Leaderboard

1970 F - but believe this applies to a very wide range of Mooney models. I’ve read every headrest post on MS. There’s definitely some misinformation out there. My interior is getting redone and I really wanted to add headrests to my front seats. My rear reclining seats had them, but they were stuck in the seats. The fronts used to, but for whatever reason the PO covered them over in the 80’s and tossed the headrests. I took some exact measurements, made a cardboard template and went to my childhood happy place - the junkyard. I found a perfect match on a 2014 Nissan Pathfinder S (from the front seats). My interior guy just messaged and said they’re perfect. A little extra Google work and it appears the fronts from a 2013 - 2016 (trim doesn’t matter) will fit. I probably checked 200+ cars…but it was a nice day and I was having a blast. Total cost was $15 ($3 entry fee and $12 cost for a pair of headrests). They’re far better quality than the OEM Mooney and are farther forward which is great for actually using it. As you can see, all four seats had the tubular structure in the seat. You can feel the open tube through the material if you want to examine if your seat already has the tubing.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/iclothwipes10.php

Good evening folks - I thought I would share some interesting points about my flight today from Pontiac, Michigan (KPTK) to Philadelphia (KPNE). The weather brief was consistent for the prior few days: A strong low pressure above Maine with dense isobars promising a powerful tailwind for the trip. The specific forecast was about 75 knot tailwind at 15,000. Surface winds were gusty at both departure and arrival. The morning low temperature caught me a little by surprise (12 degrees F), as we had enjoyed milder temperatures so far this winter. Fortunately, the night before I set the SwitchOn to give me 5 hours of engine and cabin pre-heat prior to my planned 9am departure from Pontiac. By now, I've figured out the clothing needed to manage the in-hangar pre-flight and only open the hangar door when the plane is ready to drag outside. (This is my second winter season, but much of last winter had the airplane in the shop for one thing or another.) The arrival at the airport hangar was in bright (cold) sunshine with scattered clouds at 4,000 MSL. Gusty winds were nearly down the east/west runway. I packed the plane with gear I might need in Philadelphia (TKS hand sprayer, 100 foot extension cord for engine heater, tools, etc.) and pulled the plane out with my Sidewinder tug. Or tried to. There was a light coating of snow on the pavement outside the hangar, maybe half an inch, but a dry area for about 10 feet outside the door before the snow layer started. As I pull the plane out, I wait for wing to clear the door then turn the tug to the left to angle towards the taxiway. I got the plane partially out, cleared the wing and started the turn. When the nose wheel hit the snow, I noticed the sidewinder having trouble getting purchase on the snowy nose tire. Then, when the mains hit the snow, enough resistance built up that the sidewinder simply slipped on the nosewheel. Luckily, the tail was clear of the door so that it could be closed. The plane was at a 45-degree angle, so some prop blast would be towards the door, but seemed (and turned out to be) fine. If snow had piled up against the door, obviously I'd be doing some snow shoveling while guessing how the tires would track so that I'd only need to clear the track for the tires. I have a shovel in the hangar and all this dawned on me as I looked at the airplane sitting there at the 45-degree angle. The pavement slopes downward away from the hangar door, so gravity was working for me. Putting the plane back in, up the slope, in snow, may not be possible with the Sidewinder. I remember pulling a club Mooney a long time ago into a hangar with a winch at the back of the hangar. I need to figure this out. The runup, clearance, and take off were normal, albeit "sporty". Once the power was in, I glanced at the airspeed tape on the G1000 and saw 45 knots really quick. Cold and headwind. This plane has the 310hp STC. I push the go-around button before takeoff to set the flight director and prepare for AP engagement at 400 feet AGL. Tower was a little slow to pass me off to Detroit Departure, so I was able to engage AP at 400 feet and was about to select heading when Tower passed me over to Departure. As I was reaching to select Com 2, there was a massive jolt, as if the Fist of God had hammered the top of the airplane. My head (more accurately my Bose headset) hit the ceiling and I was momentarily stunned. Not physiologically, but mentally. You've experienced it: an event that shocks your system and takes a couple of beats for your brain to check in with body systems to assess damage. The Bose crackled a bit, seemingly unhappy with the ceiling impact, but I felt no pain. By the time I wondered about the airplane (a second or two later), my brain registered that the engine had not missed a beat and nothing abnormal was felt in the controls. Before I could think to worry about the structure, the plane was saying "don't worry about me". A few seconds later, I got it together and switched to Departure. Interestingly, other than that jolt, the rest of the climb through 4,000 MSL was fairly mild bumps up to the glass smooth air above the scattered layer. As I climbed, I looked at the seatbelt to cinch it tighter but realized that with the 3-point design, there's not a great way to get much more vertical restraint. Perhaps I can get the lap belt portion tighter. The rest of the climb out to the southeast was uneventful, other than the promising ground speeds that were developing. I filed for 15,000 to get the optimum tailwinds (about 75 knots according to Foreflight) but ATC held me at 9,000 until I cleared Detroit's airspace. Tailwinds were 24 knots at 9,000 feet, but Foreflight said the tailwinds jumped fast a little higher. Sure enough, as I continued the climb tailwinds exploded. By the time I got to 15,000, which happened at about 500 fpm at 120 knots indicated (FLC set to 120) I saw a max of 87 knots of tailwind. Ground speed maxed out at 254 knots. For much of the flight, there was an undercast broken layer and snow showed on the Nexrad display on the MFD. The descent started around Harrisburg and as I headed down at 1,000 fpm the top of the green arc came up and I pegged it there by varying the descent rate. Ground Speed hit 270 knots. The undercast disappeared toward Philadelphia, causing me to forget that there was probably a thermal layer nonetheless where turbulence would start. That happened as I descended through 7,000 feet, and it was pretty rough. ATC wanted expedited descent which I translated to 1200 fpm and speed builds quick into the yellow band. Speed brakes will quickly shave off 10 - 15 knots at a given power and descent rate, and the rest is done with power reductions. Turbulence seemed to exacerbate the tendency to creep into the yellow arc and once I saw the over-speed warning that seems to be triggered about halfway into the yellow arc. Speedbrakes and power management need to be jumped on early. I noticed the left speedbrake would not retract fully (about 1 inch proud of the wing surface) so it would seem some lube is needed. When I looked after landing, it was fully retracted. The arrival into Philadelphia (KPNE) was looking good with one of two crossing runways pretty well lined up with the gusty winds. The Tower cleared me to land from outside of the downwind on the visual approach. Then on the frequency, "Tower, this is Vision Jet XXX, we seem to have had a blowout or something." Tower asked if they could clear the runway and they couldn't. I knew what was coming and it wasn't going to be fun. I was rerouted to the crossing runway and I offered that I'd give it a go. It was a 60-degree crosswind at 17 knots, gusting higher. One of those where your base to final turn overshoots final by a lot. The landing was miserable, the crab and kick out worked OK, but gusts resulted in me plopping it down on the mains, in one of those sinking sensations where the runway is further away from your wheels than you thought when the wing stops flying. The LHS system didn't help much because the gusts interfered with how my mind processed the varying aural heights. The wide runway helped keep the plane from being blown off the downwind side. So, the tailwinds were wonderful, the fastest numbers I've even seen in a plane I've flown. But, there's likely going to be a price to pay at either end of the journey. Ed

