Z W

+1 for the cheap Amazon kits to replace the spout and add a vent. Did them on all my cans about a year ago and they still hold pressure and are more air-tight than the ones I replaced. Was a fun 20-minute project to install them all. Requires drilling a 1/2 inch hole for the air vent bung and then cleaning out the plastic shavings from inside the can. Especially useful for filling diesel equipment where I may be putting 3-4 cans of fuel in. No way you can stand there and slowly dribble 20 gallons of diesel fuel listening to the jug glug and suck air. I don't fill the plane from cans but can imagine it would be much the same. Pro tip - you can put the spout into the tank before you open the air vent. Keeps the fuel from splashing out quite as fast as you tip the can over.

I found some internet research that said Turtle Wax's ceramic coating is pretty much the same as all the stuff they want hundreds of dollars to buy and thousands of dollars to wipe on the plane. Put it on about 3 months ago. It shined the plane up just like all the photos I've seen (paint is 10+ years old but in pretty good condition). Bugs do wipe off easier. We'll see how long it holds up. I'm $36 in. Bought two bottles but it only took one, so I have a spare to do it again. https://www.amazon.com/Turtle-Wax-53409-Solutions-Coating-16/dp/B07XYPS3PS?crid=2753FKS6ZD6W4&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Ah3Z4GmyR7Hm2cI8DzZSvtEbPZ-9vlcac2b_laMXPFUlW76Z831BiItp4BdBfu0BeUmsOIBNVxF3rg5T8v2_vqQ10BHtmMz0eXRFiJIvG_zWTCZAL1prkOVDK9c-GRJsaEPJS5zVL4Gh5W9oUfKkKLNomKxaYvFQ9Qg40oD4wxk5MOKdH1JDR6BcjKMNlwSCptLWLZp4OO7Ce2el_tYlZSPNPkvIWPtXPjvd6MD6b8o.y6ItRgyGePNCDgwTOpahtmptjXjpk-sFvnVBMwjylvM&dib_tag=se&keywords=turtle%2Bwax%2Bceramic%2Bspray%2Bcoating&qid=1733398971&sprefix=turtle%2Bwax%2Bceram%2Caps%2C123&sr=8-3&th=1

I have a vacuum powered step, but when it stops moving, it's usually just gotten sticky and needs a cleaning with some WD40 and then another shot of Triflow and some manual retractions (push it up into the fuselage from the outside). Good thing to check once per year or so, and definitely before engaging a mechanic. Hope it's something easy for you.

I bought one of these cable lubrication tools for an auto project. Designed to force lubricant through a cable. Didn't end up using it, but have wondered about its aviation applications with some tri flow: https://www.amazon.com/Cable-Motorcycle-Motorcycles-Bicycle-Scooter/dp/B08P5CJL5P?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&smid=A3LHXGCCBRRIJN&th=1

Our M20C had one of the Brittain systems, can't remember which any more, but it would fly the heading bug perfectly. No altitude hold, but once you had it trimmed out in cruise, you could usually hold altitude +/- 10 feet by leaning forward in your seat to go nose-down, and back to go nose-up, or bending your knees and pulling up your feet a little closer. Made for a fun game on a long cross-country.

I sold a 430W last year for $4,000.00, removed for an upgrade. I posted it here and on Beechtalk, never got to Ebay. Someone posted here that was way too much, but someone on Beechtalk bought it the day after I listed it, no questions asked. They were being listed for that or a little more at the time everywhere I looked. It was in really nice shape. Prices may have gone down, but there's one data point. Best of luck to you.

I would start by pulling the carpet and any padding under it, and then applying high-quality duct tape over all the holes and gaps in the floor, if someone hasn't already done that. There are a lot of holes and gaps. This has a bonus benefit of keeping loose/dropped hardware, dirt, and gunk from falling down inside your floorboards too. If that doesn't fix it, you can move on to checking the cabin penetrations one by one.

I have the YD. I can tell there's a big difference when it's on in stability. It's a very nice feature to have and I use it on every flight. I'll admit to failing to turn it off at least once and landed with it engaged. Not recommended, but it's a non-event from a safety perspective. Didn't even notice it until I'd cleared the runway. Lesson learned and now I use the AP Disconnect button on the yoke to turn the autopilot and YD off for landing, and not the "AP" button on the GFC500 control panel, which leaves the YD engaged.

