GeeBee

Because not all water in fuel becomes free water. It can take a long time and a lot of circumstances for all water in fuel to become free water. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC20-125.pdf

Yes, as I mentioned, the tanks were resealed by WetWingologists East and I saw the tanks before they closed them up. They were compliant and of course a professional operation such as WWE would as you expect be familiar with the AD.

I don't know what more you can do beyond the Mooney MM pressure test, which as I wrote it passed. As a matter of fact, it exhaled the pressure after 15 minutes at 0.5 psi. Here is what I think. I think even if everything is tight the fuel caps cannot withstand a straight down deluge. Both the pressure test and in flight have a bulging wing. On the ground with massive amounts of water beating in the wing skin, it depresses and allows water intrusion. Also you can operate normally with entrained water above freezing, but as several of our members have found, entrained water can result in a frozen spider in cold temps

No, but I never selected the affected tank either except to empty the tank.

I have long suspected Mooney wing tanks hide water. I have confirmed it. I took a trip to Jackson, TN (KMKL). I wanted a hangar for the two night stay, but none were available. Then due to circumstances not aviation related a two night stay turned into 4 nights. Not happy because bad weather was coming in on the third night. I begged for a hangar, but none to be had, so I strapped her down tight, covered all the ports including the fuel caps with those nifty covers from Wingviewtintshop.com and hoped for the best. It was bad. Really bad. We had to evacuate our hotel room due to tornado warnings with sirens going off. I heard and saw big hail landing and my heart sank. I saw “walls of water” falling. I returned to the airport fully expecting to see hail damage, but amazingly hail missed the airport. My fuel cap cover on the right cap was missing, and I was hopeful I had no water seepage because we just did an annual. In the annual we replaced the O-rings, big and small, did the ½ psi pressure test and it looked good. Looks are deceiving. I sumped both tanks. The left tank was clear of water. The right tank was water from the get go. Two GATS jars worth before I even begin to see blue. On the fourth, I had pure blue. I drained two more full GATS. I then shook the wing vigourasly and waited 10 minutes. Two more GATS jars and it seemed all was well… so it seemed. I did not need the fuel in the right tank, I only needed 28 gallons to get home, so I flew home on the left tank, just to be sure. After placing the airplane in the home hangar, I sumped it again. About a tablespoon of water came out the right tank. I assume vibration aided the appearance. I sumped two more times which were clear. I returned to the hangar the next morning. I sumped. No aggregated water but there were micro droplets on the side of the GATS jar. I cleaned the GATS jar with a paper towel. It took two more draws to get clean fuel. I returned the next morning, more micro droplets. Same procedure. On the third morning I finally had no micro droplets, but I was not convinced, so I “pasted” the tank with Gasoila and sure enough it showed entrained water. No visible droplets but it was positive for moisture. At this point, I decided to drain the tank so I got a barrel and drained it with the boost pump. Easy peasy. Refueled with clean new fuel. Paste check showed good. I have plenty of gas for the lawn mower, so does the airport crew. I write this because I have long suspected the Mooney wing hides water. It does. Even if you get a clear sample it takes a long time for all the water to work its way through all those little holes around the ribs and stringers. I had a very tight wing, resealed just two years ago by WetWingologists, pressure tested per the Mooney MM with no leaks, but the average wing cannot withstand buckets of water coming at it. You turbo guys who regularly fly below freezing may think you don’t have water, but a sump check is not sufficient. Might want to consider the 99% isopropyl treatment. Finally seal the tops of your caps if it stands in the rain. I had the covers and now I added velcro tape if I have to rely on them in windy weather. Be careful out there.

I flew mine with 12/44.5. It is a bit of a pain but not beyond normal handling

Note I said, “disciplined use”. Recently there was a fatal due to a door popping open. Now does one double check the security of a door because it might cause a fatal, because it is part of the flow or because we know it is a checklist item. Answer is we never really know. It is like asking if the Japanese scout plane had launched on time, would they have won the battle of Midway. The ommision or commission of one thing changes events in unpredictable ways, sometimes better, sometimes worse and often not at all.

The disciplined use of a checklist and the saves it creates cannot be calculated. You cannot count what did not happen.

I did. Continental CSB09-11A which supersedes documentation issued prior to 11/12/2014. Do you have documentation dated after that date that shows 2200 rpm is approved? This is for cruise power, descent is not affected.

Not supposed to be below 2300

I was putting my grandchildren to bed last night when much to my surprise I noticed their bedding! Do not know where they got it.

ME! Talk about thread creep.

The counterweight counters the mass of the connecting rod and components attached thereto. In doing so, it creates gyroscopic stability of a two spoke gyroscope. Gyroscopic stability is dependent upon velocity, radius and mass. Since mass and radius is fixed, velocity is the only variable. Once the RPM drops below 2300, the stability of the gyro suffers against a crankshaft producing a lot of power causing flexing as the gyro forces drop out. At low power this is not a problem as the crank is not being stressed, at higher power, the crank begins to flex against the connecting rod forces which can be counter acted by the weights if the RPM is sufficient.

One Cape Air 402 represents about 24 privately owned aircraft based upon usage hours.

You did not say the G just TSIO-550 which is why I said check that

Might want to check that

Minimum RPM for an IO-550 is 2300. IO-550 G5, I Personally I climb at 2500, cruise 2400. @ 65% 50 LOP ((12.3 gph) descend 2400, approach 2500.

Don’t confuse product with profit. One is of value the other is value.

The data is not all thst valuable. The charting data comes from the ICAO recognized government authority. Jeppesen for instance just takes government data and formats it appropriately to yheir users. Reality is there is a lot of data base providers in the marketplace for commercial aircraft that format data for use in FMS systems. Jeppesen is just one. That business is very competitive.

You are not going to see open source on anything other than Part 91 operators due to the FAA security requirements. This is why most air carriers use iOS because it and its management system is certified out of the box. One US carrier spent millions to get Windows tablets certified only to toss the whole thing in the can after two years as being almost unmanageable. You see no air carriers using Android because it can never meet the FAA requirements for robustness and most important, security. It is almost impossible to design open source to meet FAA and ICAO security for 121 and 135 and let’s be realistic, those operators are where the money is at.

PEGs produce no product except for money. Thus it is axiomatic prices will increase with no value added.

It will take years and years, cost thousands of lives and we will be no better off

Yep, seen a lot of LLCs and Sub S part 135 operations where they only serve their owners. Tax man comes to audit for sales tax on the aircraft and finds the operation a sham operation because it has never served the public at large. Tax law exempts for "common carriage" and serving one customer, the owner does not meet that test. Tax man says "pay up" and then you got one big fight which I have never seen anybody win.

You would if the person purchased the aircraft sales tax free under the provision that exempts air carrier aircraft, especially in CA and NY

A leaseback is a going business concern. No problem there. I have also set up dozens of captive 135 operations where the wholly owned LLC has primarily one customer, the owner of the LLC. I suggest to them, especially when facing tax audits they do an occasional charter to the public to legitimize the. situation. What I am saying is if you put your Part 91 airplane in an LLC, and the LLC generates no income, no periodic lease income no nothing that will be seen by the courts in any lawsuit as a sham and they will allow you to be sued. Worse is if you pay for the airplane expenses out of your pocket.