The G100UL works great. It's been mixed with 100LL in my plane, so its benefits won't show up until I use it alone all the time, and that's not anytime soon, since so few airports have it right now. It does weigh a little more than 100LL at 6.15-6.30 lb/gal. GAMI says to use 6.25 lb/gal for weight and balance calculations. The fuel has "slightly higher volumetric density" so has about 1% more energy. I've found FF to be slightly less at cruise power to get the same TIT. One thing to be aware of is the necessity to carry an absorbent towel with you when fueling or dumping fuel back into the tank after checking for water. The fuel will stain the paint if not wiped up immediately. So far the price is fair at $6.99/gallon.

Not too shabby for a 61 year old C. I had 30+ knot tailwinds the entire trip from Kerrville to W Palm Beach. Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

Actually it is in the Lycoming docs. All current Lycoming Service, Maintenance and Operating manuals for Lycoming 360 and 390 Series engines say the same thing: "Refer to the section “Oil Level Check” in Chapter 12-10."

I was watching this TickTock the other day on walking. It was pretty fascinating in that it involved putting your right foot in front of your left foot and repeating. I was pretty thankful for this because I managed to get to the bar and pour myself another Tito’s rocks. My wife really likes it because now I don’t have to scream for her to bring me a drink anymore. Honestly I am not certain which method of getting a drink I will use long term. It is really great though to have an option. I mean without this TickTock where would I be?

It’s great to see my little contribution to the great space that is Mooney with the continuation of the today’s flight threads starting each year. I can’t remember what year I started this but still take time to read about all the great stories of Mooney flying. Here is my contribution to sunset and the Mooney wing. Merry Christmas to you all

I posted about the upgrade and avionics available in the pre-J model forum but this is what the new panel looks like from Monarch Aviation in Defuniak Springs, FL. I’ve had Carl work on my 1965 M20E for 15 years and I recommend him with the highest regard. The installation was superb and you cannot find better customer service! Steven

Having the government force-pick a winner is never a good idea. GAMI seems desparate here, I suspect because they feel they won't win otherwise.

Where's the fun in that? I actually want to try this myself. I realize I may very well regret it but, I like to see if I think things are really as bad as people say they are. Sometimes, it turns out that everyone was 100% correct and I make a mistake. At least I learn something in the process. Everyone of us in this group disregard "common knowledge" to some extent or we wouldn't be flying cramped, difficult to land airplanes that will instantly go into an unrecoverable spin if stalled and mechanics hate to work on... Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

We've run our partnership for 20 years as of 2024, and have tracked this kind of stuff pretty closely, but only the past couple of years are relevant looking forward. Regarding engine/prop reserve, there is no way to set an hourly assessment that ensures the kitty is fat enough to avoid out-of-pocket costs at overhaul time, because you have no way of knowing when the engine will actually need an overhaul. Because of this, we choose to bill an hourly value that tries to approximate the market depreciation on the airplane as more and more time is put on the engine, which presently seems to be about $20-$25 per hour. This is related to the cost of overhaul and recommended TBO, of course, but it's not exactly the same. More importantly, the hourly depreciation is the same regardless of whether the airplane has 600, 800, or 1000 hours on the engine when the new partners buy in. To relate it to your specific question, I'd say $45/hour is much too steep, because the airplane isn't worth $45 less every hour it gets flown. It sounds like you're getting that $45 number by dividing your guess at overhaul cost by (2000-600), such that over the next 1400 hours you'll build up enough reserve to overhaul the engine for no out-of-pocket cost. Again, though, you have no idea when the overhaul will be needed, so that's not a realistic financial model. Instead, all the partners have to share the risk that the engine will need a premature overhaul, and everyone is on the hook for a share of the out-of-pocket cost (they can also share in the windfall if the engine goes well beyond TBO before needing an overhaul). The only way this works is if the hourly rate is based on market depreciation per hour, not the estimated cost of a future overhaul divided by a wild guess at how many hours it will be before that happens. To each their