Leaderboard

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

You can't justify your behavior, your actions, your thoughts by speaking poorly about the company whose policy you abuse. This is about you, not them. Trying to rationalize by "not needing it anymore" to fit their policy is B.S. The policy is meant for people who buy something with the intent to keep it and realize they don't need it. It's not meant for people to "rent" their tool; that's not the business they are in and you know it. While it wouldn't meet the common legal definition of theft, I think most people do view it as theft. We all know that some people with low morals violate the social contract to their advantage... advertising it to others/defending the behavior when called out on it take it to a whole other level. Just donate the tools to the airport, EAA chapter, etc if you don't want to take them home. Be a good person. Be an example.

After talking to several people at Lasar and others, I had a better understanding of what they were trying to do, and it actually makes sense from their perspective, albeit a touch myopic, but only because of how convoluted and difficult it is to explain from their perspective. In their view, they are trying to keep the Type Certificate alive and operating. If they cannot figure out how to make this work financially, the foreign owners will keep the TC active but take all the data and and engineering back to china and provide no support whatsoever. this will be a much different outcome than examples like the commander, because abandoning the TC actually makes production of parts by others much easier. If the TC is not abandoned then permission by the holder must be obtained. From their perspective I think the “support” was analogous to us paying an annual fee for access to this site. Aka keeping the TC alive and accessible. Even as I write this, I can see the challenge explaining this and soliciting funding for something so intangible and nebulous. If their plan was the better option than losing control of the TC I suppose remains to be seen… Selling parts that are not Mooney specific, at double the competitors price does not appear to be a well thought out strategy either, but personally, I see their efforts as more clumsy and desperate than exploitative. I could be wrong about all of this as well, it’s just my opinion, and based on limited information, and admittedly cursory understanding of the FAR as it pertains to this subject. PS.... Before I am flamed, I am not advocating for participation nor abandonment of this concept, just trying to share what I learned.

Wow, so it’s been a little over a year since this journey started! And it’s getting very close to completion. The plane is now at paint which by design was the final step. to date here is what I have done: changed landing gear pucks rebuilt 1 mag and replaced other with surefly new fine wire plugs new ignition harness mt prop and spinner New prop governor new engine driven fuel pump new fuel boost pump new alternator and hub all new engine hoses new engine mounts baffle tune up and replace as necessary one new turbo, one rebuilt new ELT flight stream 210 for flight stream for flight plan upload wass upgrade new transponder with Adsb in and out Type S conversion all new insulation with 1” SoundEX all new windows and windshield with 1/4” glass and UV protection completely new interior and glareshield new amsafe seat belts, inflators and sensors new rear seat belts new led light conversion new light lenses new tires lemo plugs in rear added complete brake overhaul with new hoses Most recent g1000 software compete detail of interior and fuselage once interior removed new style fuel cap install complete strip and reseal of tanks new comms antennas Bore scope review from savvy with prophylactic valve lapping change all intake valve seals (little less than one quart per 10-12 hours since) change all rotocoils new air filter new inflatable door seal & new baggage door seal. complete TKS system service, with many new lines, filter, prop tube and reglued all TKS strips punishingly thorough annual with Brian Kendrick. There is also and endless list of little things that I can’t even remember. The goal was to make this as close to a brand new plane as possible, and make it completely squawk free. The only item I haven’t done yet are the batteries. I’m planning to use the earthX batteries. The concords are 7 years old and test good for now, if the stc for the batteries was done I would have replaced, if it isn’t done by the time I need them I will install with a field approval. now…. I just have to convince the wife to let me keep it! PS sorry for poor interior photos, lighting was awful when I had my chance and when I went back to the paint shop it was masked off and unavailable to photograph. Really excited about the paint, Joe with Hawk is the real deal super nice guy, great communication, and lets me nitpick to my OCD’s content. Hoping to give birth in march!

I think we all really appreciate the time, effort, and money everyone at EarthX has put in to bring new technology to our aging fleet. And the time you've take to help improve our understanding through this forum. Not many companies take the time to help the consumer in that way. Thanks!

