Marc_B

My favorite Bertorelli quote on the video..."What I really worry about is becoming a hood ornament on a Cirrus, or WORSE, a Mooney!" ha ha ha We have a couple DZs around me and one of them is literally RIGHT off the wing of an ILS approach into an airport to the north. Usually the jump plane does a great job of timing skydiving operations to avoid anyone on a practice approach. But once it happened that I was seeing parachutes off my right wing. I broke off the approach and just gave a wide berth away. In the summer on weekends, the DZ at KLMO runs a King Air for the tandems, and a Caravan for the fun jumpers...so there's a pretty steady stream of parachutes during the day.

That's my point. If you're flying into an airport (even one you're familiar with), there may be situations that you haven't thought about before and there are times that traffic either isn't doing something you'd expect or not communicating like they should. But we're still expected to see and avoid traffic, terrain, and other obstacles (i.e. parachutes). Proper sequencing/spacing, speeds, pattern entry and altitudes help to mitigate a lot of this. But still don't account for routine things such as IFR/practice approaches, straight in approaches, etc. And it doesn't always work perfectly with dissimilar aircraft and speeds. So probably something that we should actively consider as we're approaching an airport in general. Offset opposite side of pattern doesn't always work, but seems like the best option when it does.

Recent midair made me think of areas with skydiving operations that wouldn't allow you to offset to side opposite of traffic pattern. I don't recall specific training, but I've always "side stepped" to the side opposite of the traffic pattern if I was going around due to traffic on the runway, someone lagged before takeoff, someone aborted takeoff, etc. Always seemed prudent. When I announce this on frequency I say something like "...Mooney going around, sidestepping right, to the east of runway 35..." Seems like offset opposite of the traffic pattern makes sense for low wing aircraft that could keep any upwind/departure as well as crosswind traffic in sight. But we do have a local uncontrolled airport, KLMO Vance Brand Longmont where this wouldn't be the best option...coming in Rwy 11, left traffic with pattern to the north...if parachute operations in effect any sidestep south would be NO-GO and put you right over parachute landing area immediately to the south of the taxiway. So if low wing offsets to the NORTH of Rwy 11 (to the left) and high wing on departure...there would seem to be a large blind spot for both aircraft, especially when turning left crosswind. We all know ADS-b may help but has a lag and in close proximity much better to have eyes on outside. So what's your deconfliction?? i.e. side step north, expedited turn into crosswind/downwind, quicker climb to TPA, slower climb to TPA for visibility, do you try to "beat" the other aircraft to the crosswind turn or try to stay behind them to keep them in sight? Communication is paramount, but what about the case with NORDO or just not responding... In this scenario, I'd be inclined to side step to the left/North and would be tempted to make an earlier crosswind turn, however if other traffic in the pattern this wouldn't allow increasing traffic separation but would likely result in decreasing traffic separation. BUT, what I've realized thinking through this scenario is that with inability to sidestep to the side of the runway OPPOSITE the traffic pattern...my best bet is to really set up my separation well and try to avoid this entirely.

When you have bad technique or bad sealant you see issues relatively quickly. But this is what irks me…when someone would point to the above and say “see, it’s all bad Mooney wet wings” and then point to a tank that’s lasted 25+ years. Then in the next breath point to experts in the field that have industry respect for their work with reseals and say “it’s so difficult to make it work only cottage shops can fix it”.

Going by my MAPA key numbers idea, 4" MP drop equivalent to a 10% HP drop...that would equate to about 35% loss of takeoff power for me (39"-->25").

My curiosity of where this fails isn’t to minimize the damage of the unfortunate aircraft and their owners, but to learn what the future of unleaded fuel might hold. With aircraft that require higher octane fuel this has to come from somewhere. Be it aromatics, metallics, or oxygenates?? But there’s a very real chance that at some point we may uncover that certain elastomers, materials, compounds and treatments may be more resilient. The hard lessons learned today might save a lot of aircraft “tomorrow.” Currently there’s no way I’d want to use this in my Mooney. Unfortunately I don’t see clarity and answers forthcoming.

Best option is to find a beanie you like and take it down to a local t-shirt/embroidery shop and have them add the Mooney logo. I have a buddy who has done that with lots of stuff that turned out great!

