All Activity

Yeah. There's that..

Working the gear in the air vs ground is not the same — the forces are different for sure… Just a heads up… -Don

That’s roughly my understanding of where the 1000 hour guidance came from. Since Mooney owners aren’t tracking cycles, they just track hours and use a “primary trainer” worst-case scenario for cycles per hour. Before the most recent factory closure, I had heard rumors that the SB was being updated to 2000 hours as a guideline, on the basis that it was a more realistic but still very conservative number. Dunno.

Stuck buttons are no fun. I just had the Nav flip-flop button on my G430W stick. Found it while trying to track an ILS in actual. Not the time to press-press-press-press until it suddenly starts working again.

Who cycles their gear 5 times an hour? Are you using it for primary training?

Those HP numbers you are quoting are at 6000 RPM. We need an engine that makes power at 2500 RPM. Or we need a troublesome and heavy gearbox. What HP does your boat motor make at 2500 RPM? And what does it weigh? And what is the fuel flow?

Do yourself a favor and have someone who is *knowledgeable and experienced* about Mooney gear check the rigging.

Glad you said (or hotter) cause we are still waiting for that 100 F day.

I disagree. The engines in my boat is 7.3L (454 cid) MPI. Multi-port injection, roller cam and lifters. 5 years earlier the same engine without MPI produced 250 hp, this engine produces 310 hp. They don't make this engine anymore, why? Because the 6.7L engine produces 380hp on the same octane fuel Smaller, more power less fuel consumption. The current fuel injection on both Continental and Lycoming simply blasts fuel continuously. Rather than timing the injection with the cylinder like an MPI system. We could reduce our fuel consumption by 30% with a computerized injection system. Mixture control would be a thing of the past as the engines would always run lean. I am not blaming the manufacturers themselves, they have had to deal with a moribund FAA. But we now have pure electronic ignition STCs put forth by companies with a lot less engineering and administrative capability than the manufacturers. If they can do it, so should Lycoming and Continental...a long time ago. They don't have build new engines, they need to re-invent the spark and fuel delivery systems of existing engines and that could have been done long ago.

have you seen George lately? He makes me look like a teenager.

I'm getting lost. I thought the Lycoming IO360 angle engine needs 100LL/G100UL (for the purpose of this question, G100UL doesn't have material compatibility issues) because other fuels can't safely be run. Is 100R good to go for our angle valve engines (parallel one have more options)? Are only the turbo engines left without a solution if 100R works?

I'd be curious what the exact error is, feel free to DM me a picture of the message it's giving you.

So let's say on average you cycle the gear five (5) times every hour over the life of a plane - that means it should last 4,000 hours...... I seems reasonable that is what the engineers were thinking when they designed it.

Swift has been diddling around with 100R for a long time. Have they said anything about the shelf life of it when it sits in fuel and wing tanks baking in 100 F sun? (or hotter in Az...)?

Does anyone know what's the blend they are using? G100UL high aromatic has compar issues, 100R cannot get the 130 rich mon rating with just ETBE.

The C gets graphite in about four locations but anyways, the idea is to lubricate the top of the shock shaft under the retainment collar as it passes through the gear frame then taxi test. If that doesn’t do it, then move onto loosening the shock, lower bolt and taxi again. Eventually bolt by bolt the problem should be found. If it is in fact, the rubber rubbing on the shock shaft, then some tire talc can eliminate that. Without hearing the squeak ourselves, we could be completely wrong and possibly a wing skin, frame or spar issue.

Thanks @rklems. There is now a message under the PFD “Alerts” soft key that says something like “your GIA is screwed up. Return for service.” anyway, just for funzies, I’ll disconnect everything I can and spray with contact cleaner. Maybe I get lucky. -dan

EricJ is certainly correct. And I am not an engine guy (I have more experience on the J-57 and TF-33). How many hours on the engine/cylinder? Perhaps have the compression on that cylinder checked when it goes in the shop for the next oil change and not wait until the annual? It can be surprising how fast a cylinder can go south. Couple years ago, at the annual, my #2 cylinder was 36/80. Borescope showed green on the exhaust valve. I talked to the engine shop (with pics) and shipped them the cylinder for overhaul. Since I had R2’d the #3 cylinder the year before (broken exhaust valve guide), I resolved to check compressions and borescope at every oil change. Fast forward 11 tach hrs, I’m changing the oil for the break-in of the #2 cylinder. Did my compression checks, #1 cylinder was in the mid-50s, down from 70/80 at the annual, just 11 hrs ago. Exhaust valve leaking air, but the valve did not show visible signs of distress. Opted to lap it in place… and the compression then dropped to 30/80. The valve stem was sloppy in the guide. Cylinder sent to the shop for overhaul. Shop said the valve was close to being swallowed. Not fond of running on three cylinders. Would the #1 cylinder exhaust valve have lasted until the next annual, probably 80 or 90 hrs on the tach? Sorry to high jack your thread. I’m sure your shop knows what they are doing, certainly they know more about your situation than I do.

Depends on the airframe but i am taking the 5th on this. Join us and see for yourself. But i’ll share that with one Ovation student we did the demo to measure drag on his airframe and the gear created a significantly more amount of drag over full flaps but he preferred the lighter stick forces in the Go Around following the POH method. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you retract gear or flaps first at PPP during go-arounds in Mooneys?

As his story goes, he saw the writing on the tarmac. With new planes lining up outside on the North-South taxiway before the first bankruptcy, he bought a franchise of A/Z Rental Center which he opened in 1970.

I hope GAMI survives the G100UL fiasco..

Got a picture?

Thinking about these ashtrays, I bet Mooney made them at the factory. Light aluminum, a simple press cut. Possible.

Me too, I think the current STC candidates (100R or G100UL) are not "drop-in": they either need extra work on airframe (joints, pipes, sealant, paint...) or more work on engine (variable timing, de-rated cruise, extra rop...). By design, one can argue that "STC route" will overfit on specific engines and specific airframes, the ones that were tested until things "looked ok" to FAA, however, they may cause lot of problems elsewhere when such fuel goes into the wild with all variability in fleet, airframes and engine, as well as how they are operated. VPRacing is going with 100E, this is the real "drop-in" if it ever gets PAFI performance pass while staying within ASTM control parameters, however, they have much slower progress and they may never come out of it one day. Even when one looks at 100LL, it has it's own problems (or noise): it can also cause leaks on airframes, we see more broken cylinders or valves on some engines, operators have more problems than others. Even if FAA or PAFI says a new 100UL fuel is equivalent to 100LL, it will be really hard to show equivalence in "real world" as the various operators tends to be impacted differently, someone used to flying with 100LL at CHT redline with 499F CHT may feel 100R is not good, while someone who keep CHT under 380F will find it to be ok. Similarly, someone with 45 years original sealant vs someone with new tank reseal job, may have different feelings about G100UL