Leaderboard

As others are mentioning, I just fly it and compensate for whatever drift is happening with either a crab (at higher altitude) and either kick it out at the end of the flare or transition to a slip, whatever seems to be best at the time. I usually use full flaps even in heavy crosswinds. If you add speed, it'll have to come off, anyway, for the airplane to land, and you want a fairly firm landing rather than skipping along with too much speed, so it's kind of a tradeoff to add speed for gusts. Just don't slow down too much until you're low if there is a gusty headwind component. Coming back from a long cross-country we landed in the remains of Hurricane Hillary as it was passing over Deer Valley, and it was something like 23 kits gusting 35 directly across the runway. That's the only time I've used the *entire* runway, and I landed on the upwind side of the centerline, but it wasn't nearly as dramatic or difficult as I'd anticipated. Landed in 21 kts gusting 27 directly across the runway the other day and the GF thought it was a normal landing...so I felt like I did my job okay.

If we didn’t have pucks, we’d have leaking strut O rings to worry about, or maybe cracking on the “flex” point of a spring gear leg. Actually, I think I like the pucks more after writing that! Airplanes require maintenance. Pucks are expensive for what they are, sure. I just hope they’re available when I need a set!

The question wasn’t what is smart or prudent. Everybody needs to figure that out for themselves. Back when strong crosswind landings were a daily occurrence, if I couldn’t track the runway with the rudder pinned to the floor, it was time to find a better runway. The OP asked a question. I answered it as best I could. Also, I never carried extra speed. I wanted that airplane to be done flying when the wheels touched down. As has been mentioned, if it takes extra speed to control the plane, you will lose control of it as you slow down. If you cannot track the runway, it is time to go around.

So what's the job going to cost $2400 maybe? That's $20 a month for 10 years. We burn more in taxi gas than that. Cost of admission

Aircraft in for annual, thought I only had to do the 100hr lube on the Duke Actuator based on the previous AD Compliance Sheet and previous logs...Come to find out that the last shop that conducted the AD failed to do the 200hr inspection, yet annotated that they did..they did the 100hr lube and annotated that next inspection was in 200 hours. So, tomorrow the actuator will be removed so they can do the inspection, I can only hope that the gears, only being 15 years old, have been properly maintained and lubed over that time...because as you know, if they need to be replaced the aircraft is AOG. On a good note, Don Maxwell was the last Service Center to do the teardown and inspection. Come on Lasar, time to have some gear sets manufactured...had hoped, since we have been working the gear issue for almost a year now, that we would have resolution prior to needing the inspection.. V/r Matt

I guess that will be matter of opinion then. For some people 100 may be a large number, for some it may not. I think when aircraft safety is concerned any factor that causes 7-10% of aircraft in the fleet to experience problems is significant. Regardless of what part of the plane is incompatible with the new fuel, the fact remains that G100UL is not what the current GAMI narrative is pushing, i.e., drop-in replacement for 100LL that is safe for use across the entire piston fleet. Personally, I could not care less if FBOs decide to sell the stuff and potentially expose themselves to product liability suits so long as there is a choice for pilots no to buy it. GAMI is pushing for government mandate that will eliminate the choice. Just curious about couple of points: 1. What is the potential liability for the A&P who "installed" teh STC on an aircraft that is subsequently rendered unairworthy as a result of material incompatibility. 2. How many of the vocal advocates for the G100UL actually put it in their own planes? Put your money where your mouth, or keyboard, is and take a chance on this marvel of modern chemistry that will save us from doom caused by the minuscule amount of lead in 100LL but is shrouded in secrecy about testing.

The new systems are required to be on at all times (hence both positions are ON) so the guarded switch isn't needed anymore. We measure loading in gallons and it's injecting into the exhaust for proper atomization and dispersal at low altitude. It allows a more targeted distribution, which certain agencies really prefer. I put mine in when I did my avionics upgrade and the grant money provided for installing it covered most of the labor for the entire upgrade. There are several different agency contracts going right now, though not as many as with the last administration. The "Mind Control" formula is paying the best at the moment and almost covers my fuel costs. I've had some ethical concerns about it but, avgas is expensive and you've got to save where you can. I can't really divulge too much about who is financing and providing the chemicals other than to say that it's likely who you would expect and a couple of others you may not have heard of before. They'll probably contact you since you've expressed interest, dealing with "They" has been easy, I haven't much enjoyed interactions with "Them" though so ask around the hangar before getting on board with a program to see what others think of it.

