Andy95W

Believe it or not, I'm one of your biggest proponents in the products you've brought to market. I've looked into the STC process a tiny bit and it scared me away- so I've got a huge amount of respect for someone who sees it through. I'm glad you've developed the products you have, and General Aviatioon is better for it. I stopped by your booth at OSH a year (or 2?) ago and was glad to meet whoever was there- I assume it was you. When it comes time for me to finally retire my old fuel tank gauges, I'll be buying yours. I have a friend who is considering a JPI 930- I immediately recommended your fuel senders. But if I ever run out of gas in my Moooney, I know it'll be my own damn fault, with or without a modern fuel level system. -edit: I wish you'd post your name so we wouldn't have to refer to you as "the CiES guy". You've been a valuable contributor to this forum.

First, I never said anything about anyone being "stupid" or their "stupidity" or anything else. I never used that word, and I didn't edit my posts- go back and read them again. Additionally, I never mentioned their preflight of their aircraft. If they said they fully fueled their aircraft, I believe them. "Preflight" has two components, though. Part of that is the physical inspection of the aircraft, the other is preflight planning. Book fuel burn is predicated on leaning in flight. Did they do that? If they chose not to lean their mixtures, did they take into account the additional fuel usage in their calculations? My assumption is that they performed all of their required actions correctly. But then the question remains, if they didn't have a catastrophic leak, why did they land, out of gas, just short of their destinations? If you actually believe they did everything correctly, why do you honestly believe they ran out of gas? You and I will always disagree on the root cause of these types of accidents. You obviously believe that better fuel indication systems will prevent these sorts of accidents. I believe there are people who will still run out of gas regardless. And why have there been, and why are there still, many hundreds of thousands of pilots who don't run out of gas every year with our old fuel gauges? I've said many times in the past that you've designed and built a better fuel indication system. You're also very quick to post assistance to those who've bought your system, which is commendable and helpful to all of us here in the community. Unfortunately, it seems like every other time you post you're just trying to beat the rest of us over the head with it. Or sell more of your products.

That's a great point, Hank. I should look up how many F models were produced (only 1976, I believe) that had the 1-piece back window. And I've always wondered how many previous years' were modified later.

I am not saying that your Cies fuel senders and better gauges wouldn't have prevented at least one of those accidents. Particularly in the second example, the flight engineer would have diverted. Modern airliners (and Air Force aircraft) have incredibly reliable and accurate fuel gauges. Perhaps these Air Force trained pilots relied on our crude and ancient gauges more than they should have.

Is your assertion that these two ex-Air Force pilots did nothing wrong either in their preflight planning or in the conduct of their flight? With the exception of a fuel leak that began mid-flight, I fail to see how that could be true.

It is unfortunate that I could only "Like" this post once. I agree 100% with Cyril, to include that I would love to have the Cies fuel senders.

Okay, so a little guesswork is needed here. By your avatar picture, it appears your back window is medium-sized, so that narrows down your model to either an M20J or M20K with either a Lycoming IO-360 or a Continental TSIO-360 (which are very different animals, by the way). Your paint job is from the mid-80's which could apply to either airplane, but your windows aren't rounded (from what it appears from your low-definition avatar picture, at least), so that makes it a 1986 at the latest, IIRC. You mentioned flying for two hours at 8,000', so either you were west bound in a 231 or you are flying a 201. I'm going to guess you own an M20J with a Lycoming IO-360A3B6D. (This would be so much easier if you mentioned your airplane type in your post.)

I think they're out there and I've seen a few. The problem is that the 1 star reports generate paragraphs of detail, the 5-star reports are simple statements like "We used ABC Avionics and they were great."

There is a small drain fitting on the lower rear side of the carburetor air box. It's mainly there to drain excess fuel out of the airbox in the event of overpriming or carburetor leak. I suppose it would work as a water drain, but my gut feeling is that any carburetor ice that is removed by using carb heat will probably sublimate to a vapor and be sucked into the engine. Flying through a rain storm would be a different matter, of course.

