toto

That’s roughly my understanding of where the 1000 hour guidance came from. Since Mooney owners aren’t tracking cycles, they just track hours and use a “primary trainer” worst-case scenario for cycles per hour. Before the most recent factory closure, I had heard rumors that the SB was being updated to 2000 hours as a guideline, on the basis that it was a more realistic but still very conservative number. Dunno.

No. If the spring fails, it takes out the emergency extension mechanism too. There’s a ton of good discussion on MS about the NBS.

Right, that’s what I’m after - I don’t really care about the small alignment mismatch unless it’s a safety-of-flight issue.

So my plane came out of annual with some hangar rash on the left elevator. The shop owned the issue and repaired it - but the repair required removing the left elevator from the plane and replacing the end cap piece. When it was all done, the repaired elevator looks mostly like it did before. But I noticed that the left elevator is a little bit out of alignment with the horizontal stabilizer. The right elevator is perfect. The plane flies straight and trims correctly with no obvious problems. Is this something that needs to be addressed, or is it fine for the two sides to be a bit different? I’ve read the other (oldish) threads on the alignment issue, but I’m not sure how to evaluate this. I’m also not 100% sure whether this is a new issue or whether it’s been this way since long before the repair. I haven’t paid that much attention to it before this work was done. (Right side - untouched) (Left side - repaired)

She is a civilian contractor, so you do not salute her - but you’d better listen to her, because the Pentagon listens to her about your proficiency.

I went around looking for some first-hand experiences with 100R. This thread has some mildly interesting feedback, including the apparent fact that the Swift fuel uses no aromatics (which I guess is the source of most of the materials incompatibility issues with G100UL). https://old.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/1h3zdfy/100r_smells_weird/ At this point, “different from G100UL” seems like a key measure of success. Both for certification and formulation.

Nice

I haven’t yet seen a MSer who replaced a NBS for $3000. This is a “go away” price for a part that may have negative overall value for the aircraft.

My understanding from the video was that she landed on the same pavement she departed from. There is another runway at the airport, but she always departed 01 and returned to 19.

335 pounds, including the starter, turbo and exhaust SpecSheetBack-April2025.pdf

I missed this when it was unveiled at Airventure last month. It sounds like Piper is planning to sell brand new Seminoles with DeltaHawk engines, using an STC that Piper owns. https://generalaviationnews.com/2025/07/24/piper-unveils-seminole-powered-by-diesel-deltahawk-engine/ This is the more mature 180hp variant, not the more interesting 200 or 200+ variants. But still, getting more of these in the wild in certified aircraft will tell us a lot more about the long term viability of the powerplant. https://www.deltahawk.com/engines/ Given all of the painful recent decisions on UL avgas, I’m happier thinking about diesel again …

Nicely done, though sometimes hard to make out the aircraft configuration - not many technical details in the narration

These things all look pretty obvious to me, and I would expect a competent shop to have noted them on the annual.

Yeah, the ASI thing has always been interesting to me. The SL actually says nothing about remarking - it’s explicit that you have to buy the kit that includes a new ASI. But anecdotally it seems everyone has the ASI remarked. My panel is a G3X, so it’s a few quick turns of a configuration knob, and reverting the change would be a few more turns. SL92-1_SN24_1686-2999.pdf

@Moondoggy, don’t take this the wrong way - but you sound a lot like an AI chatbot. Since I can’t imagine that a sentient chatbot is spending its time hanging out on MooneySpace, I assume you’re a human … but are you running your posts through ChatGPT or something?

Interesting. So if you have an eligible J model, it might be best to hold off for a while. Funny enough, the 2900# GW was a major consideration when I was looking for a J, but I’ve never bothered to have the SL compliance done. I just don’t fill the seats that often, so it’s been a non-issue.

I posted a thing over in the other thread, and had no responses, but I’m interested to hear input - Basically - I’m interested in the MOSAIC consequences to changing the GW from 2740 to 2900# and the possibility of going back to 2740. The GW change is basically just a rudder weight check and a flight manual supplement. It’s not an STC and it involves no changes to the aircraft. But I’m assuming that the KCAS numbers in the flight manual will control MOSAIC applicability, and those numbers change with the 2900# GW supplement.

There’s a pretty good discussion over here:

Thanks for that. Honestly, I didn’t intend to open a question about any particular supplement or manufacturer’s guidance - I really just meant to ask about a conflict between the manufacturer and the regulation. It sounds like in Garmin’s case they had no reason to require the use of the ground-based nav source for the final approach segment aside from wanting to align their guidance with the regulation. So when the regulation was updated, they updated their guidance?

Fair enough. Here’s the relevant section from my AFMS:

This was shared a while back when we were talking about the Flying Ultimate Issue …. But it has some interesting insight into the new ownership.

It’s an interesting topic. My immediate thought was that Garmin provides guidance on use of the GTN as primary for a VOR approach on the final approach segment.. I grabbed my GTN manual (screenshot below). Garmin suggests that VLOC mode is “required” and that the pilot “must” switch from GPS to VLOC before the final approach segment. If the AFMS for the navigator requires using the ground-based nav source as primary for the final approach segment, does the AFMS control the decision?

There was a thread about this earlier in the summer - sounds like there have been some official confirmations. https://mooneyspace.com/topic/51648-lasar-mooney/

Things seem much worse at the former Belvoir Media (now Flying) than I realized. I’ve always liked the Belvoir publications, and I was an Aviation Consumer and IFR subscriber for many years. I dropped those subscriptions only after the Flying acquisition, when I thought the “Ultimate Edition” was a bad sign of commercial consolidation for the publications. Anyway - I’ve always liked Paul B, and this article was eye-opening. https://avbrief.com/paul-bertorelli-on-the-future-of-aviation-journalism-its-challenging/

I played around a little bit with Miracheck. It’s kind of an interesting idea, where you have a digital presentation on your iPad but then there’s an audio callout using speech to text with a required “Check” audible response (which automatically ticks the check box on your tablet). It’s not a “smart” checklist in the sense that it’s aware of the aircraft condition, but it’s a bit more like a crew workflow with the audio callouts and responses. Ref: https://miracheck.com/