1980Mooney

The Registered owner of N9525M is also listed as an A&P in the FAA Airman. The Registered owner was active on MS but stopped posting on MS during May 2023 and last visited MS in February of this year. May not be him flying. Interestingly his ADS-B does not seem to show up on FlightAware or on ADSBExchange since March of this year. Correction: That reference is to the current owner. This happened in 2015 which was with a prior owner. "ATC Live" YouTube Channel (video posted at beginning of topic ) scraped (basically copied) this flight/ATC coversation from The Flight Follower YouTube Channel. Original is below. Unfortunately there is no date of flight in either post.

It’s just continuity - open or closed. Ohms or continuity on your meter

It is possible to repair in some cases. It could be the diaphragm or micro switches. Or calibration. Read below. Otherwise you need a new one for a couple $ thousand. Lasar claims to sell for $900 but not clear if they have any — says “call for availability” and “call to special order”… https://lasar.com/switches/airspeed-safety-switch-656-3-880013-507

Cheaper Lycoming? Compare new Lycoming vs new DeltaHawk. IO-360 is $99,000 from AirPower but none are in stock. I bet you that the new shipment when it arrives is over $100k. https://www.airpowerinc.com/enpl-rt9304 That’s why DeltaHawk is pursuing OEM airframe manufacturers. And that is why Mooney is “dead” to them.

Oh you mean like this “point-of-view in politics” post in a “Fuel Cost” topic on MooneySpace by someone named “Hank”?.. “Also, Kalifornia is busy giving money hand over fist to illegal aliens, and ignoring the citizens from whom the money is taken . . . .“

Don’t you mean that you don’t know of any “that will publicly admit YET”. Funded by Koch Foundation among others. Seriously doubt it or goals are going away. Likely will resurface with a name change. https://www.heritage.org/press/project-2025-reaches-100-coalition-partners-continues-grow-preparation-next-president

Did anyone bother to notice that ATC User Fees are a key goal of conservative agendas, Heritage Foundation, and Project 2025? From Project 2025: “The FAA is the only modern Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the world that does not assess fees for its services" "Require the FAA to operate more like a business." ”at a minimum separate the ATO from the FAA” "Shift from aviation user taxes to fees for air traffic services paid directly to the ATO."

I see now that the 3/18/2008 AML does not list any of the STC Holders by name but instead includes a few STC's by Airframe such as those by Rocket Engineering. The Mod Works M20L conversion was STC Number: SA02624AT and the Mod Works VM1000 installation on multiple Mooneys was STC Number: SA01516AT. I don't see either one on the AML. But somehow N823TH, a Mod Works converted M20L has a JPI EDM900. https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/231785879/n823th-1988-mooney-m20l-pfm

Good catch.

@LANCECASPERis correct that the JPI STC SA01435SE only lists originally manufactured airframes - no modifications. For example the numerous Rocket Engineering K/J mods Rocket and Missile are not listed either. http://www.jpitech.com/manuals/04/900-930 AML and STC.pdf But it does not seem to be an issue. Here is a converted M20L with a JPI EDM 900 (primary instrument) that sold in the last year. I assume he got field approval. So if money is no object spend away. https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/231785879/n823th-1988-mooney-m20l-pfm I also found a Rocket conversion (also not on the JPI STC AML) with the larger JPI EDM 930 (primary instrument). So it seems prevalent and easy to do if you wish to spend the cash. https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/220371009/n252ac-1988-mooney-m20k-305-rocket

How many hours/calendar age on the engine? I assume that you have only the screen and no filter on this engine. Have you already dumped the oil? - if not drag a magnet along the bottom of the pail/pan. See if you pick up more bits.

Agreed. It looks like a broken/sheared thread or a piece of metal flashing to me. Given the curvature and size it looks fairly large diameter. Oil filler plug maybe?

There is also another way to look at #1 that should give you comfort. It has undergone 27 Annuals since the accident. Many different A&P's and IA's have looked at the plane and had their hands on it. - 10? more? It is not just one person's opinion pencil whipping the logs. If any one of them saw evidence of poor work or failing repair or thought the repair was substandard, it would likely have surfaced by now.

