DXB

I agree regarding opinion of Rob at KOXC in Waterbury CT. But like you're based in NY, not New England...and I'm very close to both of you in Mooney travel time here Philly PA. Maybe it should be the mid Atlantic and New England forum....

Category includes losing mags, which I suspect comprise the vast majority.

Certification for the E-mag has been a year or two away for more than a decade. Maybe Hartzell's acquision of E-mag provides a real possibility of it now, but these timelines are always much slower than billed across aviation.

Interestingly I also trained in a Warrior II for my PPL 11 years ago, just before getting my M20C. Biggest difference I recall is that the Warrior pitches up upon applying flaps whereas the Mooney pitches down. In either case its helpful to get it back in trim at a safe airspeed before entering a turn. Then one can not apply any back pressure and simply let the nose sink in the turn so that AOA, airspeed, and stall speed all stay constant.

I can't find a prior thread for this crash in 2023, from which both pilot and passenger thankfully walked away. The story sounds like a typical low altitude base to final stall-spin event, for which the outcome is usually lethal. https://generalaviationnews.com/2025/11/28/mooney-pilot-loses-control-while-landing/?utm_source=TPOA&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20251201 The pilot's description per the NTSB report is kinda interesting here if taken at face value: "The pilot reported that, while turning from the left base to the final approach leg of the traffic pattern at the airport in Meridianville, Alabama, the Mooney M20F’s stall warning horn sounded. He pitched the airplane’s nose down and increased engine power. The airplane then “violently” pitched up and to the left. He continued his attempt to regain control, but the airplane then pitched up and to the right, and eventually hit terrain about 200 feet short of the runway threshold." The description of the aircraft's behavior doesn't totally make sense to me if you take the pilot's description at face value. I'm curious what can be learned here about correct recovery technique if one ever hears the stall horn in this particular scenario (unless there was already a wing drop, the pilot's inputs sound correct). It doesnt sound like it was a fully developed spin - otherwise the airframe woundn't be in one piece and the occupants would not have survived.

Looking back, I'm just past 11 years since my first post in November 2014, just after I bought my M20C as a first time plane owner, 2 months before I finished my PPL. I was probably lurking for a while before as I contemplated what plane to buy as well as how to manage the prebuy and initial maintenance. In the early years, I read the current and old topics voraciously and posted very regularly. My posts are a fairly accurate diary of every question or issue I've ever had with my plane. I've learned a tremendous amount here and also tried to pass it on in replies to threads in the early years. Now I read and post less, but I still find a lot of value here. It seems that overall activity on the site has also gone down over the last few years. A subset of the more prolific posters and highest knowledge folks have left. Perhaps this partly reflects our shrinking fleet of aging planes. Perhaps the various Mooney-related pages on FB have taken a chunk out of the traffic here; however, in general I find those pages much less useful overall.

There is no need for a cell switch. RELATIVE humidity is what determines moisture exposure of a surface and resulting corrosion rate, NOT absolute moisture content. The dryness you experience in your heated house in the winter without a humidifier is experiential evidence. The higher temp of the heater would markedly accelerate corrosion at high relative humidity, but in the very low relative humidity in your engine with the heater, there is negligible effect. As long as you have a engine heater that warms all components well above the dew point, continuously leaving the heater on in winter is an ideal solution.

Unscrew the dipstick and leave it plugged in all the time with the in the winter, when most folks fly less. It will keep the inside of the engine bone dry and invulnerable to corrosion.

Meh - tons of anecdotes for glitches and failures with both modern Garmin and Aspen stuff, some having durable software fixes. The big red Xs on the original Aspens once airspeed input is lost was a troubling vulnerability but was addressed in the Max upgrade. There is no objective comparative data on pfd reliability I'm aware of here, only the passions of individuals with different experiences and biases.

EI monitors are top notch, and it's good to see some innovation from Aspen. I support anything that might offer alternatives that chip away at Garmin dominance.

Carb temp gauge is a pretty simple install and is nice to have. The O-360 configuration in our Cs is resistant to ice, but I still adhere to keeping carb temp above 40F in any visible moisture including clouds (except at full power when climbing down low). Having the temp gauge simply lets you keep some of the power you would lose by using full carb heat. Upon reducing power for descent, I usually use full carb heat simply because I'm usually thinking about landing and don't want to distract myself by futzing with partial carb heat. The gauge also show you that carb temps are typically quite high at low power in the pattern. For that reason, I turn carb heat off when turning final and performing my last GUMPS- one less thing to worry about if one needs a go-around. Doing so also limits dust ingestion close to the ground. Lastly note the hinges, seals, cable etc. that actuate the carb heat door and bypass valve in the C's airbox are a bit fragile and often need maintenance. Having a carb temp gauge can tip you off when something isn't right (this has happened for me).

This seems like sound guidance that may help keep others safe in the future, regardless of what caused this tragedy. Looking back now at the old thread, you did write "both the gascolator screen and the servo screen need to be removed and inspected for debris. You’re way upstream of where you need to be until you verify that the fuel system has not been contaminated." That seems like reasonable advice back then and is a bit chilling to read now. I think there's boost pump screen in the series also. It's not at all clear the A&P looked at all the screens downstream of the one you picture here.

I'm curious if there are any SOPs to guide exactly how far to go with such inspection and decontamination in Mr. Baber's fuel system contamination scenario. One adds some risk with all invasive maintenance, particularly that performed without a clear diagnosis up front, which may more than offset likelihood any safety dividend of an intervention not directed at a clearly identified problem in a component. I admittedly know little about these fuel injection systems, which my plane lacks, and so my comment may be completely off the mark in this particular case. However, if there is a more rational, systematic process for dealing with Fred Baber's fuel system contamination issue than what he did, it's certainly worth highlighting here so that others can learn from this tragedy.

