Leaderboard

I can see a benefit from this for beginners but I don't like this whole written set in stone type minimums. It's all relative. For example crosswind... I wouldn't put a specific number on it. It depends on the size of the runway, if it's a steady or gusty crosswind, takeoff or landing? On a short narrow runway, my tolerance for an extreme crosswind is much lower than on a long wide runway. I find ceilings and visibility to be a funny one as well. Depends on the terrain, approaches available. Heck it even depends on each other. Lower ceilings with great visibility is a bit different than somewhat higher ceilings with terrible visibility. Tolerance for turbulence also depends on things like passengers, expected duration, fatigue. There are days when you just aren't up for taking a beating as much as other days. I can definitely say that there have been some brutally difficult "nicer" days and some fairly easy "very low" days. Lately my minimums have been mostly guided by personal condition more than the flying. Too much work/child/family exhaustion makes me less energetic/focused to be taking it to the lower limit. My absolute biggest risk-mitigation tool though is to care less and make loose enough plans that the flying is never mandatory. Things like leave a day early, be ok coming back a day late, or even scrap the trip because there would be too much pressure. The personal minimums go right out the window when get-there-itis takes over. Managing and preventing get-there-itis goes a far longer way than writing down some numbers. If you're not in a hurry to be there, you'll "know" if things are within personal mins or not on a case by case basis.

I recall filling out my personal minimums sheet when I got my instrument. And I do the same if teaching a newly minted instrument pilot - but it's really as a reminder for them to always be thinking about managing risk. IMO there are far too many overlapping factors to just apply a quantitative risk assessment to dispatch. It's really a qualitative process and takes years to find the right solution. I have one rule - always have an out. That can manifest in a number of ways (ie - never taking off at an airport I cannot land at). I'm ok pushing an approach down to mins if I know I have several options 30-45 mins away.

Part 4.

I did not, but I actually did something different, i filed a claim with the county to lower the value of my plane and hence the prop tax in California. Since the fuel is sold by the city thus the county it’s their fu.k up, believe it or not i got an email today and they will, now we are just negotiating by how much

I applaud the concept of personal minimums. But when I give my students the speech about them, I treat them like grownups, and explain that reality often makes it difficult to employ the concept the way it's written in the books. In fantasy land, one sets personal minimums for weather, pilot rest, and so forth, that start out very conservative, and are gradually stepped down as the pilot gains experience. This fantasy can actually work OK in reality if your life moves slowly, the frequency at which you fly changes smoothly, and the weather where you live is broadly varied. In reality, most of my students experience sporadic patterns. For the pilot, it's common to do a lot of flying in a short time, then have long layoffs when money or life work load gets in the way. Weather-wise, where I live, winds tend to be either mostly calm, or gusting 20+ with shear; and ceilings are either very high or very low. So this idea that you gradually push your minimums down (and up) with experience and currency, just doesn't work out in practice for me and my kin. Two specific examples that are common in my area illustrate the point. First, the idea that you can do something like step up your crosswind tolerance in increments by first flying on a day with 5 knots crosswind, then soon thereafter 7, then soon thereafter 10, and so on, is laughable - that just doesn't happen around here. The reality is that you have to set your sights directly on 15G25, and go out with an instructor on those days until you're willing to accept that level of risk by yourself (and we don't lie to ourselves - a 15G25 crosswind always adds risk to takeoff and landing no matter how comfortable and proficient you are). With regard to IFR minimums, there's very little flyable IMC on the front range of the Rockies where I live. The clouds almost always have ice in the winter, and convective activity in the summer, and they're rarely within 2000' of the ground. So you're not going to "ease down" your approach minimums from 1500' AGL to 1000' to 700' and so on. You practice those ILS/LPV's under the hood to 200' AGL as if your life depended on it (because it does). Then you go out on one of those rare flyable IMC days and shoot a low approach for real. People with real life work/family schedules around here actually get to fly IMC a couple of times a year, if they're lucky. But if you make it work, it becomes reasonable to take that trip to the coast where benign IMC is more common. In the end, I've come to feel the same way as @bigmo about it. I actually care less about the theoretical concept of holistic personal minimums for a complete flight, than I do about "outs". I tell my students it's OK to take off if they judge it reasonable to take off from the airport they're already sitting at, and if they can reasonably expect to return right back to that airport. That keeps them reasonably safe for the first 10 minutes of the flight. Everything after that is dynamic: if you don't like the winds at your destination (maybe the look of them while 100 miles away, or maybe an actual aborted approach when you get there), can you find winds that are less and/or more aligned with a runway somewhere else? Do you have the fuel to get there? If IMC, where is the nearest VFR, or at least the nearest 1000' ceiling? These things need to be re-assessed several times per hour while enroute, and - this is critical - you need to be fully willing to wind up somewhere other than your original destination, even if you have to pee in a bottle on the way there. I've come to feel that some of the most important items in my safety arsenal are a credit card, toothbrush, change of underwear, and my work-over-VPN laptop in my flight bag. Having that stuff with me on every flight makes it much easier to divert somewhere with favorable conditions and wait things out. It turns out to be really rare to actually do this. But it's only once I developed the mindset, that I began to truly feel like I was correctly managing risk while traveling GA.