own, but I would not buy into a partnership that required me to pay an "initial reserve" on the engine, unless my buy-in price discounted the value of the airplane by exactly the same amount as the initial reserve. It kinda sounds like you're trying to get the incoming partners to cover some of the cost of the first 600 hours of depreciation, even though you were the only person enjoying the use of the airplane during that time. Regarding non-engine maintenance reserve, ours is currently set at $20/hour, and that's been adequate to cover status-quo upkeep. But we do a lot of owner-assisted maintenance, and we're also pretty formal about the difference between "upkeep" vs. "upgrade". For example, when our vacuum attitude indicator timed out a few years back, everyone paid out of pocket for the G5 installation, we didn't claim that installation of a G5 was just "maintenance" of the vacuum AI. We're not going to "maintain" our UBG-16 engine monitor by installing a GI-275 EIS when it malfunctions, or install a 201 windshield when the stock windshield gets too scratched up, and so on. If you choose to approach things this way, there is really no difference between the maintenance kitty for avionics vs. the maintenance kitty for tires, shock disks, heim joints, and so on. Things are maintained by replacing them with exactly the same thing. Anything different is an upgrade, subject to whatever voting procedures you use for upgrades. You didn't mention fuel costs, and that implies you plan on dry rates. Based on experience, I'd like to suggest you consider wet rates instead, that get adjusted a few times a year as fuel cost varies. I know this sounds like more trouble than a dry rate, but I think what most people miss is that it's simply not possible for every partner to always exactly replace the fuel they use at the end of a flight. Sometimes the fuel pump doesn't work the day you get home, and you're not able to drive back out to the airport the next morning to gas up. Other times one partner might ask another to deliberately leave the airplane down on gas so as to carry more payload, etc. In a wet-rate partnership, partners are simply reimbursed by the LLC for whatever fuel they buy, under any circumstances. In a dry rate partnership, events like the ones I mentioned create debts directly between partners rather than through the LLC, and that can lead to hard feelings. A wet hourly rate does deprive frugal partners of the opportunity to save money by gassing up at cheap airports and/or flying at reduced power, but the actual value of those savings is trivial in the scheme of overall airplane ownership, and in my opinion not worth the stress and risk to the partnership of creating fuel debts between partners. Finally, a word of advice: "add-on" partnerships like the one you're proposing sometimes fail because the previously sole owner never really treats the new partners like equals when it comes to how the airplane is operated. You've got to be at peace with the idea that you're *selling* the airplane, not merely lending it. On day 1 of the partnership, the new partners have a fully equal vote on how much gas to leave in the tanks, whether the airplane gets wiped down after every flight, how the seatbelts are stowed, what oil level to run at, whether the tow bar is left on the nose gear in the hangar or stowed in the baggage compartment, and so on. You need to avoid the feeling that you've got the airplane all figured out, and you'll teach the new partners how to operate it, and that can be pretty difficult. Regarding number of partners, we've had 3 or 4 at various times throughout the partnership, and that has indeed been a magic number for us. But... none of the partners fly overnight trips very often. Maybe 1-2 per year per partner. Obviously 4 partners isn't going to work very well if each partner wants to have the airplane away from its home base 90 days per year. That said, it's also worth noting that many people who buy into a partnership fly less than they planned/hoped, especially if it's their first airplane. I'm unconcerned when new partners approach our partnership stating they're going to fly 100+ hours per year, because I know that historically, most of them fly a little less than that the first year, and even less in the years after that. That knowledge makes it easy to be generous with scheduling. Most people are decent, and aren't going to take advantage in the long run, so you can build a really great partnership by being generous with scheduling and operating policies to your new partners in the early going. You might be a little annoyed that they don't put the airplane away the same way as you, but that seems pretty trivial in the long run when you build a great friendship, and every unexpected cost is split across the partnership rather than borne by you alone. Best of luck with your plans!

