Shadrach

Well then, you’ve really made a good case here for both your superior knowledge of the regs and your insight into the FAA’s interpretation. People like @Mark942 (and me for that matter) really do need to be called out for the sake of safety. You’ve made it clear that you’re just the man for the job. You could have stopped there but you took it to the next level showcasing your charisma and likability in the process. A hearty bravo to you sir.

This post makes no sense in terms of who was taking who out of context. The CAR 3 regs under which many, many aircraft were certified did indeed specify that the gauges read zero when there was zero usable fuel in the tanks with no other requirement listed.

The full fuel payload is kind of a silly metric for load carrying. A smarter, more practical metric is full payload range. No wind, my Exec can take four 170lb people and 120lbs of bags 500nm with 1hr of reserves. I think that is excellent load carrying capability. It matches or exceeds the load carrying capability of many C182s.

This thread and others like it have been popping up about every year since this site’s inception. I have been running one tank dry on long cross countries for nearly three decades without issue. It doesn’t raise my anxiety meter in the least though it may have as a new pilot. I’m not going to try to convince anyone to operate that way, but I think there is a lot of unfounded fear. Does anyone here have any evidence that running a tank dry has ever caused a problem? Running both tanks dry has certainly proven to be a problem, but one tank…meh…It has been common practice for the majority of the history of piston recip operations.

This^^^^ except that I rarely run LOP above about 5,000’ unless it’s a really cold, high pressure day. I run as close to peak EGT as is possible for conditions.

During the winter time, #1 and #4 almost never get above 300° under normal operations. I’ve never had an issue with lead scavenging.

Not an uncommon story. This happened to my dad in the late 90s. #3 swallowed a valve and he made a three cylinder approach into Winner, SD (KICR). One mechanic on the field. They ordered a new cylinder (you could get a new Lyc cylinder in two days back then) to replace the bad cylinder. Dad takes off to test fly it and loses cylinder #1 on downwind. A piece of valve from the failure of cylinder # 3 was found inside of the second to fail, cylinder #1. Cylinder #1 was replaced and he flew home a week later. Mechanic offered no consideration. Dad had no confidence in the engine (also ~1700hrs SNEW). Overhauled the engine @ 1800hrs. I still have one of the cylinder/piston combos; it looks like hammered $h1t. Not returnable as a core. One should inspect the entire intake system after such a failure and also go through it with a strong magnet.

My gear is definitely more recessed than what you show in that image. My caliper hangs down slightly in the slip stream but the tire does not.

Cowl enclosure looks nice, but I’ve never seen evidence that it adds speed. I have several data points that suggest that it makes a no measurable difference. It does not change the profile of the cowl so I am not surprised.

I replaced the straps in my aircraft about 10 years ago with fresh webbing. They are handy for securing items things like duffles, toolboxes or the occasional steel hub , two blade propeller (inside joke) in place. However, it’s easy to stack luggage in the baggage compartment well above the rear seat seat backs. This became especially evident when running supplies to isolated folks after Hurricane Helene in the fall of 2024. I had around 600lbs of supplies on board. The biggest PITA was securing the cargo net. I ended up fishing the baggage floor straps up through the cargo to secure the net. It was not ideal, but I’m pretty confident that it would’ve prevented baggage items from becoming projectiles in the event of a sudden stop.

I think there is a lot of truth to all of the comments about regarding variances during the manufacturing process. I also think that a thorough examination with travel boards is worth a shot. I bird fly’s pretty straight but the aileron horns are not perfectly flush when level. They’re close but not perfect. Nevertheless it is an easy 150kt bird. I wonder if slight variances in angle of incidence during manufacturing are an issue.

Does no one use a garment bag anymore? Yes it’s for a hanger and it’s well placed. Non-Mooney owners frequently comment about the make’s limited carrying capacity; yet I find the baggage compartment of my F model to be a very usable space for storing luggage in an organized fashion. The only thing they forgot at the factory was to add secure hoops for a cargo net.

How does it climb compared to your old bird?

I am looking for a seat or a seat back for a 67 F. Must have the cam adjustable seatback. Can be ratty and dirty. Need not even be upholstered. 57 years of pilots arching against the seatback to fish the ignition key from their pants pocket has taken its toll…

Not available? How many Mooney Service Centers have you called?