Anthony, I agreed with the rest of your post, but not the above sentence. Just because the guy could "drive" an A-4 over Vietnam doesn't lend all that much credence to his statement. It counts about as much as the fact that I "drive" an Airbus. Done correctly, it's an effective technique with a long enough runway. Done incorrectly, its a recipe for a porpoise down the runway or an overrun off a short field. If the intent behind the statement was that you don't flare as much as in a Cessna, then sure, I'll get on board with that. I've got 2200' useable landing distance at my airport and I make the turnoff after about 1100 so I don't have to taxi through potholes and gravel. No way can you do that if you don't flare. A friend flew his Ovation out of the same strip- the only reason he didn't flare as much as me was to keep from hitting the tail on his long body.

Good memory, Anthony. Hopefully Chris @Marauder will re-post his solution.

In the winter during cold temperatures I'll let mine go down to 5 1/2 or so. JPI oil pressure and temperature stay rock solid in cruise.

@Aviationinfo- I thought your post was excellent. Did you delete it?

Dang, Ross. I needed autocorrect before I could spell 'proselytizing' right.

That panel was put in about 25 years ago by a previous owner. Back then, the only panels available were from LASAR. They probably still have the kit available even though you can't find it on the website. I suggest just giving them a call and asking about it.

My prediction is that damn few Mooney owners will go for it- not just the CBs like me.

I'm in agreement with my Michigan brother. A dedicated aviation portable is a very reliable and viable addition to an airplane. My old Garmin Aera has not failed me yet, has never overheated, and has more capability than I know how to use. In addition, I have it hard wired to my GDL-39 so it displays traffic and weather right on my yoke. I have it plumbed into my audio system, so it tells me things like, "Caution! Obstacle!" and "Traffic! Traffic!" in my headset. With Garmin's Target Trend, it even shows me the direction that the other traffic is moving. All in a package that cost less than 1 amu, has a display larger than than a 430W, and is mounted right in my field of vision. For IFR, it is an astonishingly reliable and effective tool for situational awareness. I fly an Airbus at work and can honestly say that my 59 year old Mooney rivals all the fancy 'widgets' in the Airbus. For less than 1 amu!

I'll second it- Bruce is a great guy, has a wealth of Mooney knowledge, has designed an outstanding product, and was a pleasure to work with. I met with him in Willmar where he gave me a condensed, intense course in the Spatial Interior and its installation. After getting the materials, he continued to provide assistance through phone and email. I wouldn't change a thing.

The nose gear fighting tool is not needed for the electric gear Mooneys with bungee springs. You just measure the before and after length to ensure they're compressed far enough. Out of curiosity, I've checked them with the tool after ensuring the measurements were correct. It ended up being about 100-130 in/lbs., but it's really hard to be accurate because the springs keep compressing farther and throwing off the reading.

See the picture below. The master cylinders (at least on my Mooney- and I have the upgraded 201-style Cleveland master cylinders) have a threaded end that goes to a threaded clevis fork. A small adjustment goes a long way. Based on your description, I figure you'll need about 2-3 turns. The right master cylinder is easy to get to. The left is a bear.

Master cylinders can be overhauled unless either the shaft or cylinder has been damaged or is pitted. Standard o-rings. It sounds like you still have air in the left brake. They can be a real bear to get bled completely.

+1 to just call LASAR. I also did the more complex installation where the cowl enclosure is sandwiched between the cowling skin and the structure. It really looks a lot better than the original or the other options, but it does take a good bit more time to install.

I'd replace the o-ring in the left caliper and the left brake pads as well. While you're at it, check the thickness of the left brake disc to make sure it's within specs. I think your real problem is simply air in the left side of the system. The above recommendations are fairly inexpensive but will require re-bleeding the left brakes which ought to fix the problem. After that, I'd re-replace the o-rings in the left master cylinder. It's fairly easy to roll an o-ring in those, particularly around the shaft, which could now be sucking air.

Positioned in a manner to cause the least distraction to the pilot. These are often used on the vertical stabilizer on some airplane types. In these applications, the red faces forward. If it doesn't, then the bright white flash reflects off the cowling, wings, and even the prop and poses a distraction at night.

Pedal position can be adjusted at the master cylinder. Only have to remove one panel and 1-2 hours max.