Immelman

I have the same feeling. The annual inspection and servicing seems about right, double for those smaller* discrepancies.... ? *I havent had any valve work done, not sure on #6.

Having tried this in the past.... and when watching this, there is one thing I'm not certain of: the startle factor and time required to overcome that, recognize the issue, make the decision, start the maneuver. Pulling the throttle and immediately rolling into the turn back, is that a fair test? Maybe, maybe not....

I put an item on my before takeoff checklist for this: floor..... clear. I put it there after a similar moment!

Before doing anything with the pump, I would look closely at the rigging of the cable that connects to the retraction lever in the cockpit to the small pivoting arm on the side of the flap pump. On my E, the cable is clamped to the pump lever with a screw. As I recall it was tricky to get the positioning correct on this. Will the flaps stay down if you disconnect the cable, and have someone manually position the arm on the pump to various places along its travel? This would help isolate rigging vs pump. By all means do this before taking the pump apart and having to re-bleed the system.

That has been my style for some time now. Fly it until something big happens. The engine is still in good health. The radios are starting to give me fits and that has me thinking... This past week I did that precise trip, 3.5 hrs Mooney time each way. It was awesome. Those trips aren't happening that often, though. Mostly I just go up and fart around, do a few T&Gs, and still enjoy it.

I've owned my 1966E since 2007. Over 1000 tach hours of flying, minimal problems. But I think I am at or quickly approaching a fork in the road: On my last trip the airframe and engine did wonderful.... cruising along 11,500, 8gph, 160-165mph true... What its all about! But the panel is talking... radio gremlins... new comms, a GPS, new engine gauges, remove vacuum, etc.... that would cost. And at some point, the engine will start talking. - Engine 1900+ SMOH which was in 2004 - Panel late 80s, beyond its useful life. On the last trip I had enough radio oddities to start thinking its time... - Paint late 80s, serviceable, minor corrosion spots. Some hangar rash from before my time I never addressed.. - Interior decent - Longer trips, I can fly anywhere on an airliner for free, space available - Shorter trips, 3-5 hours of driving: Honestly its better to drive... ground transport and logistics - Family of 3, but we seldom fly together. Occasionally my daughter and I, wife has lost some interest, though we did plenty of travels in years past, before child. Kid is approaching 8, showing some interest in aviation. Too early to really tell, and I do not want to push the kid... but if they were interested that is a reason to keep a plane. Facing the music, my airplane is largely a toy. It has brought years of enjoyment and helped me build the time to launch a successful flying career without much fuss and I am very grateful for that. But I also feel that I've "done all the things". I've had the thought that its time to move on, but then I go flying and still love it. Its been easy to keep it since the cost to keep going has been minimal. What would you do?

Such an easy question to have when you're relaxing in front of a keyboard with a moment to pause and think. As opposed to the shock of touching down with a scrape.

I don't fly through much cumulus cloud in my Mooney, no interest to. Go around. Airliners, it depends. Its not just height. As such I won't give you an answer to your poll. Are they building or dissipating? What's around, what's behind? How high are we? Is everyone strapped in or not? Look at them enough and you can learn to tell the difference. Hard vs soft edges, for example. But for the most part there is little reason to ever fly through a building cumulus cloud of any significant height. The tricky part is where you're IMC and can't tell.. only have radar imagery to work with. By the way, I don't request deviations. I tell them what I need. If there is some negotiation so be it, but if denied and I don't want to fly through it, I still won't fly through it. But it has not come to that with ATC, yet. They are good folks.

Mine (66e, plastic) was falling apart, cracked, etc. I removed, put several fiberglass patches in it, painted, and that's held up well. Was somewhat of a pain to remove and replace, with the indicators.... but that is like so many other things in these airplanes.

I am wondering how fast your prop is actually turning. The mechanical tachs are not that great. I have an ios app "Engine RPM" that acoustically measures RPM which might be something interesting to compare to. There are also optical tachs which you can use which look out the windscreen at the prop and count RPM that way.