I think that the lack of transparency was significant factor in the decision as well as the interpretation of the term "commercially available". I am not surprised that the judge did not go deep into the safety issues at this time. He did not need to.

I watched Luvara's 4th video, and it is very concerning. Even more concerning is how GAMI posted everyone's declaration on their website, but not George Braly and Paul Millner's declaration which supports the mandate of G100UL, which happened on Janurary 2025. George claims he does not support mandating G100UL, yet he's eating his own word now. He also again blamed Mooney's wet wing design, can claim such design is inadequte and substandard comparing to industry practise. Everyone should spend a few minutes and read George's declaration. Such conflict of interest... It's not to late to send your GAMI injectos in to get them recalibrated. When GAMI goes out of business because of this, you would want to have a new set of clean gami injectors.......

The one thing that bothers the hot moms more than checking them out while they work out, is not checking them out....

Definitely get up to speed on how the insurance works vs the “self insurance above a certain value”. With an airplane it doesn’t really work that way. Insure for its actual value or they will total it, pay your low $$ and salvage it while making money. Insure too high and they’ll pay to fix what should be totaled and you’ll have a plane with significant damage history. Tread carefully here.

I don't know about the rest of you, but in Private Pilot lessons I was taught to always check for traffic on an intersecting runway before crossing, both approach and take-off, even if you are cleared to cross (or think you are cleared to cross).

As Mr. Luvara pointed out, GAMI and Mr. Braley dropped all pretenses of civility and transparency and switched to liigation as a strategy to mandate the use of G100UL. The attempts to shift blame for damage to aircraft to "poor design and maintenance" of the affected aircraft is particularly concerning. Perhaps it is time for pilots to do the same and deploy litigation to stop this insanity. The evidence of damage caused by G100UL seems to be coming in and soon there may be enough to suport class action products liability suit seeking both monetary and injunctive relief. As someone noted earlierr, AOPA is probably going to be useless in such endeavor as they seem to collectively subscribe to the enviro madness of getting 100LL banned at any cost and willing to sacrifice flight safety for political reasons. Finding evidence that GAMI had knowledge of the design defect (material incompatibilities) yet decided to push the fuel into general distribution would be particualry damaging to GAMI.

Been almost a month since I started this thread. Had some delays with work but finally got the Ovation up on Jack Stands and Belly Pans off. I am located in Brooksville, FL and Flew it "Slowly" to Venice, FL (Sarasota Avionics). There Main Hangar down there is a Mooney Service center. After some consult with Don Maxwell this is where I decided to go. Dan and Dave there immediately began troubleshooting. The Black collar was indeed jammed on the jackscrew against the motor housing. The Motor is fine. That is the good news. Bad news is both Landing gear Main Tubes (may not be proper name) are bent. Right one was bent very bad. Left one slightly. These have been bent just didn't know it. Whoever had serviced the landing gear rigging in the past didn't noticed and adjusted around the bent tubes. Adjustments were marked with a sharpie on tubes.... Amazing. They had them out of adjustment so far it stressed the rod end links on the front of the rods (where the cotter pins go through) and they used safety wire through the cotter pin centers to take up slack. So...... This entire event was a blessing in disguise. Failure of the tubes rod end was imminent ! So the plane sits in Venice till new tubes arrive and a re-rig of the entire landing gear. The good news is Mooney actually has had so many request for these tubes they are about 1 week out from new build up completions . Sorry for the long winded post. Thanks