You can slow down the problem, but you can’t stop it because the grommets start to wear the holes in the cowling into an egg shape. The way you can stop it is to build a piece of fiberglass inside the cowling that is 1/4” high and contacts a piece of angled aluminum riveted to the inside of the boot cowl. And then it could take the shear load and the grommets can do their job by holding the cowling down.

The buyer would only turn it into an annual once the sale is consummated. No seller in their right mind would submit to putting their airplane under annual inspection for the pre-buy.

Rear in and one of the fronts lamb covers on.

Winter trip to Colmar (LFGA), Mooney was doing 172kts ground speed on +1200fpm while on cruise climb at 120kias, it’s cold and windy, the air was crisp

Well maybe. Maybe it’s the correct one? My io-360 wasn’t linear either. 4-6 was closer than 6-8. I think he should verify the part number and check it qt by qt while he fills before getting too worked up about it.

I was line service all through college (frankly my favorite job of all time lol). I always volunteered for fuel as I just like the time by myself. I’ve probably fueled 20k planes??? It’s not complicated. Unpainted metal. For me exhaust. Getting down to some unpainted part of the nose gear leads to prop contact. None of our hoses had stripes but all were grounded in the rubber. And agree, the risk of not being properly bonded comes while pumping. This falls under the “things I don’t worry about ever” category.

That’s more than I want to undertake, especially with a warning like this from MAPA. Bad karma is the last thing I need.

I had a lead-melting kit as a kid--made soldiers and whatnot with it using molds. Yay me? (I was at a debate once between G. Gordon Liddy and Timothy Leary, and Leary quipped that senility was the most psychedelic experience yet. Perhaps I should consider that a bright side?) --Up.