There is a model for this. Cal Pacific Airmotive owns the type and production certificates for the P-51 and TF-51 and is also an FAA repair station. They do a good business servicing the warbird community. Need a part for your P-51? They can supply it or make it if they need to. Need your P-51 rebuilt or converted to a TF-51? They can do it. They have been doing this successfully for two generations. But, having once had the experience of trying to resurrect a failing business, I know that the financial overhang from previous operations can present an insurmountable cash drain.

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

I removed my battery years ago and just hand prop it, best of all worlds.

Perhaps Craig could create a new category of posters: Most ignored.

Thankfully he's not a member of the Mooney community - just a low life thief that enjoys stirring up controversy on on-line forums. Not that AI is always correct on technical items, but on something as simple as this it's usually right on. When googling "Is buying an item, using it and returning it ethical?" - here's what AI says: Buying an item, using it, and returning it is generally considered unethical if done with the intent to use it once (like "wardrobing" or using a ladder for a single task) because it's essentially free rental and can be costly for retailers, but it's acceptable if the item is genuinely defective, doesn't fit, or wasn't as described, as that's within reasonable return policy use. The ethics hinge on your intention and the retailer's policy, but abusing liberal policies to treat items as single-use rentals is seen as exploiting the system, which can raise prices for others and harm businesses. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] When it's generally unethical (Intentional abuse) "Wardrobing": Buying an outfit for a single event, wearing it, and returning it. Single-use tasks: Purchasing a tool, using it once (e.g., a ladder), and returning it. Fraudulent returns: Returning items damaged by the consumer or returning used items as new. [4, 5, 6, 7] When it's generally acceptable (Legitimate reasons) Defective products: The item breaks or doesn't work as expected. Poor fit/appearance: Clothes don't fit or look right after trying them on at home (not wearing out). Changed mind: You genuinely decide you don't want or need it within the return period. Explicit business models: If a store promotes "try-it-at-home" models where returns are expected. [1, 3, 4, 7, 8] Why it's a moral issue It's like theft: Intentionally using an item and returning it for a full refund is seen as borrowing for free, which is a form of theft. Cost to businesses: Retailers incur costs from processing returns, which can lead to higher prices for all customers. Abuse of policy: Liberal return policies exist for customer satisfaction, but widespread abuse undermines the system for everyone. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8] AI responses may include mistakes. [1] https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ethical-to-return-something-to-a-store-after-you-have-used-it [2] https://www.facebook.com/LasVegasParentZone/posts/whats-your-thoughts-with-people-using-return-policies-for-when-items-are-just-us/1265986425159594/ [3] https://www.quora.com/Is-buying-something-using-it-for-a-few-days-and-then-returning-it-immoral [4] https://www.quora.com/Is-it-unethical-to-buy-clothing-electronics-with-the-intention-of-returning-it-later-1 [5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969698921003453 [6] https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/what-is-viral-wardrobing-and-why-shouldnt-you-practice-it [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1hv7ek/reddit_is_it_morally_okay_to_buy_something_from/ [8] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/magazine/return-policy-ethics.html - - - - - Since the person we’re referring to is amoral - he won't have the moral capacity to understand this and will continue to dispute it.

I had a conversation with Bill Wheat (RIP) THE GURU of Mooney flight testing while in Kerrville many years ago. We touched on spins in Mooneys in that conversation. He stated that he once (while doing spin testing for Mooney) had one stay locked in the spin for 5 (FIVE) full rotations He said he almost didn't get out of it and NEVER wanted to do it again. So, DON'T INTENTIONALLY SPIN MOONEYS !! Enough said!

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

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

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

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

If the engine is windmilling, it should work as long as it still has oil. You have nothing to lose by pulling the prop back. If it works, great! If it doesn’t , oh well, you tried.