Call me paranoid, but I use a tail weight that has a fixed length. I use my wing jack along with a cherry picker that I attach to the lifting point on the engine. One inch up at a time on all the lifting points until all wheels are 2 inches off the deck. My concrete tail support is actually a wash tube filled with bags of sand that hold my umbrella stand with the fixed height mounting point (all that is sitting on a dolly so it’s easy to move around). With all 4 mounting points in place and the plane unable to rock, I still get in gingerly. Or MaryAnn And it’s returned to the deck for the evening if my mechanic doesn’t finish underneath in one day. (Never rely on hydraulic cylinders or the possibility of an earthquake)

I've seen these type of threads on multiple forums and while our Mooney do well in X-wind, I still don't like these threads. Some members misremember or exaggerate the numbers and mislead others about the capabilities of the airplane. Touching down is the easy part... slowing down and taxing in are the real challenge. The closest I've ever come to damaging an airplane was getting out of a C140 when a gust almost took the airplane into the hangar door. The bigger the number, the more questionable becomes the judgement if you damage the airplane. My suggestion is to use a number you're comfortable with or divert instead of going by someone's max number on the internet.

@1967 427 called it. Manual 106 lists the CHT probe as pn AN5546-1. This is the mx manual, not the IPC. @Vance Harral is correct, this probe is a thermistor, but the ‘67F uses a different probe than his ‘76F. The AN5546-1 probe is secure into a bayonet fitting that is screwed into the cylinder head. If a JPI or E.I. engine analyzer is installed that is not certified as primary, then a ring CHT probe is used in conjunction with the bayonet fitting and the factory CHT probe is retained to be legal. This is a picture of an Alcor CHT probe, equivalent to the AN5546-1, from Aircraft Spruce. It’s a two-wire probe. This is a picture of an E.I. ring CHT probe installed under the factory bayonet CHT probe fitting. On my ‘63C, I wrapped the factory bayonet and E.I. ring probe together in the fire sleeve and think I get a much more accurate reading.

How many Mooneys get checked at each annual for the proper "over center" torque values with the proper tools? If yours doesn't (or your mechanic doesn't have the special tools) then you need a different maintenance shop! Its quick, its easy- WITH the proper tools. NO excuse for not doing it every year. Vintage Mooneys today are basically scrap if this happens.

As mentioned, techniques vary.I don’t add speed for direct crosswinds with no headwind gust factor. And I gave up the reduced flaps 26 years ago in favor of a slower touchdown. Beyond that it depends on how strong a crosswind. With most, a simple crab down to the runway, transitioning to a slip in the earliest part of the round out. Stronger winds might have me test out the slip higher as a reality check. And don’t forget the most important part - movement to full taxi crosswind correction in touchdown. That’s where most crosswind landing accidents happen. The pilot neutralizes the controls and gets pushed off the runway,

Lube the hinge bearings with a light oil such as LPS 2 and lube the rod ends with Tri-Flow. It's covered in section 5 of the service and maintenance manual.

I’ve known and met with a few MSCs they are all about the same. They have a Mooney guru as the boss, but the boss doesn’t spend that much time working on airplanes, he spends most of his time running the business. There is a constant stream of green behind the ears mechanics that cycle through these places that do most of the work. The boss tries to Check everything, but things can slip through the cracks. That is the reality.

Interesting... Hopefully @Thedude was told going into his purchase by multiple people that the first Annual (at any shop) is going to be expensive. They are not going to know the plane and they are not going to know what the prior mechanic had on a list of rotating maintenance to keep the plane safe, but to spread out the costs. So I think any shop is going to make sure everything is "fixed" before signing off. But if you go to a non Mooney shop, you don't know what Mooney specifics might be missed - or screwed up.

