Vance Harral

I've seen too many reports of Mooneys dropping a wing during stalls to believe every airplane which exhibits that characteristic is severely mis-rigged, or flown by a ham-fisted pilot. Rather, I think it's more likely a characteristic of an airfoil which is more sensitive in the post-critical-AOA region. Remember that when the critical angle of attack is exceeded, lift does not instantly go to zero, but rather just reverses trend to a negative slope: Some airfoils have a relatively shallow slope just past the critical AOA. With these airfoils, a small difference in AOA between the left and right wings is not going to induce a significant rolling moment. Other airfoils have a steeper slope past critical AOA, and are more prone to roll. The steeper the post-AOA slope, the more "penalty" there is for a less-than-perfectly-coordinated stall. This is true regardless of whether the imperfect coordination is imposed by a less-than-perfect pilot or less-than-perfect rigging (including placement of the stall strips). I did my CFI training in our M20F, including the full stall series of trim stalls, cross-controlled stalls, and so on. I won't speak for short- and long-body airplanes, as I agree with @ArtVandelay that the different airframes likely have different characteristics. I won't even speak for airplanes other than our particular specimen. But based on experience in that airplane with a multi-thousand-hour "Gray Eagle" "CFI (not Don Kaye, but similar), I don't think it's a significant risk to fly a mid-body Mooney completely into the stall break for training purposes, even in the dreaded skidding turn. Yes, a skidding stall does cause the airplane to roll significantly in the direction of the low wing, and it felt like an E-ticket ride the first time. But a prompt push on the yoke and application of top rudder resulted in a normal recovery, and no more than about 60 degrees of bank (it feels like you've gone completely knife edge the first time, but not really). Based on this, I don't feel any need to "ease up on the stall" or "recover at the first indication of buffet" when training. Note in particular that the current FAA Private Pilot ACS tasks on stalls call for the applicant to "recover promptly after a full stall occurs". It's true the FAA has been refining the language in the ACS recently, but the current version most certainly calls for a full stall. Don't conflate this with the slow flight task, which the FAA currently wants to involve absolutely no indication of an impending stall. Finally, don't confuse flying the airplane into a full stall and promptly recovering, with flying the airplane into a full stall and holding it there to perform a "falling leaf" or otherwise just see what happens. I'll let Don tell his own stories, but my recollection is his keep-you-awake-at-night incident involved the latter. I would not teach or even experiment with that in a Mooney.

For what it's worth, I've been sharing the pattern with a jump operation at non-towered KLMO for about 15 years. No complaints, and I appreciate that the operation helps keep the airport vibrant. King Airs and Twin Otters as mentioned above. Pilots have been professional and courteous. They do fly very steep descents directly into a downwind or base leg, which I suppose you can quibble with; but they're very good about making crisp position announcements, and the airplanes are large enough it's hard to miss them. They sometimes make intersection takeoffs, and occasionally will land in one direction and take off in another when winds are calm; which again some may quibble with. But I've never seen them do anything to suggest they feel they have priority over other traffic. On the contrary, I've seen them make 360s for spacing, extend for inbound traffic on instrument approaches, and wait their turn at the run-up pad/hold short line, all in deference to piston singles, while feeding two turbines. The main contention I've observed around the field seems to come from people who don't have a good grasp on spacing in the presence of significant speed differential. e.g. someone in a 172 might turn crosswind to downwind at about 70 knots, and feel they've been "cut off" if the King Air enters a mid-field downwind in front of them. It's only about a mile of spacing, but at 50+ knots faster, the jump aircraft is not creating a separation hazard. I do worry a bit about transient traffic. Jumpers drop essentially right over the airport, and descend and land between the runway and a normal downwind leg. This is not in conflict with the traffic pattern, except for mid-field overflights. Specifically, an opposite-side entry where you cross midfield at 500' above pattern altitude and circle back for a 45-degree entry is a bad idea, as is flying directly over the airport above pattern altitude as a navigational reference point. In the former case, transient pilots should get a clue when they tune the AWOS, which specifically adds a recording requesting pilots to avoid mid-field overflights. But if you're just passing through, you may not listen to the AWOS. Still, there's never been an incident or even a close call - that I'm aware of - in those 15 years. Overall, a net positive for our airport. Happy to have 'em.