The drain on the pilot's side wing is connected to the pitot system, not the static system, and would not be the culprit in a static system leak. If that wing drain is leaking, it will be reflected in airspeed errors. Static system leaks can come from the static drain on the belly as you mention, but also any of the static system tubing, and any of the instruments the static system tubing connects to. You'll have to look at all these tubing connections and instruments if you're chasing a static system leak. Having said that, even significant leaks in the static system are not going to cause huge errors in the pressure altitude reported by your transponder. At the speeds and altitudes your M20G flies, the air pressure inside the airframe that would "leak" into the static system is not really all that different than true static pressure sampled from the atmosphere. You can see this yourself by flying an airplane that does not have a static system leak, and opening the alternate static valve in flight. At piston airplane speeds and altitudes, the difference in indicated altitude with alternate static is only about 100-200 feet, which is generally not enough for ATC to notice and query you about. So if you're getting queries from ATC that your Mode C altitude is substantially different that what you report as your indicated altitude, it's more likely to be a problem with your transponder or altitude encoder or the wiring between them, than it is to be a static system leak.

Mooney Assurance: Greetings all, This is to inform all interested parties that the Mooney Assurance Program has been discontinued and is no longer in effect. All subscriber funds were held in a non-interest-bearing account and have been refunded in full to the individuals concerned. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Brett Stokes and John Smoker CEO, COO — LASAR Inc.

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

January 2nd I flew one holiday visitor to catch a commercial flight in HSV. Flew up there under the ceiling which was at 3,000 ft. Returned IFR into worsening conditions. Uneventful and fun. Love winter IFR in Alabama. Seldom is icing a concern.

I will repeat it again based on actual experience of doing it not hypothetically guessing, that pulling the prop level full back will increase your glide distance by a very noticeable amount if your engine failure is not loss of oil. At one point i was trying to get the propeller to stop completely as to test the “theory” that a stopped propeller is more glide efficient than a propeller that is windmilling. Unfortunately to get my prop stopped took me flying so slow and below L/D max that i was losing more glide distance from dropping out of the air than the stopped propeller was offsetting. The moment i lowered the nose the slightest amount to speed up toward L/D max the propeller started turning again and started to speed up but then you see the rpm’s level off and then drop back down as the oil pressure was built up enough to change the pitch of the blades. Suffice to say the mccauley prop governor takes very little oil pressure to effectively drive the prop to low rpms. Most likely by mandate or design.

Hi everybody I have a very good contact with Franck, thank you very much ! Swap of the empennage seems to be possible, I follow this way. Have a nice week-end Gontrand

About a month ago I had a static cert. it failed badly. It was the static drain. I unscrewed the T from the drain and removed the clevis pin. I took a 1/2 inch straight bristle brush and cut the loop handle off of it. The twisty wire fit through the hole in the static drain. I dipped the brush in mineral spirits, then ran the handle wire down through the hole and chucked the wire in my drill driver. I ran it at medium speed while pushing it up and down through the drain. After that, I blew it out with compressed air and cleaned it out with a twisted paper towel. I then chucked up the clevis pin in my drill driver, spun it and polished it with a solvent soaked rag. I then took a new O-ring. And coated it with a thin coating of DC-4. I put it all together and called the static test guy (Bash) and had him come back. It had zero leakage. The VSI on the test box was pegged at zero along with the altimeter not moving.

Thanks for the question and there are no limitations on where the battery can be located now and we do have FWF STC's currently. To have a TSO'd and STC'd product, the amount of testing is intense, extensive, and expensive and before the FAA granted us the no limitations on location authorization, we did need to pass all testing they asked to satisfy their requirements. This process just takes time ,.....years actually. (Side note: we are the only company in the world that has this no limitations on location authorization for certified aircraft and a lithium battery installation).

Then it sounds like you aren’t their customer. Why do you have to keep ragging on them? This company is willing to very transparently send a representative (the owner maybe) to honestly answer questions on a forum, and you and others just keep griping at them about how they aren’t as good as Concorde. THEY ARE NOT SELLING CONCORDE BATTERIES. They have said multiple times that Concorde Batteries are cheaper and have higher capacity and output. EarthX is selling an alternative to people who value weight savings. If that’s absurd to you, go check out the local backpacking store. Aircraft owners have made MUCH larger sacrifices in the name of saving 27 lbs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that’s the advantage of having options. According to Concorde’s specifications, the RG‑35AXC offers 33 Ah capacity, weighs 32 lbs, and delivers 440 CCA, with a current price of $520 at Aircraft Spruce. By comparison, the EarthX ETX900‑TSO provides 15.6 Ah, weighs only 5.4 lbs, and delivers 390 CCA, with a listed price of $699. Both batteries meet the FAA STC requirements and have been tested to ensure compliance with the performance and equipment standards for Mooney M20 12V aircraft. If your priority is maximum capacity and weight is not a concern, the Concorde battery remains an excellent choice. For those seeking a significant weight reduction—nearly 27 lbs lighter, the EarthX STC offers a compelling alternative. That’s the beauty of choice: pilots can select the solution that best fits their mission and preferences.

