Ibra

I know this sounds silly to ask but given it’s “one week effet”, did you put G100UL in both fuel tanks? can you revert to 100LL in one fuel tank? the effet on paint does not look great, even scary ! Is that the original tank seal and wing paint?

The map is for winds at cruise altitudes (7000-10000) not surface winds, they were 1/2-1/3 Once above 3000ft agl, it went smooth: there is not much terrain around and temperatures are very cold for thermals. Under 3000ft agl it was bumpy and the takeoff and landing were gusty (Mooney handles it well with no flap).

Last year I had a trip with 50kts average speed (sometimes as low as 35kts) that had to stop halfway for fuel, I also get air sick after trying a faster cruise for 2h at 2000ft agl… The sight of cars on roads was really painful, it hurt to see Amazone trucks or Renaults R19 going faster than Mooney better not to fly at all

I had my record speed for out-return in M20J, albeit in France, we had storm Darragh and it was a good idea to circle around it while it’s moving (fly south on outbound flight Saturday and north on return flight Sunday) Overall the wind optimisation gave 60kts tailwind Saturday afternoon and 40kts tailwind Sunday night: as long as you keep depression to your left, you have a happy tailwind, only valid in northern hemisphere (somehow reminds me of electromagnetism exams ) Cruise climb 172kts and +1200fpm on Saturday afternoon and +200kts LPV followed by circle to land Sunday night

Winter trip to Colmar (LFGA), Mooney was doing 172kts ground speed on +1200fpm while on cruise climb at 120kias, it’s cold and windy, the air was crisp

I am sure anything about "ATC separation" require "ATC clearance"? I know the concept of AFIS does not existe in US, it's either controlled runway with ATC or uncontrolled without ATC (well in Alaska there is an AFIS but it's rather the ATIS/AWOS broadcasting system than some human FIS/FSS in the tower) In these airfields with AFIS (aerodrome FISO) or AG (air ground operator) there is no requirements to have runway separation minima as unlike ATC they can't issue clearances (they only give info "traffic on runway, land at your discretion"), so I highly doubt these would apply on CTAF? The AFIS/AG rules don't require runway separation but again these are for operations that happens outside US, however, I highly doubt the standards are different on uncontrolled airfields? Once two pilots agree on runway in use, we can discuss LAHSO at uncontrolled airfields?

The Mooney tail is backward, I am sure there is an optical illusion: tower can’t figure out if you are 45deg or 0deg or -45deg What ATC says something like “maintain heading, cleared for takeoff”?

I think "runway incursion" implicitly assumes there is an ATC clearance by tower? It's like stating there is lot of "separation loss" in pattern at uncontrolled airfields everytime somone overfly threshold, cross levels...the same for "runway & taxiway excursion", plenty of these everytime someone decides to taxi their taildragger over unpaved areas

I am not well versed on FAA rules on this but I don't think you will ever find any reference to this for light aircraft operating in uncontrolled airports? so the rule is to keep it safe: empty runway is better than a full runway Actually, for light aircraft and helicopters, under 12000 lbs? there is probably no requirement to land on the runway in the absence of TWR and ATM separation rules. Of course, there could be some local or specific rules that state so (*)? I am sure Harrison Ford, Bush, Ags, Parachuting, glider pilots will get trigged by these statements (they use wingspan as traffic separation standard and may opt for runway, grass, taxiway...). (*) These are likely some local airport rules on how uncontrolled day VFR traffic operates, I doubt there are well documented, so ignorance is "bliss". The other side of the coin are Night and IFR: - For VFR at night, I think you will have to land on a "night approved runway"? and that has to be an empty one? - For IFR on instrument runway, there are some extra constraints: an IFR can operate uncontrolled at the surface but the delivery or approach will have some sort of "one at the time" rule on how two IFR traffic can go from uncontrolled runways to controlled airspace above, however, IFR/VFR mix need to sort themselves...

I think for 1% proportions, they are well miscibles even at low temperatures, the only operational advantage is lowering freezing point For the purpose of testing fuel smaples say it has 1% of water (that is not visible). Can I test and separate that by pouring lot of ethanol (or isopropyl) in fuel sample? With 1% ethanol in fuel, I can test and separate that by pouring lot of water in fuel For isopropyl, I guess it depends on so much factors, however, a small trace it it should kick fuel freezing points to comfortable levels (assuming no visible water was was in drains)