There is for people trying to make a legal argument that serves their own purposes. I don't think it goes beyond that. A job description for maintainers of large airplanes (e.g., airliners, transport aircraft) is "tank diver", because repairs are constantly needed and they're all wet wings. There are many, many small companies that make a living as mobile tank repairers servicing all manner and sizes of turbine aircraft, because there is a constant need for repairs to those aircraft. Houston Tank Specialists do a lot of Mooneys, but their website also says they do Pipers and Twin Cessnas. Fuel tank repair is a common enough thing that we had a whole section on it in A&P school. It wasn't a casual mention, we spent some time on it, and Mooneys weren't even remotely mentioned. These guys are local, and iirc I called them once and they mostly do turbines, and because they mostly do turbines they're pretty expensive; https://aircraftfueltankrepairarizona.com/ It seems evident to me that George is singling out Mooneys because the first two publicized tank failures due to G100UL were Mooneys and some folks here held his feet to the fire a bit when he wasn't very forthcoming with answers. His filing says little to nothing about the numerous other failures to date.

I think the 'commercially available' argument was correct - In terms of the case at hand. You have to read the original agreement. Commercially available was defined in the agreement. The dictionary definition is meaningless, and the judge addressed this at length. I've argued here an on Beechtalk that the judge would find exactly as he did. And I was told I was nuts. (I mean.. they're not wrong there, but...) The decree defines it as " on a consistent and sustained basis at prices and on terms, in quantities and at times sufficient to meet demands of the customers of that Settling Defendant in California (“Commercially Available”), " Simply having a fuel that has lower or no lead available for people to buy does not alone meet the tests presented by the agreement.

If you find the racetrack fuel filler panels available as salvage its really an easy job to replace them rather than try and dig out the filler necks a reseal . Much cheaper and easier job to do the racetrack panel. Just screws and huckum-pucky to seal it. BTW nice looking bird. Don't get too anxious to change things right away. Try flying it for while and get used to it. Fix the small issues and fly the plane. Enjoy it and then think a while about changing things around after you are used to the airplane. Use it- don't park it at a shop for months right after you got it.

If you run your 231 at 90% power for long periods of time you will be working on your cylinders shortly.

I generally don't push my C much more than 100 feet, otherwise I crank up and taxi. Each year it seems that my changeover point gets shorter . . . .

Not to worry; Aaviationist is just the local curmudgeon. Don't pay him any attention

I have had procedures performed on both of my shoulders. The left shoulder wasn’t as bad as the right shoulder. I had PRP (platelet rich plasma) performed on the left shoulder and the results have been remarkable. I would say it’s about 99% as good as new based on the way it feels. My right shoulder was much worse, so the Dr performed a stem cell procedure on it. I would say it’s about 97% as good as new based on the way it works and feels. Both procedures are “out patient” and no knives are used. Recovery is a few days and the healing process continues for up to 9 months. Would do either procedure again without reservations. I am thinking about having stem cells done on my knee. If you have a bad shoulder at least check out either of these options before you let them cut on you…..my .02 worth.

My takeaway from this thread: Do NOT screw up your shoulder!

My main concern is that once 100LL is ban, there might be no way back. And then it could happen that whatever needs to fix will come with an AD, at our expense. Like "We found that this type of gasket are not compatible with G100UL, so any aircraft with G100UL need to replace the gaskets before X amount of hours"... That would be really screwing all of us, which is usually how it goes.

I can see the beginnings of a new venture: FuelDash - order 100LL on your app and voila...

Assuming it's not postponed again, the 'fork in the road' is going to occur this Wednesday, 3/5, when the judge rules on the CEH consent decree. If he's unbiased and rational, he will stay the order, in effect ruling that G100UL is NOT truly commercially available. OTOH, if he is a liberal environut, and ignores the evidence we Kalifornia aviators will be the first to be screwed.

Its unfortunate that GAMI wouldn't work together with PAFI. GAMI's engine test facility would be a great contributor to the PAFI/EAGLE process of fuel development. But I suspect there was more attention paid to the test stand than to the comprehensive test protocols for materials compatibility that are highlighted by PAFI. I suspect there was more testing with complete fuel "systems" rather than individual component testing; so outside of a catastrophic failure, the short duration tests would just be a pass/fail type of test rather than highlighting differential fuel effects. In that respect I expect the testing highlighted with PAFI will be more enlightening.