38yrs never used one, if your battery goes dead you really need to fly more. In the Mooney I am on battery #2 in 15yrs.

To me it was never clear what they were selling. Was it an investment they were selling that could have been fallen under SEC guidelines? Was it an equity ownership? Were you pre-paying for a future discount? Was it a shell game? Shouldn't there have been some kind of prospectus if they were holding your funds? Just a guess but I think someone figured out that however it was set up it wasn't legal. Maybe I'm wrong.

I have bought Mooney specific parts from them when they have them, but I won't knowingly overpay them for a part readily available somewhere else where I can order it and get it in a couple days.

I'll keep this brief. I have used the "ignore" feature for the first time. I like to come here to learn about flying and maintaining my Mooney from other Mooney owners and Mooney-knowledgeable people.

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

You kinda missed the point. If it will work for such a small fleet, it will work for a larger fleet. The cost is irrelevant. Parts will cost whatever it takes to make the parts business successful. There will always be competition from used parts to keep a check on prices, but new will always be more expensive.

We had an EarthX in our RV-6. It ate our alternator. After every start, it would draw 60 amps from the alternator for about a minute. The alternator gave up the ghost. So... Sticking with the heavy "normal" batteries in the Mooney for us...

The Super Decathlon is one of the most enjoyable planes I've ever flown. Did aerobatics and upset training after basic tailwheel in the Citabria. You can get very comfortable going in and out of spins in that. A very different plane from the Mooney, though.

Great question and our certified battery for this replacement is the ETX680-24-TSO, weighs 7.2 pounds and costs $999. This is the battery that all of the Cirrus G7's and new SR20's come with.

Yeah, don't spin the Mooney. Spin characteristics are not as friendly as some utility-category training airplanes, like C150s or C172s. I would suggest getting spin training in a C150 or C172, though. C150s are fun to spin, although it takes forever to climb back up to altitude to do it again. Some of the schools here were spinning their C172s fairly regularly and I'd hear them making calls in the practice areas, "Look out below!" Anybody who suggests a falling leaf in a Mooney has probably never flown a Mooney. Bad idea. Don't do that.

@SilentT I'm trying to locate a PDF regarding Mooney spin characteristics written by Mooney test pilot Bob Kromer. Thought it might be in MS downloads, but it isn't. Bottom line is there are very good reasons that intentional spins are prohibited in Mooneys. From what I remember it is imperative to apply anti-spin control inputs immediately and agressively. I'll post the file if I ever find it. While a student at ERAU in 1977 we all routinely and regularly practiced the 3 basic stalls in the M20C, both dual and solo. They are certainly nothing to be fearful of, but a certain amount of respect is warranted as with any aircraft. There was one occasion where I spoke to a student, who, as an observer from the back seat on a dual flight, had the flight instructor fail to intevene early and an inadvertent spin was entered. The altitude loss was significant, and he felt they'd never recover. It had happened earlier in the week and this guy was still visibly shaken just recounting the experience. If you want to become skilled at spin recorvery, find a reputable company that teaches aerobatics in a certified aircraft. I did exactly this in 1994 in a Pitts S2A with a former IAC National Silver Medalist. This comprised every possible botched stall entry and covered both upright and inverted spins. Trust me it will be the best money you'll ever spend.

I think the sound is designed to drown out the radar reflections

As long as you can make redline rpm just before liftoff and can adjust the prop to 2400-2600 rpm for cruise, then everything is fine. Most use the cruise rpm that is smoothest and will generate desired power when combined with available manifold pressure. Personally, I take off and climb at 2700 rpm and cruise at 2500 rpm unless above 10,000’ when I use 2600 rpm to get more power from the reduced manifold pressure available at full throttle.