We used to do the opposite: add water to test and remove ethanol from SP98/E5 fuels we get from car pumps (sort of AKI fuel with alcohol in France), then once water+ ethanol are filtred from the buttom we use the top fuel in ultra-lights and uncertified machines (Turbulents, Jodels), these can handle lower octane, however, unlike Rotax, they hate ethanol Water gets drained and any parts that stays up are not a problem for those flights: ne does not fly VFR ultra-lights (especially, open cockpits) in IMC under -30C near FL200, so fuel icing is not a concern, the main concern is losing rubber parts like engine driven fuel pump on downwind without an electrical pump as backpup at ambient temperatures, all you need is checking for visible water traces as you drain I imagine doing the reverse would give us an indication of water: mixing fuel samples with ethanol then see if water + ethanol separates at the lowest part As a side question, does isopropyl + water separate at ambient temperatures like ethanol + water do? Back to fuel icing in Mooney, it's not clear what is the threshold for % of water as function of temperature? This has some implications on how far one can go to mitigate this: * Is it enough to drain fuel sample on lowest points and inspect for water visually? and what's the threshold of water % that can be seen visually at ambient temperatures? * One can test the presence of water % at ambient temperatures, is that enough at -30C? * How much % isopropyl will be required? 1% looks like a lot for those who care about regular use and expensive Mooney tank sealants (engine is fine with 1%) On ethanol + water, some stuff is written here, I need to start some chemistry experiments in my hangar on fuel samples with all the ingredients this month https://www.bellperformance.com/blog/bid/114018/phase-separation-water-e10 My understanding, this is one of the reason why fuel in cars with ethanol have "official expiry dates", altough, it does not matter much in practice

Isopropyl 1% should help with this (M20K 231 says 3% but it seems a lot, 1% is more than enough), it’s not clear how it helps at -30C but it seems to work (maybe keeping full tanks, draining as much water and keeping high power) If the engine quits due to fuel icing, it will not restart no matter how one fiddles with it, even after many attempts, I tried many times in twin one day, it only started when warm 1h after landing. I recall another pilot had same issue with same aircraft although it was a double engine failure attributed to fuel icing, the design was really poor without water drains under main & aux fuel tanks, only gascalator drain inside cockpit, and the POH never mentioned anything about using isopropyl, so any water there will freeze one way or another… I was told turbo engines do not restart until dense air is reached, I have not tried but it looks plausible This makes me wonder if some practices like running tank dry (some pilots use this for “max range”) is a good idea when it’s colder than -10C, with all dirt and water in lower parts, especially in IMC? it’s scary to try even in twins… Amazing job AME LLC ! (stunning views for that stop along the way)

Check with the guys at Biggin Hill, they used to be “UK MSC”? Sure there are some uncertainty arounds some parts: few (new) factory parts are done in bulk both in time and size and they are not sold B2C, however, the majority of parts are standard or are sourced elsewhere with plenty of fleet around I don’t think Arrow vs M20J are very different for maintenance or parts (I flew and maintained both Arrow and M20J, no meaningful difference but again it’s “one data point” and maybe I was lucky with both). Fore sure, the mechanics and schools in UK tend to prefer to work with they have around, in UK it’s Pipers (in France, they prefer to work with Robins and in Austria, they prefer to work on Diamonds, “des gustibus non est disputandum” ) All parts comes from US anyway then one is more likely to suffer from bigger effects (supply shock, lead time, slowdown, covid lazynses, inflation…) than things like “Cessna vs Bonanza” or “Mooney vs Piper”. These days, you will struggle to find an exhaust clamp for turbo in Arrow same as for Mooney

I agree it's worth some consideration, Mooneys are likely to be operated on pavements while sitting on some hangar, if the aircraft is parked outaide and operated on grass/gravel with dust may need more oil changes We went to Spain and encounted a dust storm while there. After my return, I opted for an oil change with new oil/air filters, they did not look that bad or dirty as I have expected but I wanted that peace of mind. I think the same would apply to encounters with smoke, ash, haze, dust...

In M20J + IO360, I go with 50h or 4 month for my oil changes (if oil analysis shows something, then I would go with change/cut filter). I fly LOP and aircraft does 150h per year, I think it's ok for 50h change If I was flying ROP, less regularly or long breaks, I think changing every 20h or 30h would make more sense

Those ADSB targets are not real

That's a nice trip, I hope you enjoyed some sun in Biarritz ! It was sunny in Cannes, while flying north I managed locate that one single valley and mountain near Gap that stops the fog from going south, it did looks like a "fog dam" trying to hold it As you see the fog we get from Geneva (as you see it's always someone else fault in France: we get weather from UK and Switzerland ) was flowing in Rhone Valley with northerly winds and it was about to spillover toward Cannes

That’s a good summary, both ADSB and MK1 eyeball have limitations, however, they are complementary 99.99% of the times to scan and avoid, For instance, * I can’t scan traffic 5nm away using my eyes but ADSB tells me about these before they become a conflict * I can avoid slow departing C152 ahead of me using ADSB display but I can do it easily using my eyes when cleared for takeoff Sometimes both do not work (let’s call that 0.01% of the times), the “traffic too close than 1/2 mile and converging from an invisible corner”, one should not get into that situation where both ADSB screen and MK1 eyeball are limited? things works better if technology is used for early scan while eye is used to acquire target and avoid them visually (using tools as they are intended)

Maybe it's the EFB that have delays when they display the info?My iPad with GDL39 for ADSB target does not show things exactly where Avidyne Ryan TAS show their transponder ModeS targets The specs are 2s for aircraft targets (5s for radar targets) are real-time and then one has to add extra processing in certified and uncertified displays, however, one has to take human limitations into account, which is the main thing here. There is no way you can get 2nm near any other traffic if you can process traffic info live and act on it in real-time (yet we always end up in those "close call" situations), if the traffic was visible on display 30nm away on ADSB, why he is now at 1nm? the only explanation: even with real-time info, the pilot still runs on slow processors At Mooney speeds, 10 seconds is already 0.7nm, assuming the other traffic is C172 not another Mooney !