@LANCECASPER a panel like this would be about $77,000 out the door from us. That includes everything you see in his panel brand new with new harnesses. A 3 servo autopilot, IFD440, PMA8000G (newer version of his audio panel), Dynon EMS, Dynon COM, Dynon transponder, ADS-B in/out, 2x 10" HDX screens, D30 backup EFIS, and a new panel with complimentary engraving. Dynon has some prefab harnesses, but that doesn't go very far with a proper install.

The Baron that leaked had bladders, but they were aging and it is not definitive that the issues were caused by the G100UL. My personal suspicion is that the G100UL aggravated the aging issues and pushed it over the edge. That's just an opinion, though.

When I attended George's session at the Buckeye Air Fair this year he said straight out that it is hard on paint, so don't spill it on your paint, and that it may be harsher on seals and gaskets. I suspected then, and moreso now, that he was underplaying the concerns. He did flat out say that there were potential issues, though. So this is at least two aircraft (more if you count the Cirrus) that have sprung leaks or damage after storing G100UL. Neither is definitive or proof of anything, but I think both warrant concern and keeping a close eye on further developments. This is the sort of thing you really can't know until field deployment starts, and use still isn't widespread or even enough to get a good sense of what a complete deployment might look like.

The Zulu 3 is, imho, superior to the Delta Zulu. I've had a Zulu 3 for many years and it's been aweseome, and bought a Delta Zulu not long after they came out, thinking it'd be an upgrade. It is not. I prefer the Zulu 3. The Delta Zulu just adds features like CO detection, a zombie voice that randomly tells you about the battery charge level when you're trying to hear a clearance, and, only if you have an iPhone and the Lightspeed app, some control of the equalizer which is evidently advantageous for those with hearing impairment. I'm an Android user, and the marketing just said you'd need "the app", and not that it was Apple-only. The headset does not appear to be better in any way than the Zulu 3 other than the added features, which I do not need or use. Edit: Actually I do use one feature of the DZ. It comes with a rechargeable battery pack that I leave plugged into a USB port in the airplane. It's nice to not have to deal with the batteries, (so far). The bot voice telling you about the charge level is semi-annoying, though. Also, ANR is different from ANC (automatic noise cancelling) in that it leaves some of the spectrum uncancelled so that you still have situational awareness of what is happening around you. True ANC headsets are amazing, and pretty much completely separate you from the ambient noise, which is not good in an airplane that you're flying, especially with a reciprocating engine.

On any airplane I've ever owned where the interior was out for upgrades I made sure that all four passengers had lemo plugs (in addition to the standard plugs) - very reasonable upgrade while everything is out.

Once you have a new cylinder installed, there are ongoing maintenance requirements you will find here: https://www.ctcseminars.com/files/technical/8900_1_vol3.pdf The biggest take away is the 3 or 5 year hydrostatic test. If you fill the cylinder to capacity just before the test is due, you do not have to do the hydro test until the cylinder is empty and need refilling. For low-use operators, you might get several extra years before needing to do the hydro test. Very few mechanics understand this. But it is based on pressure cycles as much as calendar years. A low-use cylinder will have few pressurization cycles, and therefore will not degrade as quickly as a commercial operator who might fill the tank on a weekly basis. "A cylinder filled and installed in the aircraft before the requalification becomes due may remain in service until the cylinder is removed from the aircraft."

My new plane has LEMO plugs. I had a modified DC 10-13.4 originally, but caved and bought a DC One-XP earlier this year so I could more easily call for clearances with my cell phone. Like it very much! One less separate box/dongle. I bought a LEMO adapter (https://www.sportys.com/lemo-to-ga-headset-adapter-1.html) for $40, which allows me to use it in other planes (infrequent) or to plug in a mask.* I think this hybrid solution optimizes for my use-case (LEMO most of the time). HTH D *Note some folks have luck plugging a mask mic in parallel, for me the gains and squelch were different and it didn't work well.