So you got me thinking. Digging deeper his 1961 Cessna 172, N8139X, is co-owned with a Robert Franklin Thompson, age 73. Merkle bought the Cessna in 2006. But it appears that Thompson got his Private in 2010. He is not Instrument rated. The Cessna is kept at College Park airport, KCGS. It is 2,980 ft long. The Mooney was kept at Gaithersburg, KGAI, 16 nm. away. It is 4,200 ft. long. Looking over a couple years there was only one single day when both planes flew at the same time. The Mooney accident flight in Nov 2022 was from KGAI to White Plains, (KHPN) and back, 196 nm. each way. Interestingly the Cessna 172 had previously also flown to White Plains (KHPN) and back in Sept 2022 (much slower of course...). Fast forward to today. Thompson's Medical is current using BasicMed. Merkle kept his Medical current after the Nov 2022 crash by getting a Second (2nd) Class Medical on 4/2023. Generally when over 40, a 2nd Class is good for one year for Commercial privileges and then reverts to a 3rd Class for another year. But in this case his Airman says "NOT VALID FOR ANY CLASS AFTER 04/30/2024." So technically Merkle does not have a current Medical. Who is actually flying the 172...Thompson or Merkle? Why did he get a 2nd Class Medical when he is not commercial or an instructor? I wonder what his angle is.... Also watch the YouTube interview if you have not already. At 2:37, when asked "Do you think that you will ever fly again", he says with a smirk and a wink "Well I still own a Cessna"

Well I don’t know if he is all those things but he is definitely an Attorney. Martin-Hubbell lists his areas of practice as in Civil Law, Property Rights, Civil Rights, Real Estate Maybe he will sue the FAA for damages because the FAA ultimately made the decision to allow him to crash and injure people twice.

Oh he is not doing that. He currently has a 1961 Cessna 172B, N8139X, registered in his name that he continues to fly here in July. He definitely is getting his money's worth from insurance...... https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N8139X https://www.flightaware.com/resources/registration/N8139X In the 1992 crash he narrowly avoided killing his entire family (wife and 2 young children) and their nanny. He was flying a 1976 Piper PA-32R-300. I think it was designated as a Lance Retractable that year. The plane slide 60 yards down the canyon after crashing. It burst into flames after they got out. https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/132961 https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/42870/pdf https://www.deseret.com/1992/8/5/18998028/investigators-comb-scene-of-plane-crash-below-peak-br/ https://www.deseret.com/1992/8/4/18997844/5-escape-with-minor-injuries-from-plane-wreck-in-canyon-br/

General Atomics just dumped Lycoming and developed their own HFE 2.0 200 HP diesel engine to replace the Lycoming DEL-120 180 HP (continuous) rated diesel. https://www.ga.com/ga-asi-completes-durability-test-for-hfe-20-engine The military Lycoming 4 stroke diesel DEL-120 was indeed an impressive engine that was in production for 11 years. It replaced the Thielert on the original Gray Eagle. Ten years ago Lycoming said they would consider bringing it to the civilian market if there was commercial interest. Apparently there has not been any. I suspect that Lycoming charged a head-spinning stratospheric price that only the Government would pay. Hence no civilian interest. Regarding opportunity for DeltaHawk, I believe even in its lowest HP version, it weighs less than the Lycoming with similar specific fuel consuption. In the Oshkosh video they say that they are taking more weight out of the DeltaHawk. And they already announced higher HP versions. The DOD was buying the Lycoming DEL-120 for UAV's like the Grey Eagle costing over a ridiculous $20 million each. Not every country, maybe not even the USA in the future, wants to spend so much per UAV - perhaps quantity, rather than a few more complex models, will be more important like in last past wars. The DeltaHawk 2 stroke may find a market as a simpler, lighter and more cost effective solution. Starts at 9:45 min. in the YouTube. Just a thought.

That explains the Mooney comment. They are not doing them by popularity. They are doing them by airframe still currently being manufactured. Look at the Piper Seminole announcement. DeltaHawk calls it "co-development". Piper calls it "partners". That means co-ownership of the STC. Piper Aircraft and DeltaHawk Engines to Co-Develop STC for PA-44 Seminole - DeltaHawk Power Reimagined Piper Aircraft Partners with DeltaHawk Engines to Explore Diesel Power for PA-44 Seminole | Piper Aircraft The minute the airframe manufacturer gets involved in what is a major firewall forward modification then the 18 year GARA liability clock starts ticking again. It's not just "firewall forward" - it involves changes in instrumentation, recalibration of fuel measuring, weight and balance, changes in handling, changes in flight and emergency procedures, etc. As a result the airframe manufacturers will not want to screw around with 30-60 year old airframes. Likewise DeltaHawk does not want to waste its limited engineering on packaging, designing engine mounts, optimizing cowlings, test flying, modifying POH's etc. DeltaHawk wants to sell engines. And they don't want all that other liability of trying to certify a complete package for 30-60 year old airframes. I think that DeltaHawk ultimately has its sights set on the military UAV market and secondly commercial UAV markets. The war in Ukraine is changing the entire "air war" calculus at an unprecedented pace. The success and advances in cheap military UAV's is far beyond anyone's expectation. You can build 1,000 fairly heavy military UAV's for the cost of one (1) F-35. You will see military spending shift rapidly to buy 10,000's of inexpensive UAV's From Uncrewed Systems Technology Magazine a couple months ago: "As multi-fuel engines are highly valued among UAV operators, this is the market that DeltaHawk is targeting today". Issue 54 Uncrewed Sytems Technology Feb/Mar 2024 uWare uOne UUV l Radio and telemetry l Rheinmetall Canada medevacs l UUVs insight DelltaHawk engine l IMU focus l Skygauge in operation l CES 2024 report l Blueflite l Hypersonic flight (ust-media.com) Also Government & Military Applications - DeltaHawk Power Reimagined