Greetings, I am new to the forum; lots of good stuff here! I earned my commercial pilot certificate in a flying club Mooney M20F (a long time ago), and since then, I've rented a Mooney 201 a time or two. I like Mooneys so much, I've decided it's time to get an M20J of my own. A little bit more about me; I live in Wichita, Kansas, and I fly brown Boeings while wearing brown pants. I've worked as a production test pilot for a couple of airplane builders, and I started my life in aviation flying small airplanes, instructing and hauling canceled checks (remember those?). I'm also working on a master's degree in aerospace engineering. I'm looking forward to learning more about Mooneys as I continue to shop around and dive into the experience of airplane ownership. Please feel free to say hi! Mehmet

If it's out of the country it's priced that way for a reason. By the time you pay a ferry pilot to bring it here, after you go over and inspect it and supervise a pre-buy, plus have the GTX-345R and the WAAS boxes installed, you're better off to buy one here that has those items already. (A WAAS upgrade at Maxwell, assuming they have the boxes, by the time you get it up to the latest software version will cost you roughly $35,000. A GTX-345R installed at the same time will set you back another $9000.) Although one without these things may appear like a great deal, if they didn't upgrade when WAAS became available and was much more reasonable, what else have they been too cheap to maintain? A "cheap" Acclaim might not feel that way after getting all of the deferred maintenance caught up.

When foot pressure is released on the master cylinder, a spring pushes the plunger back. If the master cylinder isn’t completely full, the spring causes a low pressure that is lower than ambient pressure. This pressure differential is what causes the fluid to flow from the reservoir to the master cylinder. The reservoir could actually be somewhat below the master cylinder and still work. As long as weight of a column of brake fluid was less than atmospheric pressure. The reason the reservoir is the highest point in the system is because air bubbles are less dense than brake fluid, therefore they will tend to migrate towards the highest point in the system where the air will eventually go out the vent.

Maybe this will help explain things 34811808-North-American-P-51-Mustang-Pilot-Training-Manual.pdf

Well, it's taken a lot longer than I had hoped, but we have some members and we are closing on a new-to-us M20E! We still have some memberships available so it you want a great deal on a mighty fine plane, come join us. www.BlueSkiesFlying.Club (updated just this month).

Great point. People often don’t think of some others. And it’s not just about weather. I recently had an experience where I added one. I was departing from a nontowered airport in an unfamiliar area on an IFR flight. “Expected” clearance in hand, I departed VFR to pick up my clearance in the air. I can verify that during departure climb in busy airspace is not the best time to copy a different full route clearance! New personal minimum - get the clearance on the ground in an unfamiliar area, regardless of weather conditions.

I will give them a call tomorrow and check. I also placed my order on Oct 8! Unfortunately online it says processing still.

Good news! My V-Band Clamp was sent Tuesday, March 4, 2025 from Air Power. No confirmation e-mail or anything, I got a SMS from FedEx about a delivery and when I logged in and checked it says Shipped. I placed my order: October 8, 2024 I'll guess for you guys that are waiting, we now know they are shipping them out soon as they can.

I'm reading the tentative ruling right now. I think the Judge and I think alike. Defendants read “Commercially Available” as meaning both “Commercially Available” and commercially feasible, which means that the defendants must not only be able to acquire the Commercially Available lower lead fuel but also be able to store it and to sell it to customers in sufficient volumes to be profitable. There must be “demands of the customers.” This reading is broader and more reasonable because the consent judgment states that the defendants must acquire lower lead fuel “to meet demands of the customers.” If there is little to no demand for the fuel at the prices that defendants would need to charge to sell the lower lead fuel at a break-even basis, then defendants could arguably purchase none of the lower lead fuel and meet the demands of the customers. The phrase “sufficient to meet demands of the customers” is where “Commercially Available” incorporates “commercially feasible.” The Court is concerned that the Consent Judgment turned a case about warnings into a case about forcing a fundamental industry shift through the means of a consent decree, particularly here where regulatory bodies and industry groups are currently addressing the same issue— transitioning to the broad-based use of Avgas with lower levels of lead... The Court as a matter of contract interpretation reads the word “approved” as meaning approved by the FAA for general use and reads the phrase “commercially available” as meaning both commercially available and commercially feasible. This broad interpretation of those terms is appropriate to ensure that the application of the Consent Judgment (1) is consistent with California and federal legislation and regulation regarding aviation fuel, (2) is lawful, reasonable, and consistent with its evident object, and (3) does not undercut a complex regulatory process that accounts for a wider range of stakeholders and issues than those evident here. G100UL low lead fuel is not “Approved for aviation use.” Plaintiff has demonstrated that G100UL low lead fuel has been approved for certain aircraft with a Supplemental Type Certificate (“STC”). STC approval concerns a modification from the original design rather than a general approval. Plaintiff has not demonstrated general approval as would be the situation if there were approval under the FAA’s PAFI or EAGLE programs.