The concepts that are noteworthy to me. Also airline driver - It is easier, for me, to fly a good approach (precise control of heading/track) in our airplanes fast. Flaps up. Airplane is more stable, controls more stiff. If I am going to a long runway or will break out above say 500 feet I don't mind flying fast and dumping everything once visual. - This doesn't work well for a low ceiling/viz or short runway.... need to be ready to land.... - Some of our airplanes have a red arc prohibiting continuous operation at certain RPM...which can have a nasty way of coming up in these exercises

Gabe - was the job a full strip/reseal or a patch of areas that were known to be leaking? (I am also at WVI, you'll find me in A-3, and a United Flight customer). We've done several patches over the years but no full reseal. I am curious if the G100UL degraded your sealant throughout the tanks, went through a vulnerable area, or something else. Happy to chat in person sometime if we can find a mutually agreeable time.

Interesting to see sealant applied to the inside of wing skin. I wonder what the thought process was there.

ASRS this ASAP. You both screwed up, but the controller led you into it.

My answer is not listed: I still plan to try G100UL. But I'd like to learn more first. Look, my paint isn't awful, but it isn't great either. I presently have a small seep at two rivets and one access panel, within limits. Will probably correct at next annual. If I had a problem I'd finish the tank of fuel, sand/scuff, prime, and rattle can that thing and not lose sleep over it. So much other touch up has been done with a rattle can and came out fine. BUT, what I don't want is a situation where G1000UL compromises the tank sealant. A much bigger job.

The now-gone thread was picked up by Avweb which posted a link generating a wider audience. I appreciate the reports from the Mooney community, George's response, and the dialog to figure this out so we can use this product knowing all there is to know...

My sealant is still original 1966 and has held up remarkably well. Every few years I'll get a seep and patch it, and that's worked okay. Does the age of the sealant have anything to do with G100UL? I'm not well versed on what changes have been made to sealant since then.

I'm right there with you, coming from the flying an airliner thing for a paycheck. My Mooney is similarly equipped and looked like a King showroom piece in the early 90s. BUT, 3 things I come back to for my Mooney, should I upgrade it: 1) Vacuum instruments need to go 2) An RNAV/LPV approach is now the best approach (and often the only approach) to many GA airports 3) The ancient 6-pack of engine gauges and their associated plumbing on the wrong side of the firewall are ready to go

Larry - thank you, and I'm sorry that's happened. I think that's going to sideline me from G100UL. I've got a couple of very small seeps. Within Mooney service manual limits for airworthiness, but it would appear this will invite some paint stripping. My paint isn't the best, but it is sticking to the airplane with those seeps.

This question...... really depends on conditions. Will my E model climb out of Leadville, CO on a hot day with full flaps at high weight? Probably not. Will my E climb out at sea level, cool day, solo weight, half gas? Sure. Other models: Density altitude, weight, engine type, and so on....

Keep us posted! I'm very curious from those of you who use G100UL, and have small seeps, what the outcome is. Currently I have not yet put any G100UL in (but was planning to). I have a couple of minor weeps that are airworthy, i.e. a couple of rivets with a small amount of staining and a tank panel with a small seep. Could fueling with G100UL make those worse?

Multiple electrical issues would really concern me. It doesn't sound like a coincidence. Does your airplane have a volt meter? Can you see what your alternator/generator is putting out, without risking damage to other equipment?

My logbook shows 1697 Mooney landings. I estimate conservatively that half were tough and go, if not more. So 850, and counting, without incident. Including 2 the day before yesterday.

Here is what WVI sent to us https://files.constantcontact.com/8de5a020301/ed54fe6d-3e1e-4002-b1f6-e71e9170cf20.pdf?rdr=true I think the idea is to get buy-in from those based at fields where G100UL is launching. And a "please ask your manager to carry our fuel" note for the neighboring fields.

G100UL free STC offer extended to neighboring KWVI this week, my home field. I am going after it and looking forward to trying it out and seeing how things go. Not too enthused about more expensive gas, but I have been less than enthused about lead contact for a while now.