And don't forget that it will require a rather radical new cowling. I don't see that mentioned. I bet a complete new cowling including painting to match your plane adds easily $10K - maybe $15K.

That's more like it. "Targeting" $110K for the 180 HP model.

I think it delusional to believe that they can provide a firewall forward conversion including complete engine w/ accessories, engine frame, new cowling, prop, governor, instrument changes, fuel metering and tank level recalibration, probably a new electric fuel pump all certified for $90K. Especially with all the aviation related increases I doubt a conversion can even be done for $100K

Did they mention a price? I see the new Hartzell STC for a 2 blade Composite on the DA 40(XL) w/ IO-360 is about $27,000 from Ottesen Prop. With shipping, installation, tax I bet it is close to $30K. Ouch.... That is a lot to spend to save a few pounds and to "save" on field repair (assuming that you tear it up). Hartzell STC Diamond DA-40XL With IO-360-M1A Engine (2-Blade Composite - Ottosen Propeller

Good question. 25 years ago, on a 8,000 ft Towered runway, my original Mooney instructor had me touch the mains down on the numbers holding the nose off and then gently adding a little power and pulling it off into ground effect. Then followed by pulling power/bleeding energy, landing again, touching the mains down with the nose held up followed by a little power and back up into ground effect. I "landed" consecutively four (4) times, touching the mains, adding power, pulling up into ground effect with the last a full power take off. The Tower was not amused.

The "Batteryminder" external plug set-up above is totally different from what you likely have. I assume that you have the traditional heavy duty "Cessna Oval 3 Pin Plug" Male receptacle for the GPU (Ground Power Unit) {also called an APU - Auxiliary Power Unit} installed on your plane: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/extpowerrect.php#productMainImage-1 https://lasar.com/electrical-instruments/apu-receptacle-an2552-3a GPU Jumper cables: https://www.chiefaircraft.com/asoc-6141.html https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/jumpercables.php Take a look at the schematic in the attached drawing above (upper left hand corner of the drawing). Alternatively you should find the electrical schematic for your plane in the shop manual but it is harder to read. There are two (2) solenoids - The first, when energized, connects your jumper in parallel with your existing battery. The other solenoid, when energized, supplies power to your starter by connecting it to your battery (which is in parallel with the the jumper source when the jumper power source is plugged in). First , connect your jumper cable to a power cart, APU or to a running car/truck (if your plane is 12 volt). Then plug the 3 pin plug into the receptacle on your plane. Notice that there is a smaller third (3rd) pin in the plug and receptacle. The GPU plug's third pin is connected to (+). It's shorter, so it makes contact last. When the plug is inserted, first the main (+) and (-) make contact. When the third plug pin touches, it energizes the solenoid and the contactor in the solenoid closes, and GPU power goes to the battery. Therefore, there is no chance for a spark when connecting the "hot" 3 pin plug. If the battery on your plane is dead, initially there will be a surge of power to it from the power cart or running car/truck. Personally I would let it sit and charge but there is no danger to the starter or engine if you choose to start the plane. You just have 2 sources of power in parallel connected to the starter. If your plane battery is heavily discharged the power coming from the your jumper will be flowing to both the discharged battery and your starter. There might be too much current with resulting voltage drop such that the starter doesn't turn fast enough. The plane battery needs to recover some charge first in that case. If your plane does start and you choose to unplug the GPU immediately after the engine starts, it puts a big strain on your alternator. It is better to let everything charge for a while. Also, unless an absolute emergency, it is not smart to take off with a dead battery that is charging. Retracting the gear could put enough load to kill everything. @kortopates has opined on this many times.

I think that they learned that most pilots, other than you, were not interested in winning a new Icon A5. The 2024 winner, when informed that he had won a new Icon A5 or new Tecnam Astore, replied "Not Interested". When informed that he could take cash, he opted for the $100,000 outright cash. https://www.flyingmag.com/news/missouri-pilot-opts-for-cash-in-ultimate-flying-giveaway/ You may be right. They cut the 2025 outright cash option prize in half from 2024 down to $50,000.