ttflyer

Just curious what was "problematic."? I find all positives for using landing flaps for every landing (I have plenty of runway) as stated above. What are your downsides besides a couple of extra knots?

I've never had a problem getting a Mooney stopped on any runway I've landed on. We're talking a couple of knots here. I fly jets too and the speed doesn't seem to scare me... Yeah, we're talking an inch or two at most. Might make all the difference or none at all. Like I said you do you. There are valid reasons for using TO flaps for landing. Not the least of which is it's what the POH says to do if the is a crosswind. Disregard the POH all you want. Or if your POH doesn't say that, good on you for not making things up as you go and just doing what you do.

I think the theory is that less flaps gives you 1) higher landing attitude so you are less likely to prang it on the nose wheel (particularly at=>; 2) faster speeds so you have more control effectiveness. As I said, you do you. YMMV...

I'll just add this from our M20J (205) POH. Not very often there isn't some crosswind... I usually use TO flaps for landing. It puts the airplane in a better landing attitude IMO keeping the nose wheel a little higher off the ground. Seems most people that have issues landing Mooneys seem to land them flat or on the nose wheel first. Yes, this an airspeed problem but it is what it is... Flaps TO helps this a bit. Also, as stated in the other thread, there are no configuration changes are required during a go-around. None. Just add power and pitch up. That's it. YMMV.

As with many above, I land at Flaps 15 every time now. Not for this reason but because it puts the airplane in a slightly higher landing attitude which reduces the chance of landing flat or on the nose wheel first - a common Mooney landing issue. This one change in my technique made the biggest difference on making consistently excellent, smooth landings. Of course, there is the added benefit that go-arounds require only the application of full power and pitching up away from the ground. No fiddling with anything. I also open the cowl flaps after lowering the gear in the pattern specifically so I have nothing to do on the go-around except go around. As for the shallower approach angle argument, I find it more consistent with the jet aircraft I also fly and don't see any difference in my ability to make the runway if the engine fails.

Our 1988 J had a factory OAT probe in a panel about half way out on the right wing. The panel was riveted in place, not an inspection panel. We put our Garmin OAT probe next to the factory one in the same panel. Not much work for people who work on airplanes... Don't have a picture handy but can get one next time at the airport.

4. Making adjustments for traffic as needed. In both Jets (1,500' agl) and props (1,000' agl). Not sure about the drop zone thing. Never been an issue (that I was aware of) at any airport I use regularly.

Since I don't live in Kalifornia, I'm kinda happy to let them be the test case. My guess is there will be lots of problems and they will have to go back to 100LL. Hopefully nobody is killed or hurt "testing" this out for us... BTW, there is a new video just out from mluvara on Youtube:

This exactly. Give these guys a bit of a break. Yes, they Fd'up. But Midway is a mess on the ground. They were given a clearance to cross a runway that barely looks like a runway while they were on a runway. They lost SA and didn't look like they should have but plenty of professional pilots could have made this mistake. In fact I have yet to meet a professional pilot that hasn't made a mistake... Also, I'll bet SWA saw that whole thing unfolding right in front of them with plenty of time to react. "Is that guy REALLY gonna pull out in front of us? Yup? Oh well, around we go". Not great but I doubt the drama is warranted...

I used to fly with the mini mounted on the yoke. After the Garmin G3X upgrade, I use my iphone on the yoke and keep the mini in my flightbag...

I'll just add that when we had to do this in February (airplane went out of annual during panel upgrade by 5 days), the local FSDO would have nothing to do with it even though I have a pretty long relationship with them for my day job. It's done online which was then sent to a local(ish) DER who sings off and sends us a bill - in our case $400. For something that the FAA used to do for free. Progress I guess... It took a couple of days. When the FSDO did it, I could do it in an afternoon.

Also, don't overshoot your field. We are used to the drag the gear gives us. If we leave it up, much less drag... Just something to think about. I'd rather "dig in" a bit in field then sail into whatever is at the opposite end of the field...

That's a very nice looking airplane. I have a "top of the market" (read over-upgraded) J. I love it and wouldn't trade but.... I kinda wish it had a J-bar....

Lot's of good bike rental shops in the places I take the Mooney! Also, I don't have to load a bike into an airplane!

I don't know... I kinda like the system we have. Having to call 1980Mooney and then all his neighbors to get permission to do traffic pattern work seems a bit unworkable. And there is NOTHING about China I would like to emulate... so there's that... We're actually all saying the same thing: WE have the best system in the world AND it's probably gonna get F$cked up sooner or later... Exactly how is the question. For my part, I'm glad to be alive now and not in 50 years. Things seem to be going downhill....