The blue lever should be touched at a minimum, 2 times while inflight: When setting cruise power, moving the RPM to the desired RPM for cruise. Prior to landing, set at max RPM to have full available takeoff power in the event of a go-around. Outside of those 2 times, it's pretty normal not to need to touch it again .

@Cruiser73 Pitot / Static Drains: Spring: LC-022C-4 Clevis Pin: MS20392-2C15 / AN393-13 O-ring: MS28775-008 / AN6227-3 If you're replacing the o-ring, you should probably replace the spring and clevis pin as well. They often get corroded and worn over time, and at least the static drain is easy to replace. The location of the pitot drain makes it much more difficult...probably won't do that one unless you're having issues. I ordered a few of these from Dan Reisland at Lasar a while back. They had all in stock and were inexpensive at that time. As a side note, usually the avionics shop can use something to seal the drain to see if the leak goes away when the drain is sealed to suggest that the issue is the drain. But for an unpressurized aircraft that has two static ports...adding a "third static port" with a leaky drain usually only fails the leak test but shouldn't have a huge effect of the static system readings.

I'd just like to say that I always appreciate a manufacturer who will admit to the negatives of their products. I wish more people would do it. I don't fly IFR and manual gear, so the battery drain doesn't worry my so much. I'd certainly consider one. I understand the difference for IFR use, but in my case, using the lightest technology in an aircraft seems a bit of a no brainer to me.

Good lord! Get a room already!

@EarthX Inc It's good to see this technology advancing for our 12V system planes. I will consider it for my M20C when my currrent Concorde 35AXC warrants raplacement. However, the 15 amp-hr capacity of your battery vs. the 33 amp-hrs of my current battery still leaves me a bit wary. When the charging system fails on our planes (a common event), high battery capacity becomes a critical safety feature for us.

Spent most of my career as a EE; conclusion: I don't trust electronics! I'm not about to leave something electric plugged in and hooked to my plane in a closed hangar for possibly a week, or more. Small risk, I suppose, but catastrophic if it catches on fire and burns down a hangar row. No reason to assume that risk when I've never had an issue with my battery running down from sitting. Edit: I actually think continuous use of a battery minder will 'mask' a battery that is beginning to fail....you pull your plane out of your hangar and it starts right up because it's been on the minder...then you go to start up for your return flight, possibly days later, and the battery is dead. Without the minder, a failing battery will start to show signs BEFORE you depart your home drome. In fact, that is exactly how I knew it was time to replace my battery; slow cranking at MY hangar, not out in the boonies!

Caveat Emptor when it comes to the less-expensive job. Re-work is always more expensive and time-consuming in the end. Paul in MN has the waiting list for a reason. Don’t waste your time with anyone else. He’s done work for me twice. Worth every penny and then some, If I were you, get on the list and check with him frequently in case there’s a cancellation and be ready to move if he can accommodate you earlier.

It Shouldn’t need GPSS steering as the G175 should already have that in the software?? Some G430’s originally had the capability to steer. Steering to me by a Garmin unit is the capability for the unit to draw the curved magenta line to the course line. Other units draw a direct line. I’m sure the 175 draws the curved line. A log entry might look like “Installed Accutrak IAW factory drawings.” (Potentially it was already installed) “Connected analog lateral signal from existing Nav head.” Turning the PC/AP on and off doesn’t change. The “Auto Pilot” ie the PC system was factory installed. The nav head and CDI were previously installed, even by a Garmin STC. Enabled the analog signal and connecting it to an input I interpret as a minor modification. No mechanical changes to the existing auto pilot were made. -Matt

Glad the propeller is sorted and you are back in the air. Yes the Alps were gorgeous these days, we spent few days around and it was a blast ! Morzine heliport Annemasse with Mt Blanc Avoriaz above clouds

I've just done a lot of fuel tank work in the past 25 years. People make such a big deal about Mooney tanks. A reseal isn't complicated, but is time consuming. It is actually one thing in the maintenance manual and SB that is somewhat detailed. Cost me under $500. I would rather do a Mooney tank than re tape and put a bladder in a C-182. Worst fuel tank jobs I have done are Hawker, Westwind, and Sabreliner though.