Fred Baber's story makes me think of my own early days after getting a C model, 10 years ago now. Unlike him, I was an 80 hr newly minted VFR wonder who also knew nothing about aircraft mechanical workings. The plane was flying when I got it but had been underused and had a handful of gremlins. I was nervously hyper-vigilant about these issues and was reading Mike Busch's stuff voraciously. But my ignorance and inexperience at that point made me ineffectual and also drove A&Ps and shop owners crazy. My point is that even if one is thoughtful, cautious, and a rule follower, progressing in aviation means entering situations that are more tenuous than otherwise encountered in routine daily life. I recall the fuel pressure in my C had a habit of dropping to 0 during climbout once in a while, in the days before I had a fuel flow gauge. We chased that issue ad nauseam before concluding in was just vapor lock in the pressure line, in absence of any other viable explanation. That assessment could easily have been wrong and cost me my life - perhaps not unlike what happened to Fred Baber here.

I got finished reading all of Mr Baber's posts in his recent thread on here regarding the prior engine issue. He sounds like a thoughtful and humble guy who handled the event carefully and intelligently. The sediment in the left tank sounded like the culprit, the approach to addressing it seemed fairly meticulous. It's very sad his efforts and those of his A&P weren't enough to keep him safe. What an awful tragedy. RIP Also f*ck the folks who immediately want to point the finger at him without knowing sh*t.

Or the one related to his very recent arrest for pulling a gun on the ANN editor in chief https://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=66F80A08-3651-4567-8108-933258ADB965&fbclid=IwY2xjawN0vqZleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETEwMmxGMnZSOGxpMGNkQ0N6AR6A_Y3oqRa-6C0O4fB8s9b7YmQKoS968UAjI0B2N116fWg6Jkypf4rMVvDHkw_aem_Sz3V3SjsBPW_11_CEQoxYA

DG is still a POS? What a surprise.

GPS outage should be of concern to luddites and non-luddites alike - Ive experienced it myself at an inopportune moment. But if my entire GTN650 box fails (which seems to be the concern driving need for a second com here), I'd sure rather have intact GPS with my 2nd com over an extra nav radio.

Get a second comm for the reasons elaborated. My backup to my GTN650 is an SL30 nav/com, but if I were building my IFR panel now, I'd get a GNC355 GPS/com. The backup GPS gives you a lot more utility in the modern flying environment than a backup NAV. Also don't discount the possibility of using your bird for more challenging IFR flying - it has its rewards and you're well on your way.

It's fairly normal, though you don't want to get it so rich that it dies. It's good to make idle + carb heat the last step of the runup occasionally to check for this happening. You could enrich the idle mixture slightly if it is a concern. Also I actually turn carb heat off after my last GUMPS once on final - one less thing to do in a go around. It's nice to have a carb temp gauge - you'll notice that carb temp actually runs quite high most of the time while reducing power, so ice risk is very low with our setups (but not zero).

On the other hand, if it is overinsured, it can force you to fix something that you would rather have totalled... so it may be best to insure for the market value as best you can discern it

First one seems like best value given it already has some very solid avionics and may be a great IFR platform from day 1. I'd go down that road assuming no gotchas during an attentive inspection out of the airframe. The engine may have some life left still and you can fly it for a while as you look for overhaul options. The other two seem badly overpriced. I don't know when their overhauls were done, but that should impact value also. If >20 years ago, they should still be priced as run out. This thread makes me wonder if I should be insuring my '68C with very nice custom panel, lots of speed mods, and fresh engine and prop should be insured at more than the current 100k. The old wisdom was you can't price the vintage Cs much above that no matter how nice they are, but these prices seem wildly elevated compared to when I bought 11 years ago.

My #2 lasted 7 years before going crazy alarming whenever it wanted and not allowing me to silence it - this can lead to some in flight and post flight drama. It could not be remedied, and my avionics guy said this cheapest option often goes bad. I replaced with the slightly more expensive #1, which he recommended and has been problem free for the last 3.5 years. I hope it stays that way.

Basic Med is a FAR greater success than I predicted. I wonder if any physicians have caught blowback from signing off medicals they shouldn't have. I suppose not since accidents due to pilot incapacitation remain very rare events even in the GA world - which was predicable based on the (albeit limited) Sport Pilot experience. Honestly, physician liability and resistance to signing it off was my greatest concern when it appeared on the scene. Once the Canadians accept Basic Med, I'll probably go that route too, given my lack of aspirations to be in the flight levels, carry lots of passengers, or make money flying. Unfortunately US relations with Canada are at a new low at the moment, so that may take some time as yet...

It's great to find an occasional AME who wants to help pilots, but never forget they are accountable to the FAA Medical Branch, not to you. Carefully worded factual information from medical specialists can greatly help address nonissues capriciously flagged by the FAA in the medical record - I myself have played this role a couple of times to help pilots. However nothing stops a frivolous medical certification challenge by the FAA better than a lawyer showing them why they are about to create a bunch of work for themselves, only to arrive at an embarrassing outcome before an NTSB judge (or in extreme cases even a civil suit in federal court). I will never communicate with the FAA medical branch again except through one of a handful of attorneys they know well. No issue is too small to get a lawyer when dealing with these folks. Doing so from day one would have saved me a ton of hassle and worry - money extremely well spent. One can inadvertently dig the hole much deeper by going it alone.