Whole again finally! Garmin had to replace the whole board in the 327. Everything checked out and working again… Autopilot scheduled for the first week of September. Did IFR flight today to confirm everything… IFR training on Saturday, and, need more hours on the engine ;o) -Don

The problem is that according to GAMI there are NO issues. Everything seen was either "due to 100 low lead" or due to "inadequate construction and maintenance." Braly won't deny any of the findings in any of the Luvara videos, and admits that he doesn't feel they were tampered. Braly posts, "I do not accuse the sponsor of fabricating the results. I do dispute the significance of the results as applied to the real world." So we're at an impasse. You either feel that the aircraft having issues may be similar to your aircraft or you believe that "G100UL is a 100% drop in fuel without modification and invisible to the the pilot and the aircraft." The biggest problem with this, is that GAMI won't openly release what was tested or how they tested it. Their "hard data" released to the public/potential users is a series of garage YouTube videos that due to their methods are impossible to replicate even by them. The STC process is being left up to the owner and A&P/IA applying the STC to determine if this is safe and appropriate for your airframe IN ITS CURRENT STATE. GAMI denies any issue, but doesn't deny pointed testing showing detrimental effects and mirroring the issues currently being seen in the field... On one hand GAMI says "you don't need to change anything, it's 100% drop in" but when you run into issues GAMI says "oh you had substandard maintenance because the industry uses Viton materials and teflon lined hoses." Only the industry still has nitrile and Buna-N pervasive throughout the fleet and even in new products! So at the end of the day it's buyer beware. You might have issues and if you do it's going to be very costly to fix, and you're unlikely to get any support from GAMI (in the absence of legal action). My question for people with a view similar to @Pinecone, is how many problems should be required to admit there is an issue that needs to be addressed? Is the threshold a crash or fatality? Or would that still be due to "inadequate construction' and "poor maintenance"? This has devolved in a circular argument of talking past either other, and taking data points of field use and claiming these are all poorly maintained aircraft that are old and have had such a corrosive life with 100LL that's causing all the issues (despite not posting any proof that this was actually the case). With the comments from Braly online and with his Consent Decree Declaration, I don't think you're going to see any "hard data" coming from GAMI. But I suspect that you'll continue to hear that "it's all due to 100LL" and our "inadequate" Mooneys...and for me that just doesn't ring true. I'd really love to see G100UL go though the PAFI/EAGLE process.

This idea of jacking up your airplane while in the hangar has been discussed before, and I even know of one Mooney operator at my local airport who does it. But I find it ridiculous, and a good example of inappropriately de-emphasizing a significant risk to address a much less interesting/important risk. The risk of a Mooney falling off the jacks is pretty small if it's only done once per annual. It's significantly higher if you're doing it literally every time you fly the airplane. The cost of the airplane falling off the jacks would be 50x the cost of a set of gear pucks (for the average Mooney), not to mention weeks/months of repair time (or infinite if the aircraft is totaled). It requires extra equipment to maintain, extra procedures, and extra caution telling everyone who comes by your hangar to be careful and not lean on the airplane. On a lesser note, it makes you the laughing stock of the airport: "Haha... I guess those Mooneys are OK airplanes. But the landing gear design is so dumb that owners jack up their airplanes in the hangar". Overall, just a really bad idea. To each their own, but if this really became de rigueur for Mooney owners, I'd sell the airplane.

Just soak 'em in G100UL for a bit, they'll soften right up

The OEM CHT probe on that vintage of Mooney is not a thermocouple. It's a thermistor, which works on a different principle, and uses the engine itself as the ground connection (hence why there is only one wire to the probe). CHT probes from JPI and Insight are 2-wire thermocouples, they simply don't work with the original CHT gauge in the Garwin cluster. That's the whole reason "piggyback" thermocouple probes are used when a non-primary engine monitor is installed in an aircraft which needs to retain the OEM CHT probe. It allows the original thermistor to stay installed to drive the original gauge. This is the CHT probe that fits our 1976 M20F: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/rochcht.php. Older M20F models may use the same one, but double-check your parts manual

My plane is missing the trim jackscrew boot. I’ve considered replacing it but have subsequently decided I don’t think it is worth it. The jack screw is already in an enclosed area and gets cleaned and lubricated at least once a year. Additionally as has been brought up already it does make it more difficult to service the mechanism with the boot in place. Weighing the benefits and drawbacks I don’t see a compelling reason to replace it.