ADSB is effective to avoid airprox, let’s say this means keeping other traffic outside some (+/-500ft & +/-2nm) bubble Once a traffic is inside the bubble, it’s no longer an airprox and it start to look like mid-air, there are better ways to avoid mid-air such as looking ahead and picking random altitude that differs from what the traffic is using I am really puzzled why people rely on likes of ADSB or TAS (or FLARM for gliders down here) to “locate” traffic in tight patterns? these tools are useful to avoid conflicts before they become an airprox once it’s within wing spans and radius of turn the ship has sailed: all you need to know is that traffic is near you and the rest is done using MK1 eyeball and looking outside with extra dose of luck On luck: the probability of random mid-air inside (+/-500ft & +/-2nm) 3D bubble with two small aircraft 40ftx40ftx10ft is very small, it’s about 1 in 10million, it gets down to 1 in 10 thousands if flying 2D at same altitude, it gets down to 1 in hundreds if flying same 1D route (e.g. pattern) and about 1 in 1 if landing on same spot. One can come up with precise figures on how much is down to luck with more aircraft, high-low wing, fast-slow speed, lookout angles...but the magnitudes are useful to get an idea of airprox vs. midair risks While ADSB is not useful to avoid mid-airs, it is still useful to avoid airprox and give a sense of the stats one is dealing with, one should get worried about mid-air roughly in the following scenarios: * If they saw 100 airprox in pattern * If they saw 10000 airpox at 2000ft * If they saw 1000000 airprox under 10000ft In my opinion, the most useful information about nearby traffic is their altitude, the exact azimuth and exact position is hot potato when they are inside my bubble (turn radius), I won’t put my money on what the display shows? imagine there is 30 seconds delay or +1nm accuracy

An example of distraction or mission focus. One way to handle it is to drop the gear well before entering the valley while mental capacity is around? one excuse I heard for not doing it is "fuel economy" (for 10min at 90kts, it's about 50 cents saving LOL) Note that they need gear down at Megeve for drag in TB20, they were too high and fast on that approch: the gear would have helped anyway I saw something similar with pilots who are not used to busy untowred VFR airports or complex IFR airspace, the amount of distraction just breaks the normal "memory, flow, checklist", including putting gear down

That could be an option as well

Yes it’s easy within Schengen+EU as no immigration & customs are required * In southern countries like France, Italy…the flights are still “international” one still need to file mandatory flight plans, possibly gendec, make radio contact at borders…as these countries puts ICAO requirements above Schengen/EU laws, however, this is merely an ICAO reporting requirement: no restriction on where you can land and you don’t have to see anyone. * In northern countries like Germany, it’s easier as Schengen/EU flights are considered “domestic or national” (sub-ICAO): I flew Belgium-Germany-Austria without flight plan not talking to anyone except airport guys, this sounds more like “just go” UK (and Switzerland) need more planning: one have to comply with some immigration and customs rules like sGAR, these are not difficult once one gets used to them (it’s like eAPIS in US or Canpass in Canada) For fees (and Avgas), it’s manageable in small and medium airports in countries with light GA tradition Germany, Poland, France, Switzerland, Belgium…if you go to Spain, Italy…one tend to sick to private small airports while big airlines airports have pricy handling and are waste of time: imagine Signature price tag with bureaucracy and no red carpet. This is tough on GA flyers, you can’t fly north forever: you need to go south for sun, food, beach…

I went to Cannes (LFMD) and then Elba (LIRJ) then flew back via Pisa & Genova and some cloud surfing over Alps before heading back to flatlands

Yes I see Fuel Pressure limit in Section2 Indeed, the limits by aeroplane manufacturer can be different from engine limits, I see CHT 500F limit on my Lycoming in engine data versus CHT 475F limit on Mooney in airframe data It's not clear when an airframe limitation would require an equipment? I have G-limit on my airframe in Section2, yet I don't have G-meter sensor in aircraft Maybe it's likely an overkill for "normal category" and nice yo have on "aerobatic category", having said that I can my use my body to measure G-limit as well as combination airspeed, vertical speed and bank angle but I don't have a certified instrument to do it For fuel pressure, one can't comply with limitation without having working sensor and data displayed