Thanks to @Bryan and @kortopates for the informative posts, and apologies to @BaldEagle if I've sidetracked the thread a bit. Hopefully he finds the discourse helpful.

Have you actually tested how this failover works, maybe by ejecting the FS510 from the GTN? I understand that in principle the iPad hardware and EFB software could drop the AHRS data stream from the 510 and seamlessly pick it up from the 345. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's not that simple in practice. It's common for connectivity stacks to try to re-establish a connection with a lost device for a while (or forever), before switching to some other source.

No Flightstream devices of any kind in our airplane at this time, only the GTX 345. Connecting is straightforward, as there's only one wireless device installed. My experience with GTX345+FlightStream combos is one-off rides in other people's/club's airplanes. Given that those setups only broadcast one device to pair with, it appears those airplanes were either mis-configured, or perhaps deliberately configured for "simplicity" vs. "maximum connectivity". No idea if the owners understood the limitations they were living with. ... which raises an interesting question for avionics shops. Given that many customers have only a tenuous understanding of the technology involved, I wouldn't be surprised if the shops generally configure installations such that only one BlueTooth or WiFi device is broadcasting. Otherwise, a healthy percentage of their customers are going to constantly be connecting to the wrong device, and coming back to the shop complaining something is wrong with the installation. And you can imagine the headaches for a rental operation. With the increasing number of portable and panel-mounted gizmos with wireless connectivity, this problem is only going to get worse.

For what it's worth, I've always updated my cards right at the hangar using a laptop hot-spotted to my cellphone. Nav database is about 12MB. Safetaxi and obstacle databases are about 6 and 4 MB, respectively. Even the terrain database is only 24MB. Usually takes less than 60 seconds to download on 4G/LTE, and doesn't even show up as a blip on my data plan.

Definitely a nice feature. But again for those following along, this only works if you run Garmin Pilot. If you prefer some other EFB app, you'll either need to keep downloading databases manually onto the card, or maintain a Garmin Pilot subscription in addition to your preferred EFB. Thanks for the detailed info on BlueTooth connections, Bryan, really appreciate the helpful contributions.

Thanks Bryan, that's excellent news. We currently have no FlightStream devices in our own airplane, my experience is with other airplanes, that I'm now thinking don't have all the radios enabled in the Connext menu. This certainly increases my interest adding an FS210/510 to our setup, despite already having the GTX345. Just to be clear... if you connect a PED to the 510 via BlueTooth, that PED can show ADS-B weather and traffic? The 510 obviously isn't an ADS-B receiver itself. But I'm guessing that as long as ADS-B data is available in the Connext Hub (as put there by the GTX 345), the 510 can access and transmit it. If so, that would effectively allow 4 PEDs to receive traffic and weather: two via the GTX-345 radio, and two via the FS 510 radio, right? But now for the wildcard... the FS 510 runs $1500. For half that cost I could buy an Aera 660, which I understand can be hardwired to the GTN and receive data streams via the hardware. I had previously thought that was the only way to get an additional connection to weather and traffic data. That option isn't wireless, though.

I understand your point that there are multiple BlueTooth radios in the various gizmos. But in all the GTN/GTX/FS installations I've seen (which admittedly is a small set), Bluetooth connections are managed exclusively through the Connext hub of the GTN, and there is only one discoverable device for PEDs to pair with. Therefore, only two connections total for the entire system. If you look in the GTX 345 Pilot Guide, for example, it gives explicitly different pairing instructions for a GTN/GTX combo vs. a GTX 345 standalone device. It would be nice if there were multiple, independent discoverable Bluetooth devices as you imply: one for the GTX 345, a different one for the FlightStream device(s), and so on. But as far as I know, it Just Doesn't Work That Way (TM). If you've laid eyes and hands on an installation that actually does work that way, I'd love to hear about it.