Neither, this is TCDS note that authorizes the increase to 3130

Always have an out; even on a CAVU day for a $200 burger; the airport may unexpectedly close. It's happened to me; guy geared up on the only runway just before we arrived. Extra time is one of the best 'outs' available; carry plenty of fuel

I do think it’s useful for a newly minted (or less than current) ifr pilot to have some good numbers to assess their plan. It’s harder for them to do the full adm conceptually. But once you’re comfortable looking through all the ins and outs of the adm, personal mins become less helpful. Say 750’/2nm/15kt xw plus not imc for cruise… it’s got to be something that they can actually use until they figure out how to consider the whole picture which is more complicated than PMs can encompass.

Update on the topic of the 'Dukes grease'. I mixed Aeroshell 64 (Aeroshell 7 with 5% Moly) with another 5% of moly. Really, REALLY dark and slippery stuff. Removed the actuator, and when I opened up the gear area, it had a much lighter color, but still 'fresh-ish' grease in there. Cleaned it all out very thoroughly, checked backlash and wear (all good), and then packed with the new mixture. SB completed. Filled up a small grease gun with the new mix, ready for the next year. I really was surprised at how small the gears really are. I expected something a bit more beefy.

Done properly… you can get all the joints working silky smoothly… build some muscle nice and evenly… over time… you can win medals in your age group at any 5K you want to enter… like getting the right Mooney cfi… get the right trainer… if you have extra… some time with their dietician is always fun… eat less starch. Drink less beer… and listen to all the conversations going on around you… mostly wacky ideas being discussed by the young guns… a few will discuss politics… and stock markets… Work on muscle memory… getting full motion… and some strength… Come away feeling better, physically and about yourself… PP thoughts only, not a physical therapist…

This past weekend, I flew my 310HP Ovation from Salem, OR to Roanoke, VA at 15k' in under 11 hours, with one stop. Burned 125 gallons total. (A bit of tailwind helped.) Damn but this plane is efficient; I was LOP burning 11 GPH and truing low/mid 170s. (This was my first transcontinental round trip since selling my 231 years ago, which I used to commute CA<->VA in. It was my 25th transcontinental run overall.) --Up.

Pre-buy and Annual were done prior to the purchase as one event. Throughbred Aviation in Lexington. Unfortunately I was not on site when pre-buy was complete and relied on the Broker. Fortunately Sarasota Avionics is doing a once over on the Aircraft while there and the 2025 Annual is scheduled with them.

Welcome. Good luck with your quest. As always, with buying a plane, start by defining your mission. Then see what fits best. Then buy the one your want in your heart.

@Ragsf15e "mike261" posted RETROFIT TSIO-360-SB ENGINE DWG. NO. 940141.pdf here on MS on August 26, 2022 as a download....but both he and the drawing are gone along with his posts. Such is MS.

Sign up at the Beechtalk forum, that's a good source. @derekbox used to be on here a lot. But he's Derek Boxwell and he's on Beechtalk too plus he sells on eBay as well. He's a good guy. His number is 321-246-4288.

I disagree with my friend @donkaye here. I did the conversion and find it very worthwhile for my needs. The excess power is all about getting off the runway and climb performance. Since I operate half the time from a short, 2500ish foot runway, runway performance matters to me. Since my 90% trip is -740 NM, the ability to jump up to 16-17,000 at a much better rate saves significant time and offers the benefit of well out climbing the dead-stick sing rate. Of course this is not meaningful coming off a short strip with a full bag of gas, but otherwise it is. At MGTOW, the 310 will sustain 1200-1500 FPM at 130 or 120 KIAS. That is 2-300FPM better than book. Excess power means better ability to climb in icing conditions, another safety plus. AC+TKS is unusual. Is that Fizan’s old plane? There should be no excessive vibration. Your student should start with a dynamic balancing of the prop and dig deeper. This is one of the smoothest piston engines I’ve flown. If an unconverted plane has the Type-S prop, the SCT costs something like 1% of hull value. To me, that’s a no-brainer. -dan

Most 252's do 160-165 KTAS and 11-13 GPH at 12,000. Pinecone's seems to run 15 knots faster on 20% less fuel than everyone else's.

Yeah I ended up dropping the exhaust, and the lower cowl to replace with the new style Lycoming Valve. Now its easily removable if I need to clean the new one.

