THill182

Really a no-brainer, when you need to fly out of high-density airports. See takeoff performance charts for Ovation II with 2-bladed prop, vs. 3-bladed 310hp conversion:

I think I got lucky on this one: I have an Ovation -- so IO550G (N after upgrade to 310HP). CSB19-01 reads for Models Affected: New and rebuilt Continental Motors (CMI) IO-360-ES; LTSIO-360-E, EB & KB; TSIO-360-E, EB, F, FB, G, GB, KB, LB, MB & SB; TSIO-520-BE and TSIO- 550-A, B, C & E aviation gasoline (AvGas) engines So Ovations are not affected, only turbocharged IO550's. Hope I am right on this one....

I saw this in my Mooney magazine today, and found out that this Service Bulletin applies to my engine. Does anyone have experience with the cost of fixing this if the cylinders had not been fixed prior to shipping/installation? Looks like I need to comply with this? (I understand it's not a mandatory AD; but cracked cylinders would be worse). SB18-08A.pdf

I have never flown 10 hours, for the record...; but my fuel flow meter told me I could go that long in theory. But: Going on long trips out to and straight West it is good to know that you can plan for a 2 hour reserve after a 5 hour flight with not-so-exact forecasts of headwind. One of my longer flights was from Washington DC to Oklahoma. It took 7 hours - I had hoped less than 6 but fueled for 8 hours.... So it's really about the flexibility to make choices, and frankly there is no other airplane like the Mooney's with long-range tanks -- even many light jets and turboprops don't have the range and flexibility...

Very true; when I converted from 280hp (2-bladed) to 310hp (3-bladed), the cruise numbers remained very similar; but the climb!!! And when you use the plane for travel, that makes a big difference, e.g., to climb quickly through clouds or to higher altitudes (actually, ceiling is now >20k ft!) . So I highly recommend the 310 conversion (Eagle, Ovation). My Mooney is a bit slower, with AC and non-FIKI anti-ice. I like to fly at 8-12k ft, and LOP, at 2,500 RPM, 12.3 GpH or so and 170 to 173 KTAS. I have the Monroy's with 130 Gallons, which means when I am flying by myself and leaning out at 10k ft I have seen 10+ hours of endurance. So forget Florida, and Hello Europe! (Just kidding of course....:))

Happened to me before, and was a sensor/connector problem. One question I have: If one of the cylinders really goes "cold", wouldn't your engine run rough? In my case, everything else worked and felt exactly the same, performance was the same, and I still got CHT readings (but no EGT). If one cylinder really goes, I would expect a great deal of imbalance, wouldn't I?

OK; now I start to understand. Mooney did at one point install these, but they were replaced by the new part without groove. Also: Here are more detailed pictures of the broken parts; this looks like over-stress to me (but I am not an engineer).

SB 280 calls for drilling a hole through the bolt to "secure it" (see below), which is not explained any further and surely will weaken this part. Also, the two nuts that secure that part should "jam" together, so shouldn't move at all I would think. But: No groove for sure. So it is strange...

PS: As I keep digging I also found a SB from 2002 applicable to M20R's of my serial number, relating to these very parts (?!); see attached. Makes me wonder.... SB 280 August 2002.pdf

Sorry, not until Monday when the new parts will be installed; but my plan is to then take detailed photos of the actual fracture. Really appreciate your offer though! I am confused here also. One question I have: If you put a "groove" into the threading/bolt -- will that not weaken it? If that is a critical and stressed part -- and if for sure today Mooney does not put that part in -- that seems "not right" and a potential higher probability failure point....

Funny you should say that... Turns out the discussions regarding the part (that the shop here initiated) involved Lasar -- they shipped the part MM-4M-13; which the shop thought was wrong; Lasar then communicated with Stacey Ellis at Mooney who emailed back that this part never changed (so no groves and clip). I also asked them to run it by Don Maxwell, and he too apparently (I was told) agreed that he had never seen any other part than the one that Lasar had shipped (without the grove). So either somebody at some point early in the planes life put a different part in (which has the same number printed on it I think, it looks like that in the picture; I'll confirm), or in 2000 a different part was actually in use when the plane was built (Stacey Ellis said that was not the case). Really a riddle. I'll also find out how the safeties are tied to the nut, and can provide more detailed pictures of the broken part.

Well, the plot "thickens": 1. The first picture shows the broken rod end; the second picture shows the same part installed for the other side(not broken); notice the grove on the side of the threading, and how is used to hold a safety clip. 2. The tube itself is part 915053-501; the Rod End part is actually MM-4M-13 (thank you Stacey Ellis!). 3. BUT: That part does not have the grove! See below: 4. According to Stacey Ellis, this part has never been modified and no "safety clip" has ever been used on Ovations. I am no engineer but it seems to me that putting a grove into such a part will not exactly strengthen it. Note that this plane has had early damage in 2000 that was repaired at the factory (long story short, the fuel system setup was wrong, and on touch-and-go the first owner ran off the runway on takeoff when the engine quit; a new Service Bulletin came from that accident if I remember correctly; I have had the plane for 16 years or so (more?), and have not had any issues with the gear ever) So my question at this point is: Does anyone know if in other 2000 Ovations there is a "grove" in this part? Anyway, I consider myself extremely lucky that the gear didn't collapse! Also, I decided to stay perhaps another day and have both rods replaced (since the other one also has a part we don't know) by the very nice/accommodating shop who was the one who figured all this out! . Really strange! Anyway, hopefully, this is the end of my gear troubles...

Thanks everyone! Part is on order and should get here in the morning. Also I talked with Don Maxwell who has been doing my annuals for a few years, and he also suggested to look at and preferably replace both rods. I will ask tomorrow morning if that's still possible. Was a scary experience. I guess I came very close to a "BIG PROBLEM" had the gear collapsed....

Today I had my first real emergency in my Ovation in 14 years or so of flying it (2000 Ovation II, with 310 HP upgrade). In short, coming in for a landing I put the gear down -- heard an "unusual clunk" -- and then the Gear Unsafe warning started blinking. Long story short, the FBO confirmed that the gear was down during a fly-by, the green "thing" inbetween the seats appeared to be aligned (gear-down), but not illuminated (since the gear was unsafe). I landed with the firetruck ready to role, but the landing was thankfully uneventful. My questions: (1) What happened? I am attaching three pictures of a broken "tube"/rode under the plane -- looks like it just sheared off. I am attaching pictures of the tube that broke, in the center underneath the plane. (2) What specific part is that in the Parts Catalogue? It looks like part of the Retraction System - Landing Gear; but it happened during extension of the gear. (3) Any ideas what can cause this? I hope the shop at the airport at FNL can fix this before I need to return home...As a (BIG!) side note: They were incredibly busy but started to look at it immediately. General aviation will just die when businesses and their kind owners finally retire without replacement....

Same here: 6'5"; not an issue. Get used to the view out the window and you're done. The real issue when transitioning from -- say high-wing Cessna's - into an Ovation is speed control on landing, avoiding float, and the most common accident/incident in Mooney Ovations: Loss of control on landing (which in my view has nothing to do with view out the window). I personally think that the motivation for Mooney was the "first-impression-issue", i.e., when potential customers not familiar with Mooney's sit in one for the first time. Reminds me of the story a professor once told me: He was an expert in physical anthropology and designed desk chairs as a business on the side; he told the story that when he had a big deal pending with customer decision makers in to review, he would adjust the desk chairs to "lay-back" so the reviewers could comfortably lay-back and say "this feels good" -- but you would NEVER want to sit at a desk and work that way.....).