Shadrach

To be honest, I did not time it in the plane. Perhaps the time stamp data on ADSB exchange is incorrect. I will say that the calculation surprised me. That being said at light weights, indicated rates in the 1300-1500 range are not uncommon for the first few minutes. I’ll try again in the next week or so.

I wonder if this sort of thing is more common to Mooneys. I too have had more than one experience like yours. I would recommend folks photograph there nose truss any time the plane is dropped for maintenance. 50/50 chance that the shop that found my dented truss during annual employed the person that dented it. had another shop insist on pulling my 400hr Bendix mags for IRAN and time it into the wrong hemisphere on reinstallation. And many many more. You don’t really know what’s been done until you get involved personally or find a really solid mx pro. We all make mistakes; the incentive structure with regard to correcting vs masking them is very different in owner involved mx. My worst experiences have been with large repair stations.

This one hits close to home for me. Our aircraft was a demonstrator for a Mooney dealer. Purchased less than a year from its airworthiness date with ~100rs tots time. We have all of the original documents from day one. 16 years ago during a rather paperwork heavy annual (9k for an annual inspection and a Lasar Nose truss) we were told that we had been operating illegally for 4 decades because the manual that the dealer provided was incorrect. I said fine, please order the appropriate manual. I believe the line item was $200 on the bill. What we got were by-folded photocopies stapled together in the fold. I read through it once and I don’t believe it’s left the hat rack since. There two things I can say about the situation. 1) The main difference between the two manuals is that the “correct” 1967 manual has ridiculously optimistic book cruise speeds while the 1968 manual is much more reasonable. 2) The new manual had no bearing on the safety or operation of my airplane. I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t be operating with the correct manual. I just saying that it sucks to be mandated to buy a lousy $200 manual with inaccurate information.

True, but that sort of changed with the intro of the N52 engine. Even today I occasionally run into 15 year old 335s that have supercar performance with little more than software mods. A member of this forum (who I will not out) sent me a video of his mostly stock 335 doing a 70-140 pull in 11 seconds. You can have supercar performance now for a pittance in the used market.

He asked if your fiat was an Abarth. Im suer Eric knows all to well who Carlo Abarth was. Interesting trivia, Karl Abarth was Austrian and only became Carlo after becoming an Italian citizen.

Maybe half. I’ve driven standard 500s and the Abarth is in another league. In terms of smiles per gallon there is no bigger bang for the buck save for maybe a used Boxster S.

Yes, most Porsche brakes are easy. Less than an hour per axle to repair wear items.

No M3s but many…many 3 series over the years. To include my current beater which is a quasi grey market 09 E91 sport wagon. As I recall, we do both have an affection for the Abarth.

There was no deformed piston according to the report Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and the engine achieved full and continuous power during a test run. I I can’t speak to what his pilot was doing. Very little of it follows logic. He clearly was challenged by a number of factors. What an odd accident.

Yikes. That is outrageous. I am beginning to see a trend in shared tastes. I wonder how many on the board married blondes…

What kind of systems?

Great! I have a soft spot for the design. My wing leveler and vacuum step have been essentially maintenance free for 57 years. The boots are still supple and leak free. Just a TC overhaul from time to time and new vacuum tubing behind the panel every 5-6 years.

You would think that would be the case? However, there are some long established gems in that area. I live on the East coast now but have ordered dealer only parts from Porsche Marin for shipment to Maryland because they were more competitive than my local dealer just 30 miles away...even with shipping. There is also a tire shop called Cains in San Rafael that did the best custom alignment and Road Force balance I've ever had. They exceeded expectations in all areas except pricing. Just like in aviation, it's good to know the lay of the local service provider landscape. Going in blind can burn you badly...

It will happen. Can I get right of first refusal on those antiquated Brittain systems?

Yea, that's pretty common knowledge. I was just wondering how many static system blockages occur in the real world. The only failure I've had was during taxi back to my hangar after an IFR cert where the tech left both fuselage static ports covered. ASI did not come off the peg during taxi.

Judging from the font differences, I’d bet that was added the end of the production line as an option or at a later date after delivery.

Corrosion is cruel and it really does not care if the airframe was made 20 years ago or 50 years ago. Mooney did upgrade the coatings for the steel cage in later years. I stripped and resealed most of ours in two part zinc epoxy. Probably good for another 50 years.

Dealers are for warranty work only in my opinion. I will give a hat tip to Porsche of Marin (formerly Sonnen Porsche). They are one of the best dealerships in the country. Competitive parts pricing and honest and transparent on labor. Definitely not inexpensive. Comes with the territory. Porsche is one of the most profitable auto brands in the world. Quite a turn around from the 90s when they nearly folded.

I posted an image of the Lycoming TCDS showing a minimum grade of 100/130. None of my comments had anything to do with what was legal/approved to run in various applications. My comments centered on the odd trend for 100LL to foul plugs in an engine approved if not designed for running 100/130 which has a much higher lead content.

quite a bit of drift here. The discussion about what was not about what was legal to run in the engine. The discussion centered around what the engine was designed to run on and why they’re fouling plugs at 100LL. At no point did I question the legality of using the long since discontinued 91/96.

I’m certain that my business is nowhere near as successful as yours. Perhaps because I have my hands in so many things. People who know me would tell you that I am too hands on with many aspects of my personal life. Likely to my detriment. I’m spread pretty thin but I am trying to be better. I think your labor cost numbers for a skilled mechanic are are a little on the high side given shop rates nationally range from $95 to $130. (It’s criminal that auto shop rates are higher). A pretty detailed airframe inspection can be done in a few days. I think most shops would be pleased if an A&P could generate $1250 a day for inspection work. And I know that a one man operation would be thrilled. At 235 work days a year that’d be ~300k gross. I don’t know any IAs that are making that and many would be pleased to do half of that. I think we should do away with prebuys as we know them and just focus on detailed corrosion inspections.

This statement is hilarious in its obvious distance from physical work. Good for you! You’ve made it when you think that two days worth of work wouldn’t reveal anything significant about an airframe or that two days worth of work isn’t worth $2500. Shockingly there are professionals who think such a pittance is reasonable compensation for a few days of turning screws, wrenches and using a flashlight and a mirror.

I don't really care what the aircraft manufacturer says regarding this particular subject. The engine has its own TCDS independent of the airframes applications. Yes, the aircraft manufacturer can include revised data in their TCDS. However, according to the Lycoming TCDS, the minimum grade for all 8.5:1 O360s was 100/130.

I knew it was there and I linked it to the text "experts are everywhere memo" in my post. I included the Lycoming link as a bit of a jab at Lycoming's efforts to disappear a document that was not only needlessly antagonistic but also embarrassing in terms of the conclusions drawn. John Deakin's rebuttal on APS's website is a good read and worth a look for a piece by piece breakdown. Interesting Deakin column from 26 years ago about fuel management touches on a number of old wives tails including shock cooling and showcases his skepticism on the subject even then.

I cannot find any regulatory requirement under 91.205. File under nice to have but not needed. I wonder how many pilots on this board have ever needed an alternate static source.