Sort of like the old routine that the comedian Gallagher did. Give every driver a suction dart with "dumb a**" darts Someone does something stupid, you tag them with a dart. If a cop see a vehicle with some number of darts or more, he pulls them over and gives them a ticket for being a "dumb a**" driver.

I didn’t realize there was "disdain" for the way Mooney made their wet wings. Been trying to learn more about various fuel storage solutions, and specifically how the major manufacturers constructed their fuel cells and wet wings. Pardon my ignorance and please correct my errors/fill in the gaps... One way constructing "wet wings" by using faying sealant between the ribs and skin, using clecos to secure everything in place (basically clamping the pieces together to let the “glue” dry), then once sealant is cured shoot rivets to hold together, then go back and apply sealant to the inside of the tank seams. Vs. Mooney just rivets skin dry and then seals the tank seams on the inside. Sounds like at one point someone at Mooney tried to place sealant between the rib and the skin but maybe were shooting the rivets before the sealant cured?? and this just squirted all the sealant out of the seam…lead to issues in a couple year models (did I see something about 2006-2007 maybe??) and so they went back to the original way. BUT, I’m not entirely sure of how the Mooney technique compares regarding longevity and leaking vs. other techniques. I assume that ALL sealant has a useful service life and I’d assume that every wet wing will wind up needing a reseal at some point in the typical lifetime of the airframe (with aircraft lasting in some cases over 60 years). However given that the primary goal of sealant is to hold fuel...this is almost always performed "on condition" when leaks become airworthy issue (sometimes a prophylactic reseal is performed prior to repaint if the sealant is old to prevent having to open up access panels or harm paint with reseal). Minor seeps may not be an airworthy issue, but rather evidence that maintenance (in the form of patch or reseal) may be required in the near future. However, with the wet wings with the faying sealant between the rib and skin, does this mean that to reseal you have to unrivet the skins, clean off old stuff and reapply?? Seems that if you were just using chemicals to strip then you’d likely strip the sealant in the seam as well. How are fuel tanks resealed for this type of construction and how long do they last before leaks/need for reseal? Have there been any studies or information put out comparing the typical lifespan of various types of fuel tanks (bladders, wet wings, fuel cells, etc.)? I gather that the "disdain" is born of the idea that if an airframe lasts only 20-30 or so years in the fleet, that the sealant was expected to last that duration? So I'm gathering that the issue is one of the idea of should fuel tank reseals even exist?? However given the GA fleet has such a long lifespan in some cases, what are the chances that a wet wing (of any construction type) wouldn't need patching or reseal at some point in it's life span?? One interesting thing is that the Cirrus fiberglass fuel cell is made in halves that are epoxied together and then sealant is used at the seam as added protection. It appears Cirrus used Polythioether (PTE) sealant and possibly changed to Polysulfide sealant?, but I'm not sure the rationale behind this choice/details. The use of PTE has been questioned by some, however it appears that PTE has a 10-fold increase in thermal resistance compared with Polysulfide...not sure if that's what Cirrus was targeting?? But polysulfide has more fuel/chemical resistance compared to PTE. The other thing that’s interesting is that given the fiberglass construction, if opening and resealing a cirrus fuel tank you don’t use chemicals to remove the sealant as it would degrade the composite. So sealant has to be removed mechanically. In general, it was felt that Cirrus tanks are much more leak resistant. So something that makes a Cirrus fuel cell leak seems that it would raise a lot of red flags that either the fuel is detrimental, or the manufacturing process was bad. Regarding bladders, Griggs Mooney bladders are made with vulcanized neoprene and nylon and come with a 5-year warranty. Many bladders were constructed with synthetic rubbers such as Nitrile, although some manufacturers used urethane polymers. They're suggested to last from 5-20 years. Fuel cells consists of a fuel resistant polymer (typically liquefied nylon, Neoprene, Buna-N / Nitrile or Urethane) laminated to a fabric substrate (typically polyester or nylon) which provides structural support and puncture resistance. They're suggested to last from 5-25 years. In general most of the fuel solutions have a similar life span and they all have pros and cons between the choice from one to another. Seems to me that Mooney's goal of maximizing efficiency was seen in the choice of a wet wing. Curious if any A&P's or engineers out there have info to add and if this all is accurate? Thanks!

I specifically traded an iPad Air which I otherwise loved in terms of speed, price, etc, because it was functionally too big. IMHO the Mooney cockpit is too tight for a full size. If you have panel space or don't mind blocking a window, it might be different, but it wasn't an option for me. HTH