Andy95W

It's only available at 70 airports, and it is actually done by that airport's Clearance Delivery people. This means that it's a big airport with Tower, Ground, and Clearance Delivery frequencies. There won't be a chance of blasting off into the clag without an IFR release. My bet is that when folks find out which 70 airports this applies to, the over-riding reaction here will be "Meh". But it is a great indicator of things to come, hopefully.

Clarence makes a better point than I did- since you still have the original front windshield, you have the access panels on the top of the fuselage. That will make it MUCH easier to find the leak rather than lying on your back under the instrument panel!

If the small amount of oil is beneath your engine instrument cluster, you probably have a leaking oil pressure gauge or oil line. If you lie on your back on the co-pilot seat with your head and shoulders on the floor you should be able to find your leak. You’ll need a good flashlight and trace the hose from the back of the gauge forward to the firewall.

Good information, I was talking about the STEC ST-901 which don't interface with the legacy KLN navigators due to input/output differences. Of course the slow update rate of the KLN navigators might have something to do with it as well.

Not true. May be used for enroute, terminal, AND approach phases (non-precision IFR approaches). All true, except for the GPSS. Old Garmins drive GPSS perfectly well, the problem with the KLN-89 is that it doesn't have the proper outputs for GPSS systems. The oldest unit I would seriously consider installing into an airplane would be a non-first generation unit like a Garmin 155XL or 300XL. Anything older just isn't reliable enough, but Garmin will still work on the XL versions- as long as you don't need a display.

I'm not sure I wouldn't take it as a bit of a coincidence and a grain of salt. A quick search for Don's airplane shows it's a 1991- there's a good chance his tanks were due for resealing anyway.

Powdered graphite- but you're right, it takes some puzzling through it to get the answer. The legend shows 2 circles, neither have a cross inside. The other circle is labeled 5606 hydraulic fluid and is used for the hydraulic reservoir. Additionally, Revision D of the Service Manual from 1981/83 shows the symbol correctly and says either powdered graphite or Tri-Flow teflon spray.

Since it couldn't be my picture, I'm at least glad it was another pre-65 M20C/D like ours. Nice!

Welcome to the CB club! Luckily a membership spot recently opened when the (former) member said that $14k was "pretty reasonable".

My bad, you're right, I was looking at the wrong row. I'll edit my original post.

Just so everybody knows, the drain valve referenced by José above is not correct so use it at your own risk. Per the M20J Parts Manual, the proper drain valve is the F-391-53S. For Pre-M20J, per SB M20-188, the proper drain valve is also the F-391-53S. BTW, this is noted by both Don Maxwell and Clarence (M20Doc) and has been much discussed in the past.

I am filing the paperwork to revoke your CB club membership.

Thanks for the follow up. Glad you're back to normal.

I'll bring you mine in January, but I'll need a place to stay. It'll probably take about a week or so to check the landing gear.

1.) Speed increase: small to none. You might see 2mph, unless you have other speed mods, in which case you'll seen none. 2.) It makes the brakes much easier to work on. 2.a.) if you get a flat main tire, you might have brake caliper damage. At a minimum you'll have a broken off brake bleeder fitting. Bottom line, IMHO- if it's already been done, I wouldn't change it back. If it hasn't been done, I wouldn't do it.

Yes, I agree with your entire post, especially the above statement- particularly my bold highlight. Changing the pitch attitude changes the AoA to the relative wind regardless of pitch attitude to the horizon, just like you said. Thank you for helping clarify. My extreme of 15° nose down, in our aircraft, will quickly increase the speed to well over the 72 knots that Anthony used in his example. So the point is basically moot unless you started the maneuver at an even more extreme 20° nose down. But yes, the wing can stall (or not) in any attitude, at any speed, because it's all about Angle of Attack and relative wind- which is the point I made (or tried to make) in my post. Since we're talking about a Mooney and not an Extra 300, I'm going to stop splitting hairs and let everyone get back to the more pleasant discussion of bank angles and airspeeds in the traffic pattern. I personally use 90/80/70 and limit myself to 30° of bank or I go around and try again.

You and me both, brother. Too many stall/spin Mooneys lately.

Sorry, Anthony, this is only true when attempting to maintain level flight, which probably is not the case in the traffic pattern. Everybody knows that "a wing can stall at any speed", it stalls when it exceeds its critical angle of attack. In exactly the same vein, "a wing may not stall at any speed", unless it exceeds its critical angle of attack. Put another way: if you are in a 60° bank with the nose of the airplane 15° below the horizon at 72 knots, you won't be anywhere close to the critical angle of attack and therefore you won't stall- but you will be descending like crazy. But I absolutely agree that a 45° bank at 72 knots on base is a pretty stupid thing for all of us who aren't Bob Hoover.

Hank- Actually, the Lycoming O360-A1D is approved to run on 94UL at full rated horsepower, so we already have an unleaded fuel available to us to use. The problem is most avgas is bought by owners of very thirsty turbocharged or angle-valve injected engines which still need 100 octane without losing timing (and therefore, power). Edit- correction for engine types

The single throw-over yoke is specifically mentioned in 91.109- it is allowed for instrument training and Flight Reviews, but not for primary students.

Thanks, Jay. I didn't know that clarification had been made. And thanks for posting the AOPA reference!

I thought one of the requirements for the aircraft as a primary trainer (for an un-licensed student pilot) was a complete set of dual controls- including brakes. This may have changed recently, but that was what I remember from 20 years ago. Edit: 91.109 does require a fully functional set of dual controls for an unlicensed student pilot. When I was actively instructing, my FSDO interpreted that to include brakes, but did make the allowance for the hand brake on old Piper Cherokees.

Must be the difference between Metric and English/SAE...

All of the airplanes you're considering are 4 cylinders. The 6 cylinder models are the M20K, L, M, R, S, T, TN, U and V. (also the M20J Missile conversion and the M22, but that's a different story). Good luck, welcome to our weird little community here.