WOW! I had this happen to me once, back in 2003, in my 231. I was at Stella Maris in the Bahamas and had left written instructions re towing and the limits, but it didn't matter--they bent the tubes. I don't find the damage until pre-flight--after I'd already cleared Bahamian Customs outbound and had a US Customs time cut to make. In the end, my insurance wound up covering it--despite my getting pictures, etc. The wrinkle was trying to subrogate an FBO in a foreign country. Don Maxwell did the repair--thankfully, it wasn't as bad as the apparent damage your pictures show! --Up. P.S. I love love loved this lineman's t-shirt at the 2022 Mooney Summit in Tampa (KTPF).

I’ll also say that the worst part of the upgrade is seeing how well the GX3, GTN 650xi and GFC 500 can fly compared to hand flying. I’ve completed about 10 hours cross country so far. It is absolutely better than anything you can imagine. I didn’t get the yaw damper but it flies great just needs a little right rudder on climb or it’s about 1/4 ball out of trim. I don’t mind holding it in as I still get to participate in the flying…. A little. It’s truly amazing system!

my tanks have not been leaking or sipping just to be clear. the paint job is not great yes, but I did not have this problem. I would have seen blue stain .... obviously. The team at Gami has been notified and they are cooperating with the AP/IA that is checking the tanks. As far as testing, if everything was found during testing there wouldn't be ADs, or bugs, or recalls so I am not surprised if problems show up in the real world. I will continue to update this thread as things unfold

I bet you're a hoot at parties. You aren't completely wrong though. Those numbers vary quite a lot with conditions, altitude, etc... obviously. I wasn't trying to say every time you take the aircraft up that you're going to get the exact same performance. Sometimes it's 172kts... sometimes it's 177kts. Sometimes it's 12.2gph... sometimes it's 13.3gph. For example, here is a photo of 175kts on 12gph @ 10.5k feet. (note, this is before we removed the Moritz gauges)

Completed!

^^^^ THIS ^^^^ But, it is Kalifornia where freedom is antithetical to the government's need to tell you how to live Not sure why I keep living here?

If we’re competing on the other end…I’ve got -6 knots in a 152 in Oklahoma (and I wasn’t really trying). I think I could have managed -10 or even -12 with some effort. Stalling with a 50 knot headwind probably not the best idea I’ve had, however. Personally I seem to have a knack for flying from point A to B with a headwind…then turning around and finding a headwind from B back to A. Just one of the many gifts I have. That and picking the slowest checkout register.

It could be from many different places. My leaking is worse than yours and I have had at least four different shops try to find it, including an MSC. I have had all the pushrod seals replaced twice, a complete hose kit installed and the thru-bolt seal replaced. The hose kit did make a difference but not near enough. Hundreds of dollars later I just decided to replace the engine. Don’t panic, you don’t have to replace your engine. My engine was old and sat idle for six years, sort of like the current owner .

Don’t kick yourself. I had my throttle microswitch stick on takeoff last year and it’s very disconcerting and disorienting. I’ve had my airplane for 10 years (and have ~5000hrs) and it still wasn’t a fun 5 minutes departing the class d and c before i was like, dang pull that breaker! Ahh, then I could think it through (i knew the gear was up from the red “unsafe” light). Ahh, it’s just the throttle. I cycled through idle once, reset the breaker, and all was well! I also cleaned out that switch on the ground! So you being new to the airplane, it was a good way to learn about all your systems and it turned out fine! The more you’re involved in maintenance, the better you’ll be able to handle these little issues.

Make sure it is the correct dipstick for that engine.

I don’t know if Cat will do aircraft engines, but in the rest of the world they are known as pretty much the best analysis people out there, but in truth I think there are all good from what I have seen. I don’t know what they cost either, currently I’m using Amsoil to determine a change interval on my motorhome based on soot load, because my engine pumps an abnormally large amount of exhaust into the intake for emissions and they include soot in their base analysis where many it’s an additional cost. A Diesel is very similar to aircraft in that you don’t change oil based on the oil breaking down you change it to get the junk out, Diesel is often soot but sometimes fuel, aircraft it’s often lead, but do any of the oil analysis companies tell you how much lead is in the oil? I’d be curious to see if LOP reduces it. I’m not necessarily a big fan of oil analysis as a tool for determining engine condition which is what it’s being marketed as, but it IS the best too in existence for determining the condition of the oil for determining oil change interval etc. It is after all called oil not engine analysis. The reason I’m not necessarily a fan of analysis is because for example your sample has elevated bearing metal, what is your course of action? What it usually is is excessive worry, but I’ve never seen an engine torn down based on analysis, but I’ve seen a great many from metal in the filter. It’s the filter in my opinion that’s the bird in the coal mine, not analysis.

