MikeOH

Thanks for the revised description! I spent like 10 minutes before deciding it wouldn't work!

Amateur! I use my teeth!

^^^ THIS ^^^ I'll second this caution. You will pay an eye-watering amount if you arrive during a 'special' event, which can be just about anything! HND has an enormous ramp behind their terminal for overflow...'events' draw an unbelievable number of jets...and you will be paying jet size fees! Assuming they have a spot left.

I flew into HND from the south (LA area) for a few days last April and found it easy in/out. Fees weren't exorbitant. Arrange your rental car ahead of time as there really isn't an on-field rental car office. Sorry, no experience with VGT for comparison.

I know you weren't looking for this advice, but I would want to HIRE an experienced Mooney pilot for this test flight; I certainly wouldn't want to be the one flying/PIC. Especially if you want to be involved with checking everything out being responsible for all the flying duties would most definitely interfere with checking out all the systems. While I had well over 100 hours of Mooney time when I bought my plane, I had another pilot fly the plane while I checked things out!

No fair getting refueled in flight!

My glareshield is held in place with acorn nuts on studs; very unobtrusive.

Below is the data sheet I found showing silicon; I'd be very interested to see one for a 2N2016 showing germanium. I, personally, have NEVER seen a number reused for a different semiconductor base material (Ge to Si); process changes, sure...which have caused enough grief with substitution, but never replacing germanium with silicon. I'm willing to learn; please provide a data sheet example. That's not always true. Lower noise and better efficiency was possible with some amplifier designs (linear mode) with inverted mode. I agree, not the case anymore, and not applicable here as it's not an amp! And, while current gain is certainly lower, I don't think it matters too much for this application. Mooney certainly improved the circuit over the years but I'm unwilling to believe the collector and emitter were swapped by mistake; I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that

@BrianW Both the 2N2016 and 2N3079 are silicon transistors. The 2N2016 is an early, likely planar design (as opposed to an epitaxial design) and I suspect the designers took advantage of using the transistor in inverted mode; IOW, circuit A is NOT in error. Using a planar transistor in inverted mode achieves a VERY low Vce(sat) which would reduce power dissipation when fully on. Further, inverted mode increases the reverse breakdown voltage (i.e. Vec(max) > Vce(max) which would improve resistance to voltage spikes (which are destructive). The 2N3055 was a very widely used part but I don't think it was available in a TO-36 case; TO-3 was typical. Mounting would need to be redesigned. Further, I'd compare 2N3079 specifications carefully to the 2N3055 to confirm substitution suitability.

I find it interesting that if G100UL is a minimum of 20% xylene (per the SDS) then it would seem it will NOT meet the Military Services "Determination of Volatility" requirement described on page 13: "...at 275F not less than 90% shall have boiled off" since xylene's boiling point is 281 F. This is also true for the other constituents in the mix that are highlighted in yellow: while they wouldn't fail the 90% criteria, they would remain behind. Granted, this may no longer be a pertinent or required test. It's just way different than what would happen with 100LL.

You'd have to as George Or, perhaps the FAA doesn't think helicopters glide as well as stuck-wings

@BrianW I have an 1970 F model and they are just under the glareshield on the pilot's side. I know it's not a J, but since you are having trouble finding them...it is someplace else to look

While I agree that one should consult proper legal counsel for the State you are in, it is my understanding, at least in California, that if you as the PIC screw up your assets are at risk unless they are in an IRREVOCABLE trust. The plaintiff's attorneys are going to 'pierce' anything else. Now, if you move everything offshore to a numbered Swiss account and don't tell the IRS...

While I see your point, I think there is a whole lot of politics going on in the background at the FAA. Namely, pressure from EPA/others to ban leaded avgas. I believe the FAA thought that G100UL would give them a path to placate their masters...IMHO, the 'blanket' STC given GAMI was both unprecedented and done for that exact reason: "Look, we've approved a fuel that can be used in any piston engine!" (not helicopters, I know) To now yank it off the market would be, as @Will.iam said, a major embarrassment. Sadly, I think it will take a fatal crash traced to gooey O-rings caused by G100UL to affect an AD.

I hardly think Mooneys are 'poorly engineered '. Nor do I think they are any more 'poorly maintained' than any other aircraft. As @Marc_B alluded, I think we are all very lucky that Mooneys and a few other aircraft have served as 'Canaries in the coal mine"! IMHO, George made two fatal mistakes in his 'marketing' of G100UL: 1) Not being upfront and forthright in coming clean when problems arose rather than blaming others (it would really be egregious to find out he knew prior to releasing G100UL) 2) Supporting Kalifornia's draconian environmental system (CEH case) to try and ban the sale of 100LL and thereby force the purchase of his G100UL. That is the strategy of greed by corporate executives not the sales rollout from someone portraying themselves as 'one of us'.