@A64Pilot if you look in the pictures, that’s basically what the lineup was. alkaline cleaner; rinse; rinse with exiting spray; deoxidizer, rinse; rinse with exiting spray; M-CR 1200S Alodine; rinse with exiting spray. @shawnd thanks for the pics showing skin surfaces with alodine. Curious if any of you know the history of treatments and paints with Mooney over the years? I know some years were better paint than others. I always thought that was the difference in paint shop personnel vs products?

I'm not entirely sure that Mooney didn't alodine their parts...when we toured the factory at MooneyMax, there was actually a series of tanks for processing. I don't know what parts were put through this, but there WAS tank for alodine. @Pinecone I saw you posted that on BT...do you or @A64Pilot know what Mooney did or didn't treat?? or was this just a guess?

When I spoke with Surefly when I installed mine, they recommend about a 3 inch piece of tubing connected to the pressure sense barb and directed down as a drain. They did not recommend capping the pressure sense barb. On NA application the barb would be connected to the manifold pressure. For a Turbo application they aren't approved for variable timing so you'd wouldn't connect to MP, but rather just functions as a drain.

This seems to suggest the hypothesis that it may be the low volatility compounds that concentrate and contribute to longer dwell time and more risk. But it also makes me wonder what happens in separate Aux tanks that aren’t used frequently or the fuel tank sealant that is up top of the tank that gets wetted but not typically soaked with fuel. Leaks aren’t the only time fuel components get wetted and then allowed the dry and concentrate.

That was my thought as well...not sure how you balance putting it on, and wouldn't be surprised if it was closer to balance coming off! @Grant_Waite If you go with rudder replacement, I'd call Beegles/BAS at KGXY in Greeley. (Beegles is the maintenance arm of BAS salvage) https://baspartsales.com/ https://www.beeglesaircraft.com/ They do a lot of sheet metal work and also have a paint shop I believe. I wouldn't be surprised if they could get a salvage rudder off the shelf; clean, repaint, and balance for you; and ship to you for your shop to install. Worth a phone call if you're considering that route.

I'll be the contrarian...when I upgraded my panel I put in a SXM 69A so that I could have XM weather on my panel as well as XM music. For context, I have an all glass panel and so can use XM on G500TXi and GTN 750Xi. I've found that XM always bumps up the cost at renewal, so it always requires calling to find out what the best package they are offering (NEVER let XM autorenew!). Usually try to get a 6- or 12-month package to see what the best price break will be. Also if you're planning on being down for a bit (maintenance or just not flying) you can put your subscription on pause so you're not paying for it during that time a simple call lets you choose pause and choose reactivation vs leave it indefinite and have to call back to restart. I usually go with the XM pilot express There are some product difference and in general the radar data is usually more current. The coverage map is different which is important for trips down to Caribbean/Mexico/Canada. The satellite vs ground line of sight reception is different. But there's also overlap with ADS-B/FIS-B. If you're a VFR only pilot and usually have short flights around your local area, FIS-b is great. I don't think that XM is orders of magnitudes better, but there are a couple of times that XM feed worked/works better for me. Given weather is a GA pilot equalizer, it's nice to have a little more enhanced and timely product. But as anyone will tell you, neither products are useful for navigating storm cells and aren't near the same as in flight radar. Sometimes 2 is1, 1 is none...meaning it's nice when I need it to have a back up. Of course I'm usually doing most of my weather prep on the ground using ForeFlight Imagery and https://aviationweather.gov/ So in flight this is more confirming that things have changed as I expected or moving the same direction and speed as anticipated. Occasionally it encourages me to take a fuel stop...but usually it just confirms that my plan is still GTG. I'm not flying on the ragged edge of weather anyways. https://www.sportys.com/blog/datalink-weather-for-pilots-ads-b-vs-siriusxm/ https://www.siriusxm.com/aviation/packages https://www.siriusxm.com/aviation/siriusxm-ads-b?intcmp=Global Nav_NA_www:aviation:overview_SXMvsADSB For the ADS-b vs XM discussion it's more dependent on HOW you use it and WHERE.

@Matthew P https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/40797B4900228F3786256A3B006FDDCF.0001

@Brian2034 I've used Donaldson filters since I purchased the Mooney. Easy to care for. Works well. No experience with Tempest, but sounds like they're equivalent. If you can't find one, go with the other. They're both synthetic media.