I was a little bored today so I figured I’d see what I could get. I was still getting around 300 to 350 fpm at 100 IAS climb approaching 23.

Hmm, human nature I guess...but I always found it amusing that when the other guy makes money, he's greedy, when you make money, it's a 'fair' wage.

It says a lot about the ability for your average Mooney owner to manage maintainence on these airplanes when the only two M22s which will probably ever be flown somewhat reliably are owned by the Pietsch family who have been a Mooney Service Center in North Dakota for over 70 years (https://minotaerocenter.com/about-us/) and the Maxwell family who have had a Mooney Service Center for decades. (It's my understanding that Pietsch has owned the airplane since new and Maxwells took on their project just because they can.) Much of the rest of the small M22 fleet are rotting away on the ramp or are endless projects in hangars with little hope of ever flying again. Support for the engines is virtually non-existent. The parts to keep the airframe pressurized didn't work very well to begin with and have been out of production for decades. There is a reason this airplane didn't make it. Although it was FAA approved it was really more of a prototype which got shelved by the many changes in Mooney ownership in the late 60's-early 70's. The lessons learned called for a completely new design in the 80's with the M30 301 prototype, which still never got produced. Some of the lessons learned in the M30 301 ended up in the TBM 700, mainly the wing. If you want a pressurized piston airplane, save a ton of money, and actually have an airplane you can fly - buy a Piper Malibu, Mirage or M350. It's a proven design and has support. Be prepared for $10,000-$15,000 annuals regularly and some more expensive ones once in awhile.

If the positions were swapped and we were being forced to switch from G100UL to 100LL right now, the whole pilot community would be up in arms, not even counting the TEL's health effects. Lead fowling in plugs? 100LL is a non-starter! 100LL's performance per volume? 100LL is a non-starter! Can't use modern oils? 100LL is a non-starter! Sure, G100UL isn't perfect and by switching we are trading some flaws for other flaws. (I don't want my paint stained!) But overall I think G100UL is a better solution than continuing to use 100LL. Mostly because of the perception of the health effects of the TEL in airplane exhaust. And we are unlikely to ever have as much data on G100UL as we do on 100LL in terms of engine performance and longevity. Piston powered aviation has passed its peak; even if we magically switched everybody to G100UL now, there will never be as much avgas burned in the future as there has already been burned. Unless someone can state a specific testing metric and threshold that would be sufficient that we have not met, and why the current testing is insufficient, I am not going believe any arguments that 'more testing' or 'more time' is needed. I think this is just resistance to any change. https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/06/20/the-nirvana-fallacy-an-imperfect-solution-is-often-better-than-no-solution/

The instructor who did my Mooney transition training (ex-official Mooney factory instructor) advised me to use the round hole of the front landing gear to attach the ground, and I've been doing this ever since. (I mean the sides of the hole where you insert the towbar into the front gear.)

You can buy off karma, just send $100 to MAPA and no karma will be given. In fact maybe good karma given for an extra $100!

In the Beaver, we used to check takeoff flap setting by comparing with full aileron deflection because the indicator was often considerably in error. (Apparently, it is difficult to rig correctly - or at least that's the excuse the service department used). Full aileron deflection for all Mooneys (M20C and later) is 8 deg down. Takeoff flap deflection for M20C through M20J is 15 deg down which is nearly twice the aileron deflection. Takeoff flap deflection for the M20K and above is 10 deg down or slightly more than full aileron deflection. So, flap/aileron alignment depends on the model. Always verify what your CFI tells you (I'm a CFI, too and I'm wrong more than I care to think about )

To be fair, plenty of pilots have also forgotten the gear with bells and whistles and flashing lights screaming at them all the way down the final approach.

Thanks for coming on the forum and letting us know what and why it happened. A valuable contribution is an understatement. Don’t be surprised if some day you’re invited to present your experience and the way you handled it at a safety seminar.

Bonanza pilot much?

Love that Chem Trail switch

How about a Glory over Central Indiana today? https://youtu.be/Mu2DM89zq6M