According to the service and maintenance manual, the 100 series remove from below and the 2000 series remove from the top. Service & Maint manual.pdf

True, but I was referring to the very common error of a pilot neutralizing the crosswind correction on touchdown instead of going to full crosswind correction. It makes a difference even with a light crosswind. I can't count the number of times I've seen a pilot having trouble while rolling down the runway after landing, trouble which disappears as soon as I remind hem to turn those ailerons into the wind.

You're older than I thought!

Plain old house floor wax works well on the control shafts. Wipe it on. let it dry for a minute and polish it off. The big yellow cans that Johnson made are no longer available. When lubing any of the rod ends be sure to see if the move and rotate a little and are not frozen to the ball itself.

If you haven't already found it, there is a really useful feature that is kind of hidden and not well described in the Pilot's Guide. The Info Page normally shows the GPS Satellite Status, but there is a tab for a second page called Data Fields. This tab allows you to customize a large array of data fields to provide all sorts of useful information. The available field options are described in Appendix A of the Pilot's Guide.

I set this page up on the MFD in front of my wife’s seat to answer all of the questions she has had on our flights to see the kids and grandkids. How much longer? What time will it be when we get there? How fast are we going? Do we have a tailwind? Are we going to have enough gas? Where’s the closest bathroom? Now she sets the XM radio to her favorite channel and answers her own questions.

Any tire is legal so long as it meets the size and ply specs in the TCDS. For Goodyear tires: Flight Custom III has deeper tread and a Kevlar belt and will last longer. Flight Special II is cheaper. Usual recommendation is for Flight Special II unless you do a lot of landings. Then FC III is probably the better buy. https://www.goodyearaviation.com/resources/pdf/Aviation-Databook-2022.pdf

And ,the thing that causes the newer nylotron balls on the yoke shafts to bind is is lubricating them. The older manuals said to lubricate them but the newer manuals say to leave them dry. Lubing them attracts dust and gums them up. Keep the shafts clean and a little wax on the shaft doesn't hurt. Just don't spray lube into the balls.

Just keep a coaster in one of the pockets and set it on window at night.

Just got the FedEx notification for the clamp from AirPower. I spoke to Rhonda this morning, apparently whatever she looked at was more accurate than what Tina looked at. Or it was all accounted for by the time you called @Ragsf15e.

Call now since it is your first and you're a new customer. They'll probably tell you to call back, which is fine. But get on their radar now. And are they the shop you are currently using for oil changes and any other minor things that come up? You want to build a reputation with the shop you're going to be using, and it works both ways. I recently moved, so I'm building a new relationship with the shop here. But I could call the shop I used for decades a day or two out and see if I could come in for a quick oil change and seldom they'd say no. They'd also put in a loose booking for my Annual before I even called (months out), because they knew when I typically liked to have it done. But they also had no problem calling me and asking if we could move or delay things if they had an AOG (Aircraft On Ground) for someone that just came in with a problem that was going to prevent a trip or some other timely issue. I didn't have a problem since it was a two way street that worked out for both of us. (I think I prob. only got one or two calls over the years asking for a day or so delay.)

Don't California my Texas

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/march/25/faa-rules-avgas-ban-violated-grant-assurances

Crosswind not to fear. Keep the upwind wing low bro'. Rudder is your friend.

Exactly - I dont actually compute with the trig functions to two decimal places of accuracy on an irrational number when I am flying. My main point is I sometimes get the feeling that some people speak of cross wind across the runway that is a fierce 30 knots and they land it but actually its 45 degrees off perpendicular so they didnt really land a 30 knot cross wind and then they tell themselves it was fine and then another time it really is 30 degrees 90 degrees off and they are expecting it to be the same relying on mistaken math.