I left Durango this month with an adult passenger, a cargo area full of bags, and 6 hours of fuel on board. Headed east, pointed straight at the Rocky mountains. Climbed 500-700 FPM up to 17,500 feet, straight over those mountains with 4,000 feet of terrain clearance, no circling required, no mountain wave concerns. Caught a tailwind of up to 70 knots, and made it to the Kansas City area in a little over 3 hours. Smooth air, no clouds, no traffic, within glide distance of multiple airports almost the whole time. Didn't even make a radio call between leaving the pattern in Colorado and entering it in Missouri. 175 KTAS at 13 GPH (TIT limited, I like to keep it under 1600). Landed with 2 hours of reserve fuel. Some days the turbo really shines.

I put mine back together incorrectly a couple of times which made me think it could be clocked wrong. I'm not 100% sure either though, it was some time ago. I just remember having to take it back apart again to get everything lined up as it should be.

Those look like the same caps on my K. If so, they are a two-piece design held together by a bolt, nut, and cotter pin. If you remove the cotter pin and nut, you may be able to "clock" the top piece differently to orient your tab to match the other side. Note - the tightness of your cap tab is determined by the torque of the nut. If it's too tight, loosen the nut a quarter or half turn, replace the cotter pin, and try again. Fought too-tight caps for years before I learned this trick. There is an internal O-ring on the bolt that keeps water from running down the inside of your cap into your fuel tank. Good time to replace it with a fluorosilicone version while you have it apart.

Those look good, and stout. Only feature you may be missing is a way to lock the jacks up so that you could leave the plane on them for an extended time without relying on the hydraulics. Some use a locking collar, something like this:

I had the same experience with fuel seeping out of one of the rivets near the fuel valve. When tightening/loosening the fuel valve you could actually see this rivet move slightly. I applied Oyltite to the rivet while turning on the fuel sump drain to move the rivet and tried to really work the stuff in there. It stopped the leak. That was in January of 2024, so it's held up for almost a year now. Link to buy the stuff: https://www.amazon.com/Co-11475-Oyltite-Stik-Temporary-Low-Pressure/dp/B002C3L5NO The other fix is apparently to drain the tank, open the top access cover, drill out the rivets, and replace them "wet" with fuel tank sealant. A much more involved job. I have had fuel valves go bad internally - there's another O-ring inside them that can fail. So I now keep a spare in the plane. More often though, it's just a small piece of debris inside the valve that's keeping it from sealing, and vigorously working it up and down with the sumper will dislodge the item and let it seal back up. Be careful installing new valves - the torque required is shown on the packaging in inch pounds, not foot pounds, and they are delicate brass that can snap off. They're barely snugged in there, just enough to seal the external O-ring against the wing.

You can go to www.g100ul.com, input your airframe and engine information, input your credit card information, click a button, and download your STC to use unleaded fuel. It takes just a few minutes and costs $450.00 for a Mooney. @bonal all of your concerns have been discussed at great length in threads on Beechtalk.com, with active participation by the owners of GAMI. There are videos on Youtube of them addressing them at forums at Oshkosh as well. I have followed along for years now and do not have any concerns about the new fuel. Your opinion may vary.

Mine is the same - put 8 quarts in at oil change, it will read 7 on the dipstick after first run. If I add another quart then to go back up to 8 quarts on the dipstick (which is in reality 9+ quarts in the engine), it blows out pretty quick. It holds between 6 and 7 on the dipstick pretty good so I let it get a little below 6, then add a quart. I believe this maintains 7-8 quarts actually in the engine. It used to hold less and would blow out anything over 6, so I would only put in 7 quarts at oil change, which would then read 6 quarts on the dipstick, and wait until 5 quarts to add, which did work fine. Cleaning the oil and sludge out of the air/oil separator and replacing the oil cap gasket seemed to help and now it'll hold another quart. I believe that reduced the crankcase pressure, or helped it properly escape the engine.

Do future you, future avionics shops, and future caretakers of your plane a favor - pull everything unused and inop out of the plane, or fix it. Our Pulselight was inop. A while back, asked the avionics shop to either fix it or remove it during some work, whichever was cheaper. It came back without the Pulselight. Haven't missed it. Extra system, extra maintenance, extra weight, and in my opinion, of little value with LED lights all around. Your opinion may vary of course.

Well now we have another Mooneyspace controversy. Mine has always been loop towards the nose. I didn't know you could reverse it. I'll have to try and see what that does.

