EricJ

With a J model and full tanks your bladder or general fatigue will likely be a bigger limit than fuel duration. With standard tanks you have roughly six hours of fuel, more if you want to plan carefully, less if you want to stay low and go fast. I don't want to be in the airplane nearly that long for one stretch, so it makes it easy to make very conservative fuel stops or just tanker fuel for the next leg or a return flight. If you really want to plan carefully and can do long legs, the responses above give a good idea of what is possible. Like Skip, I usually plan for 150 kts and 10 gph, and that's really easy to hit and not be slow. I'm usually WOT/2500 and lean to about 10gph. That will give you a variety of airspeeds depending on pressure alt, temp, etc., but it's generally around 150 kts.

C models are very high bang for the buck, with a nice alternative in J models. If you don't need the mid-body cabin size or the extra few knots that you get with a J, a C model is an excellent choice.

Was he impaired at all? My sats run comparatively low with little to no impairment. I outlasted everybody in my PROTE session and was still doing puzzles and answering questions at the end...I was impaired, but that was at the equivalent of 25000 ft. Sats aren't really even comparable from person to person, so even if his sat looked low he may not have been impaired, or maybe he was, but the sat won't necessarily prove it one way or other at that level.

Yes, this is possible, but does not appear to be the issue in the case in point, since the airport was only ~2500 ft elevation and DA would not likely have been high enough to degrade performance as much as seems to have been necessary for the evidently extended takeoff. For higher DAs this can be a serious issue, though. There was a Bonanza crash several summers ago for a transient aircraft that came through and stopped at Flagstaff, where DA in the summer can be 10000 ft. There was no definitive cause of the crash determined but general opinion was that it looked very much like they didn't lean for takeoff and climbout The aircraft failed to climb and went into the trees west of the airport.

This is why if you do lean for ground operations to pull it WAY back to nearly idle cutoff. That way it essentially won't run near WOT and will force you to enrich the mixture. There could have been other things wrong that prevented making full power. I don't know if it's known whether the airplane had recent maintenance or not. Very tragic in any case.

During my IR check ride the DPE, as expected, covered up my AI during an ILS approach. My HSI is a G5, so I was like, no problem, I'll just switch it to AI mode, which I did, and which the DPE was fine with. After a few seconds I realized I'd much rather have the HSI to keep pointed in the right direction, so switched it back and used the TC for bank. A modern HSI like a G5 or what you get with a lot of glass displays realy is a nice thing to have.

I was expecting to need an angle-valve cylinder since one of mine seemed to be indicating it was going to be needed. I was finding the same thing; there just aren't any available new. A local machine shop can rehab it if needed, so if it comes to that I can try them and keep my fingers crossed that it still meets limits. Meanwhile, my cylinder seems to have rehabbed itself so I don't have a problem just yet. Superior has a video from their VP that says that this isn't unusual for many common cylinder issues: if you leave it alone it may fix itself.

The last few times I've done props I've used safety cable instead of safety wire. The tools and the material are expensive, but it's much easier and a time saver.

Yeah, that weld is there for a reason. You don't need any floppy elements in the gear leg. IMHO the question is just whether it is a crack or not. I haven't seen anything I'd consider reliable evidence of a crack. That dye pen evidence posted in the pics doesn't seem to show a crack as far as I can tell. I've recently seen similar posts in various FB pages that seem to indicate at least some shops have forgotten how to use dye penetrant for inspection. I get the impression that some people just use it as a tool to convince customers that they need repair work done.

I had high hopes for the DZ to be an evolutionary improvement over the Zulu 3, but imho it just isn't. Annoyances like this goofy unusual cable and a number of other small operational issues make me prefer my Zulu 3 for usual stuff. The only real advantage I've found with the DZ is that with the cable I can leave it in the airplane plugged into ships power and not worry about having to keep fresh batteries in it. The penalty for that is that it'll say, "Battery charge full," in my ear right when I'm trying to hear a clearance from ground control, which is also annoying. My recommendation for people considering the DZ is to save some money and just buy a Zulu 3.

I ordered one of these: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089F2W3CH Or I think this one, too: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09R8Z7ZDV

Last year after being cleared through the Bravo airspace for the transition over Sky Harbor (Phoenix) airport, I got cleared for "all VFR altitudes", so I climbed up to my cruising altitude of 7500', which put me back in the bottom of one of the Bravo shelves right at the edge of the Bravo airpace. The controller was annoyed and called me back and said he "wasn't expecting that". Well...

I've been thinking about what the conditions might be that would cause somebody to drop Basic Med and fly on Sport Pilot priviledges. Since Basic Med is so...basic, it seems like maybe one should self-ground if things are not good enough to fly Basic Med. Perhaps if somebody's Basic Med expired then it might make sense as a temporary measure? For most of us our Mooneys don't qualify to be flown under SP rules, so kinda moot, anyway.

Not unairworthy, just easy for regulation pedants to argue that it is unapproved. Clearly there are IA's on both side of that argument, which is not at all surprising. Since 337s are generally not checked by anyone but the IA in most cases, their word goes.

So if you're on Basic Med and have a health degradation, the above restriction wouldn't apply, to my understanding.

The red stuff is generally the high-temp stuff in the aviation aisles at the retail stores.

Same here. I just put mine back together and lubed it generously with this stuff. It also indicates that it can be used to un-stuck a stuck piece, and I'm letting it wick into one joint that was stuck with periodic application to see if that works.

There are a number that have been in light production or promotion that I suspect will get more popular now.

Generally in aviation applications the shield gets grounded on both ends. Do whatever the installation diagrams show, though. Solder sleeves with pigtails, and you can buy them pre-built-in, are often used to provide a fly-wire to ground the shield. It's an easy way to do it and as far as I've seen that's how most people do it these days.

I lost some respect for him after all that.

Vs1 on my 2740 lb J model is 63 knots.

I suspect that an eventual result of all this, assuming small GA stays viable at all, is that most of our Mooneys will likely lose value as the new high-performance, 4-place LSAs with retractable gear and constant speed props (or similarly desirable LSA airplanes) become more available.

It looks to me like they cleaned it up and determined that there is no crack.

They're claiming those little purple dots are a crack? I don't think that's a crack based on that indication, it looks more like just a little bit of porosity in the weld.

That's my reading of multiple instances in the document: existing legacy aircraft do not convert to the new category. A manufacturer can apply to have a new aircraft certificated under the new rules. Existing Cessnas, Pipers, and Mooneys do not currently qualify as explained in the document.