Tru dat, and both my phone and tablet have a calculator, but I'm not looking down long enough to use it (maybe if it had buttons I could feel?). I read somewhere one time a little thing to approximate the crosswind component: 30° off runway heading = 1/2 windspeed 45° off runway heading = 2/3 windspeed 60° off runway heading = windspeed This is mental math that I can keep track of, and it's close enough to keep me safe. I rarely fly when winds are > 20 knots on the ground anyway, just lucky I guess. (And I've only been to Wyoming in my Mooney the one time ).

I apologize in advance for the thread drift. But, here’s an idea. You might consider putting a guarded cover on the ‘Chem Trail’ toggle switch. Per the STC installation instructions (I’m positive). Is your chem trail hopper measured in oz, lbs, or gallons? And, what kind of spray set up? A simple ‘relief tube’ disguise, I suspect. How do you get your C high enough to create the proper disguised ‘contrail’? Is there a thrust component benefit with actuation to get you high enough? Is this STC still active? Where can I go to get one? One of the 3-letter agencies, I suppose?

Short body, short rudder. Last week I landed on RW17, 75’ wide. Wind was 240 degrees, 17kt G22. And it was gusty. I elected no flaps for the higher speed. It was sporty, but did not feel unsafe. Yeah, it skipped a couple times with the excess airspeed, but I road the upwind wheel for a bit and it settled down fine. Skip @PT20J is right, the nose needs to be centered when it touches down. I did pretty good, but it wasn’t perfect.

One other thing I notice is that if that was my autopilot wiring from that servo I would want it in spiral wrap to protect it. Nothing worse that chasing down an intermittent problem caused by a chafed wire. (https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/spiralwrap.php?clickkey=14760)

So, after a VERY short time in the field we have a 7% (70,000 ppm) issue! That troubles me greatly. YMMV, I guess

Depends on airspeed. More airspeed = more rudder authority. One of the reasons partial flaps helps. If you can keep your speed up sufficiently and fly it on to the runway, you’ll hit the wingtip before you run out of rudder. Misjudge and you’ll balloon viciously. Realistically, though, I agree with Rich. About 35 knots.

WOW! I'm going to stick with Mark at Top Gun. The INSPECTION is performed quickly (a few days) and I get a very detailed, organized, 'punch list' with each item clearly labelled 'airworthy' or 'discretionary'. I 'sign off' on what I want done and return via email. AFTER that, the work is performed. Typically, when I call I can speak with someone immediately; if not, I've always had my call returned within a day. Emails answered within a day, as well.

On a long body it is somewhere between 35 and 40 KT, landed at KIAD RWY 01 with 35 gusting 40 Kt from 270 about a year ago, runway is 150ft wide, lined up with one of the high speed taxiways, use full flaps, reduces the risk of a stall or tail strike in gusty conditions, started on the right side of the runway and traversed it to the left towards the high speed taxiway, nobody complained

I would definitely not use that descriptor. It's an incredibly small number of planes in the fleet that have used G100UL in total and it's yet to be determined if they've "not had any issues." Additionally, ~300-400 gallons per month is a tiny amount of the fuel sales in the area.

Interesting, you're not even a supporter of the forum, and yet you post an idea for a product you want to sell to members of the forum. You're not open to any contrary ideas about your product and then when you get one, instead of defending your product you attack the person by name-calling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(slang)). Sounds like your customer service would be amazing. Sign me up for two.

This is an important point that wasn’t mentioned enough. I’ve seen too many pilot set up based on theory and then fly with what I call blinders, flying the theory rather than the conditions. I’ve watched pilot land in one main when the crosswind disappeared, as though landing in the upwind main first were the goal rather than the result of good technique. Once moving to the slip, whether on long final or the last moment (two ends of a continuum), it’s centerline square to the chest* with whatever rudder and aileron input is necessary to keep it there. For every landing. (Crab is the same - center of the chest, although not square.) *square to the chest - people use different visuals. Between the legs, between the eyes, square to the yoke. They all do the same thing.

You got to work hard to. screw up a 757 landing.

I did a quick look at Part 25 and it specifies a max vertical speed at touchdown of 10 fps (600 fpm) at max landing weight.

Validate the gauge, easiest way I know of is to remove the sender and put it into boiling water, the outside of the sender might have to be grounded to the engine.