EricJ

Lots of low-wing airplanes have wing issues, e.g., they fall off of Arrows and other PA-28s, so there's a potentially expensive AD to address the attachments. I remember when Beech 18s were pretty much all grounded until they got the spars x-rayed. T-34s have spar issues, etc., etc. Other than corrosion, which everybody deals with, Mooney wings and airframes are pretty easy to own. The metal ones, anyway.

Very nice! Good job on that.

It seems like all of the cantilever-wing single-engine cessnas have ADs on the carry-through spars that are potentially very nasty and instrusive. All of the single-engine RG Cessnas have trouble with the gear power packs, but Mooneys arent especially problem-free in this area as well, although I'd argue better from a general maintenance perspective. We are blessed with relatively problem-free basic airframes compared to many. Everybody deals with corrosion, but so many other airframes have difficult ADs addressing basic things like carry-through spars, elevator hinges, elevator spars, wing attachment issues, etc., etc. It doesn't take a very thorough perusement of mooneyspace to discover that Mooneys are not especially problem-free, either, but there are an awful lot of common problems that we don't have.

For the most part, yes. All of it is to prevent a static discharge spark when the fuel nozzle is near the rim of the fuel tank opening. It'd be cool if we could visibly see the static field around things, (like Geordi LaForge or something) and be able to watch them build and drain and see how big or small they are, but we can't so we just have to assume it's there. If the field gets really big you can feel them sometimes, especially if they make your hair stand up, and you can see discharge sparks when they happen, but otherwise we're stuck just having to assume the worst. That's SOP in aviation, though, so NBD.

I was just gonna post that link where it has a good description of why it's bad in a radial engine, but pretty much a non-issue on an inline or flat engine. Geared engines are another issue entirely, since gear lash, lubrication, etc., is an issue. I don't think any Mooneys have geared engines. That article also points out that lots of aerobatic aircraft (e.g., Bob Hoover's Shrike) spend (spent) lots of time with the props driving the engines and they don't seem to suffer for it. I don't think it's an excuse to abuse an engine, but I think it's not something to spend much time worrying about.

All the multi-engine trainers that routinely demonstrate windmilling and restart from the air driving the prop don't seem to have a problem. I suspect this is one of those things that is grossly overblown. Is there any manufacturer guidance indicating this is an issue?

You don't know how long it'll take to fully drain the charge, since you don't know how much there is or the impedance of the ground path, and mitigating the charge from the triboelectric effect during pumping is still a good idea. The best practice is the normal practice of always connect it to a good conductive path, leave it there until you're done. Also, walk it back to the reel rather than let it go so that the clip pops off the end and the next guy just gets a frayed wire.

It's possible the OP may be pursuing legal action and counsel asked to delete the thread. If my airplane was damaged like that, it'd definitely be a consideration.

Or just land on the taxiway or the grass next to the runway. That was gonna be an accident from the very beginning of the video. I'm assuming they lost both electrical and the engine? If the engine was still running that should have been a go-around from before the vid even started.

Yes, so if you refuel immediately after a flight, the ground strap is very important. If refueling and the last flight was a long time ago, it's not a big deal. The additional case of refueling without touching the dispenser to the tank when the dispenser nozzle isn't grounded via the hose is also worth mitigating with a ground clip. So it's a good habit to get into regardless.

Cars are always in contact with the ground (well, supposed to be), so they dissipate charge as it is accumulated. Even though the tires have significiant electrical resistance, they still conduct, so the charge gets dissipated.

This is why styrofoam packing peanuts should be outlawed. Photographic evidence at the link.

The tests should be done by somebody else, not the fuel vendor. You won't be able to rely on the results when there is conflict of interest.

It could be done as a major modification with a 337, and I don't think it'd be the first time that somebody did that. A records/logbook check would show whether it was really just a modification or somebody actually put it in experimental temporarily for some reason. The description is a bit suspicious, for sure.

Did you clip the ground wire to the exhaust?