Best as I can tell, the 2 BlueTooth connection limit is an architectural limit of the Garmin "Connext" architecture, based on the BlueTooth hardware they use. Doesn't matter if you have the FS210, FS510, GTX345, whatever - only two devices connected at once. Even as a fan of Garmin, with Garmin equipment in my airplane, I consider this a real and frustrating limitation. I frequently fly 2-pilot IFR training missions with a buddy. Each of us has an iPad. I'd like to also link up my phone and use it as a dedicated traffic display, but I can't do that with the 2-device limit. Other vendors use WiFi links, with virtually unlimited connections, which I think is a superior solution. I've heard it argued that you want to be sitting in your airplane on the ground with your iPad connected to the FBO's WiFi for last minute updates, and simultaneously connected to your panel devices via BlueTooth. But I think that argument is a stretch.

The Lycoming IO-360-A1A in our 1976 M20F had staining of the type you describe when we bought it in 2004. Still has it, still going strong 15 years and 1000 hours later. Periodically the oil blowing and dripping around the engine compartment gets bad enough that we get nervous and chase down the leaks. To date these have amounted to either seals, gaskets, fittings, hose clamps etc; or minor seeps from case bolts we're told aren't worth worrying about. But we've never done anything major like pulling a cylinder, R&R'ing the oil pan, etc. We just live with a certain amount of leaking. I feel like the key is look as hard as you can for actual cracks in the case and cylinders. If you can't find any, a bit of leaking and staining seems to be just par for the course.

The database concierge feature in the Flightstream 510 only works with Garmin Pilot at this time, no love for Foreflight. If you're not willing to switch, maintain a subscription to both apps, or bet that Garmin and Foreflight will work something out in the future, consider saving $500 and installing a Flightstream 210 instead.

We just went through a governor replacement and dealt with TrueSpeed Aero Governor: https://truespeed-aero-governors-inc.business.site/ We sent in an old Edo-Aire (Garwin) governor. They said they could repair it, but that the cost was about the same as purchasing an overhauled McCauley governor outright. I felt like they were a good shop to deal with and treated us fairly. I got the contact info from LASAR, apparently they use TrueSpeed for their governor work. TrueSpeed does seem to have some units on the shelf, so maybe they can help you.

+1 on rain taking paint off the leading edge of the prop. But in our case it's not a really gross de-lamination, just small cosmetic nicks along the very leading edge.

I bill $45/hour, but I don't always bill "handshake to handshake". In particular, on the very rare occasion a real-life diversion is prudent for safety, I never bill for the extra time. I'm interested in making diversions for safety as easy and painless as possible for the student. I bill $100 flat for a BFR (1 hour ground review of part 91 plus "about" 1 hour of flight). But I make it clear up front I'm not promising to sign off on the review for that price. Additional training may be necessary, billed at standard rate.

For what it's worth, we shipped our ancient Edo-Aire governor to Truespeed Aero Governors in Van Nuys this week for IRAN (we were referred to them by LASAR). When they found it un-economical to repair, they recommended the McCauley over the PCU5000. They're starting to get some PCU5000s in for overhaul and apparently there is a wear component (some sort of "pin") that is only available from the manufacturer, at a cost of over $700. They expect McCauley parts to remain available for the forseeable future, at lower cost. EDIT: the "pin" I reference above is actually an idler arm, and the story is slightly complicated, see my follow-up post below: https://mooneyspace.com/topic/28821-prop-governor-problem/?tab=comments#comment-486152

Type Certificate 2A3 for the Mooney M20 series: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/60107bc8954c93a686256c24005b5075/$FILE/2A3.pdf

Hope both of you guys will PM me when you arrive, always happy to meet other Mooney pilots. If you're moving near the south end of town, happy to meet you down at KAPA for the occasional $100 breakfast. If you're on the north side, we can get together more often. I live in Erie, and we hangar our 1976 M20F in Longmont at KLMO. Drumstick, we're a 3-person partnership that has had 4 people in the past, and we're open to having 4 again for the "right kind" of partner. Welcome (in advance) to Denver!