My M20C would foul a plug (with lead) if you did not lean for taxi. I do not remember at this point how the fuel system was setup, may not have ever been verified to be to factory specs. But I can verify that at least some of them do it out in the wild. My current M20K will also do it, though not as quickly. I know its fuel system is set on the very rich side of factory specs for extra cooling in the climb, which works well. But the tradeoff is you have to lean for taxi. I just had this thought because the OP seems new to this engine and was reporting fouled plugs while leaving the mixture too rich, and everything else seemed normal. Leaning for taxi would be an easy thing to try to help identify the real problem.

Just a thought - were you leaning aggressively for taxi and ground operations? Many engines will foul a plug with lead deposits from fuel if you leave the engine full rich on the ground, especially if you're above sea level altitude. It will present as a large drop in RPM and rough-running engine during the mag check. The cure is to do a very lean run-up at possibly higher RPM (2,000 or so for a minute or two) and burn off the lead deposits.

Sounds like normal behavior for the long range tanks. If you fill the inboards, you will have 75 gallons on board (37.5 per side), plus or minus. The gauges should read full then, but the fuel will slowly push out into the outboards. After that, the gauges should read 25 gallons or so, even though you have 37.5 gallons in the tank. They will stay between 20-25 gallons until the outboard tanks burn to empty, as the fuel will drain down into the mains as you fly and burn gas. Under about 20 gallons, with empty outboards, the gauges become accurate again, assuming they're working.

I always get varying oil levels after oil changes. You put 8 quarts in, let it sit, it will measure 8 quarts. After the first flight, it drops to 6.5 or 7 quarts. I've always figured it's refilling the filter and all the places oil can splash while the engine is running, and maybe blowing some of the 8 quarts out. Oil loss seems a little higher if I refill to 8, so I run between 6 and 7. It now loses/burns a quart every 10 hours or so. It used to not like to hold anything over 6 quarts and would blow out a lot more. Cleaning the air/oil separator and changing the gasket on the oil filler cap seemed to help that problem. I would probably do a few more short flights and monitor the levels and try refilling and seeing if that affects your loss rates. And a new oil filler cap gasket is cheap and easy if you haven't replaced it. Old thread here:

Had a similar fault last month, but it was the pitch trim servo. Also a 2019 GFC500 install. Emailed the dealer/installer a picture of the fault, he ordered three new servos, replaced under warranty. Plane was in and out in a day. He didn't send me a bill.

You'll get more utility out of a GNC355 than the Flightstream. It will do the Bluetooth connection and flight plan transfers and also add the ability to load advisory visual approaches with a glideslope to any runway in the country, and also give you an additional comm radio. More money though. I cannot get our Flightstream to update databases via Garmin Pilot like it's supposed to. Since we had a 355, the Flightstream was a pointless upgrade. Some others appear to have the same problem. Probably phone-related. I still just pack databases in and out on a SD card.

Unfortunately, the next step may be to bite the bullet and install a GFC500, or the newly-approved Dynon autopilot. Been where you are with an old King KAP150 that nobody could keep working. Every fix was another thousand+ dollars, weeks of downtime, and trip to the shop. I believe the upgrade has paid for itself by now, though it's hard to tell. Hope you find a better and cheaper answer.

I've been in and out of Denver and the Rockies in both a turbo and a naturally aspirated Mooney. Given the choice, you'll want the turbo every time, especially with 3 or more people and a 4,000 foot runway. So of the Mooneys, I believe you'd be happiest with a K. My kids are now 14 and 9 and my family of four has pretty well outgrown long trips in the Mooney. It worked when they were young, as well as traveling anywhere with young kids works. One would work pretty well for you for a few years. You can gain some cabin space and useful load in a Lance or Saratoga, at the cost of speed, fuel burn, and range. A 36 Bonanza, especially turbocharged, may be as fast or a little faster, at the cost of some fuel burn and range. You will pay a lot more for one though. Then there are the Piper pressurized piston singles, again at a steep price increase, and if you run the numbers, you're mostly just gaining some cabin volume, and I personally find the pilot's seat in those to be a significant downgrade in comfort. Getting more true performance to haul a family of four long distances in comfort just about requires a twin or a turboprop, and greatly increasing your fuel and maintenance costs, as far as I can tell. If you figure it out otherwise, let me know