo seats (including rear buckets instead of the bench), good windows and sidewalls, but I have a vintage panel + GNS530W/430W and STEC30 autopilot. I'm insured for $175k but wouldn't sell it for that if asked. I still have things I want to do like the panel, primarily. For Greg's mission, I'd say he's getting a turnkey simple speedster that meets his needs for quite a bit less than he could get my J without a modern panel, and a whole lot less for another J with a modern panel. There is also an adage to consider that you're buying the previous owner as much as the plane itself, and in this case, that is a very good thing! Having said that, a J offers more potential utility/flexibility due to more cabin space, and especially if you can take one or both back seats out. It comes down to how much that utility is worth it to you... would you pay $50k more for a truly equivalent J vs. a modernized E? If you never put people in back, why pay more? I'd rather take that extra money and buy a toy plane to add to the hangar.

Hey Greg, you're nearby so let me know if you ever want to talk Es! I'm at SGR. Probably biased as I have an E that I have painstakingly restored and modernized and would argue is one of the nicest out there . I don't think the J should be that much of a price-step up from an E, unless you really need that extra space, a modded E is basically the same performance wise and is more nimble and crisp to fly, in my opinion. Maybe 5% more between the 2. Johnson Bar gear is its own value IMO. There have been a few E's in the last 12 months that have sold for $160k range. The J comparison isn't truly fair unless you're looking at apples to apples, a J and an E with the same panel, engine times, interior, condition, etc. Usually when I see that state, the J is more expensive even when an E is in the mid-100s. Here's a $140k J with good avionics and low-time engine but poor interior: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20J+201&listing_id=2443724&s-type=aircraft Here's a $165k J with good avionics and low time engine and decent interior: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20J+201&listing_id=2445319&s-type=aircraft Here's a $158k J with good avionics, mid-time engine and decent interor: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20J+201&listing_id=2446564&s-type=aircraft So what I would take away from that is if you have an E with good avionics, low-time engine and good interior, you're looking at $150s-160k, benchmarking against the $165 and $158k. If one of those goes down (e.g. good avionics, decent interior, mid-time engine, etc.) then $140ks seem to be reasonable. I don't see any E on the market that has low-time engine + good avionics + good interior, I have a '65 M20E with 170hrs on a freshly overhauled engine done by a well-known engine shop with a freshly overhauled prop, brand new non-AD hub, all new accessories (firewall-forward was done at the overhaul), SureFly e-mag, GAMI injectors, fine-wire plugs, new alternator, new voltage regulator, new battery. New panel, Garmin G5s, GMA345, STEC 30 AP, 430W completely overhauled by Garmin, JPI 930 engine monitor with CIES Fuel Senders, all new switches, wiring, circuit breakers, custom cut flat, one-piece panel. I have a brand new full Executive interior done by AeroComfort that included all new soundproofing, inertial reel seatbelts, custom stitching pattern, with every piece of the interior being redone. The entire electrical system is new. The plane has all LED lights, bladders, the electric step mod, one-piece windshield, gets flown 125+ hours a year and is meticulously maintained. When I had it valued after all the work was done to figure out what I needed to insure it for, it was north of $170k. That's obviously not me getting my money back .

a m20e isn't a cessna 150, it's faster than than the f and fully modded probably faster than the J. lets be honest, things have gotten expensive, i'd say serviceable should probably start around 80-90k, fully loaded like you listed, shoudl probably approach 140 150

As far as adds go, I’m cool with that one

Actually, I'm not sure you understand this situation fully. If you read the FAA's part 16 director's determination, you will see that this specific case is different. The county took over all fueling under their so called 'proprietary exclusive right' in order to stop the sale and distribution of 100LL. They did not allow anyone else to sell 100LL because all others had to buy fuel from them and they only sold unleaded fuel. The FAA determined they could not do that. This is totally different than a private gas station that chooses what to sell. There are several FAA cases like this and in fact another one discusses this exact issue for mogas. An airport sponsor does not have to provide all fuels. It just cannot prevent others from providing those fuels if they are federally obligated.

I would suggest a read of the FAA's Part 16 determination (link) that this whole situation is precipitated by. "The text of these Resolutions is unambiguous. In response to the Resolutions, the County took immediate steps without qualification or limitation to implement the specific intent to prohibit the sale or use of 100LL at County airports. Specifically, the County terminated all FBO 100LL fuel sale permits, purchased unused 100LL stocks from FBO-operated tanks, and transitioned all County-owned fuel tanks to the exclusive sale of 94UL, effective January 1, 2022." Aircraft owners were left with no choice but to fuel elsewhere or now fill up with the only 'drop in' replacement (see G12) that arrived just under 3 years later. And a significant number of those who filled up with the 'drop in' replacement have experienced unique and noteworthy issues with their aircraft. I would say that it did not 'enhance the flying experience' for many. Couple relevant airport newsletter links: Fall 2024 Winter 2024 Users were also provided with an incentive that had the following language: "You are each encouraged to buy some fuel and see for yourself that it operates no differently than the 100LL you are accustomed to, with the advantages of a cleaner engine, cleaner spark plugs, cleaner air, and reduced engine wear."

If the city/county intentionally made certain product the only choice available for a lawful commercial activity, then they they did, in fact, compel the users to use it. Of course, the crux of the claim would be the misrepresentation of the product as a "safe drop-in replacement" by its purveyor(s). Your posts seem to indicate that you have a vast experience in litigating product liability lawsuits. Perhaps you could educate us stupid pilots on how the legal system really works in US. Maybe a refresher on the Restatement of Torts for those of us who have long forgotten that from our law school years .

Yes, anytime you run a tank dry, you may want to switch to that tank after you refill it, and start it up on that one to purge the air from it.