As a person currently chasing what appears to be oil leaking out of an intake tube gasket, I'd like to understand this better. First, any way to differentiate an innocuous leak caused by a tiny dribble through a good valve guide, from a disconcerting larger leak caused by a valve guide that's starting to go bad and which might fail the wobble test? I'm hoping ours is a combination of the former plus an intake seal that's aging. But I have to account for the possibility the intake seal is about the same as it's always been, and the leak through the valve guide is getting worse. Second, when you say the oil runs "into" the sump, you just mean the intake tube portion of the casting assembly that contains the sump, right? I don't mean to nit-pick, just want to clarify for myself and others that oil in the sump never comes directly in contact with any intake tubes. Below is a picture of what people commonly call the "sump" on a Lycoming IO-360. Air from the throttle body passes through the bottom portion of this casting before entering the individual intake tubes for the cylinders. It's warmed by hot oil in the reservoir at the top of the casting, but there's no direct path from the reservoir to the intake plumbing unless the casting is cracked. I assume the sniffle valve is at the bottom of the intake passage in this casting?

Yes, bolts #2 and #4 for us. Here's a picture of the unit just after removal.

For what it's worth, that exactly matches the numbers for our 1976 M20F, just one year off your 1977 M20J. Because the airplane is in a partnership, costs are tracked very closely.

As others have said, plenty of room for large-frame individuals in a Mooney. But to be clear, the "small cabin" complaint about Mooneys isn't totally imaginary, for two reasons. The first is, the seat is closer to the floor of the cabin than other aircraft in the same class, such that your knees are less bent and your legs stretch further to the rudder pedals. This gives the Mooney more of a sports-car feel. as opposed to an SUV feel. Some like this, some don't. Second, the instrument panel is closer to your body. The upside is it's easier to see and reach everything. The downside for some is it can "feel" cramped to have the panel closer to your face. I bring these things up not as a criticism of the design, but just to make you aware so you're not surprised the first time you sit in one. If you understand the legs-out-in-front and close-instrument-panel aspects of the design, it will be easier to notice you have plenty of head/shoulder/elbow/leg room.

Turns out that's illegal in practice, as well as unwise. It's true you can fly IMC in class G without a flight plan or clearance and not violate 91.173. However, the FAA is officially on record as saying they consider flying IMC in Class G without a clearance to be a violation of 91.13. A copy of the letter of interpretation is available at https://www.touringmachine.com/images/ifr_checkride/IFR_Class_G.pdf

10K pressure altitude at 40 degrees Fahrenheit is a little over 11K density altitude. In my airplane, the difference is about 4 knots. Doesn't seem to account for 100% of the delta you're seeing vs. book numbers, but that's at least some of it.

While there's some truth to this, as a CFI, I've frequently traced complaints about "not making book performance" to pilots who aren't actually using the charts correctly. As an example, flying at 10,000' indicated on your altimeter is not going to give you the true airspeed from the 10,000' line in your POH unless the atmosphere is at standard conditions - not even if you're a test pilot in a brand new, perfectly rigged airplane. If you're crossing the Rocky Mountains enroute from Ft. Worth to Durango, the temperature at 10,000' indicated is frequently much warmer than standard. It would not be unusual for the density altitude at 10,000' indicated to be around 12,000', where the published book numbers for true airspeed are going to be slower for a normally aspirated airplane. Given that you don't mention OAT or density altitude anywhere in your original post, maybe a misunderstanding about the POH tables themselves accounts for some of the discrepancy?