I'm not worried about AI taking my job (as a professional pilot) anytime in my lifetime. We are a LONG away from having that technology in the cockpit of a passenger plane. Heck, I fly one of the most recently designed biz-jets. And it's 25 year old technology at best... Airliners are almost all 40-50 year old technology. Even the 787 is old technology - and it has largely failed as a concept (lots of problems with "new" technology in airplanes). The technology isn't there for single or zero pilot airplanes and people aren't ready for it... Also, I assume that if user-fees are implemented, light GA would be excluded. The juice isn't worth the squeeze. But who knows. The government does seem to have a talent for doing REALLY stupid things...

Yeah, but that's not the whole story, is it? We all pay for lots of things through our taxes that we don't use. I have no children yet pay for local schools. I pay for highways I don't drive on. But I like living amongst educated people and Amazon brings me my stuff on those roads so... GA users benefit from a system that was designed for the airlines so they pay for the majority of it. Local communities benefit from having local airports so local communities pay for them. The whole country benefits from a robust aviation industry so the Federal Government subsides it. Airline passengers benefit from GA users using the "system" because it's safer for us to be on radar talking to ATC then flying around NORDO. The OP here was really making an argument for a "free" system for GA, not against it. That other aircraft had no excuse, even VFR, to not be talking to ATC and receiving flight following. If he had to pay for that service, he would have been even LESS likely to use it (rather then just being lazy which was probably the case). Had been talking to ATC, he would have been pointed out but since he was just a target, ATC was too busy to bother. And oh yeah: What's the biggest problem facing the airline industry right now? Labor. They need pilots and mechanics. Where do these people come from? GA. Killing GA through user fees would be about the most short sighted thing they could do. Which is probably why you haven't heard too much about it from the airlines lately...

This is more or less what I do as well. The way I think about it, when it's time to land the gear is the MOST important thing. So it's FIRST. When it's time to land I have to slow down. As I slow down below gear speed, I always put the gear down before I do anything else. Then flaps, pumps, prop etc... But the gear is my first action when it's time to land... Then obviously checked again on base and final with GUMPS. I'll also note that this is different then the way I fly a jet. But Mooneys and jets are different airplanes...

Kyle out at LASAR in Oregon. Seems to be the guru on these things. https://lasar.com/

I don't know what your specific problem is other then Garmin Database Manager is garbage. In our case, I have to clear the cache every time or it fails in the airplane (even though GDM says it completes fine). So... why doesn't Garmin just have the software clear the cache every time?.. Seriously. Send it to India and give a local 5 bucks and he could fix it I guarantee... BTW, try clearing the cache....

Just to close out this original thread... We sent the actuator off to be looked at and got a "there was nothing wrong with it" report back. Everything including the NBS were checked and completely normal. They completed a service bulletin of some kind and did replace the emergency extension pulley as there were some indications of wear there that weren't up to snuff. We put the actuator back in the airplane and it worked normally. Several flights later - no issues. We also had our mechanic replace the CB as it had been tripped many times in all this and is 35+ years old... I'm guessing it was an issue with the emergency extension engagement mechanism. But our mechanic said he checked that... Who knows. Anyway, it works now!

Thanks for that! That is exactly where we sent it. Good news - The actuator is fine. Like worked fine on the bench right out of the shipping box. Fully inspected and everything looked / worked as expected. So the issue is somewhere else - probably electrical. We'll get to chase that down when we get the actuator back...

Thanks for all the advice and tips! I found a guy who seems to know his way around these actuators who's willing to look at for us and let us know what he can do... I think having an expert look at is the first step...

So... It looks like we've had the worst case scenario happen with our gear actuator. My partner was flying last week and the gear failed to retract and popped the CB. Fortunately, the gear was down and locked. He landed normally. We just finally got it up and jacks and the landing gear actuator is locked up. Looks like a No Back Spring failure... It is an Eaton (Vickers) actuator. Any suggestions? Kinda at a loss about what to do next...

I'll just be the counter point here. I owned an extremely nice RV6 for four years before the Mooney. Built by a Vans factory test pilot. Full glass cockpit. Probably one of the nicest RV6s ever built. And I never felt comfortable in it. There was NO doubt that it was built in someone's garage. I got the distinct impression that it would crush like a beer can in any off-airport landing. It was fun to fly but had no mass and no inertia which made it a hand full in a gusty crosswind (it was a taildragger). It also had the glide ratio of a man hole cover when the engine quit... I'll take my Mooney any time... Yes, certified is more expensive. But I would argue safer for a verity of reasons. I would never go back to experimental...