All Activity

Which the plastic washers help to prevent the tendency to over-torque the screws. Tighten the screws to ‘snug’ (a technical term). And that’s it.

Why would you ever need the alternator put out 50 amps? I can think of only 2 reasons. 1. You have wing mounted taxi/landing incandescent lights, which 4 of them would require a lot of power. I had this issue. My plane was placarded to not turn on both lights. PO had installed a 130 amp alternator, but breaker was only for 70 amps. I fixed this by going back to a standard alternator and installing LEDs. 2. Battery is condition is mostly drained, unlikely to happen unless you prop started it. This can be mitigated by not allowing the engine to idle very fast till battery has been charging for a few minutes (you would start it with field breaker pulled until rpms is stabilized at a lower speed). Hopefully this doesn’t happen often.

Since the Mooney Summit is approaching, I want to give everyone a heads-up about recent changes affecting all Hillsborough County Aviation Authority (HCAA) run airports: KTPA, KTPF, KVDF, and KPCM. The county has implemented a new rule requiring any outside mechanic or service provider to submit an application to Hillsborough County for approval before being granted access to airport facilities. This will and already has negatively impacted the tenants of Tampa Exec. At Tampa Exec in particular, there is only one on-field mechanic. I’ve relied on a trusted mobile mechanic—formerly the manager of one of the local flight school shops—for most of my maintenance. However, under the new policy, any mechanic must now carry a $1 million dollar liability insurance policy as well as specific hangar liability coverage to even be considered for access. This restriction can cause significant problems. For example, tonight I noticed a Baron that had returned this Friday to the field. Unfortunately, it looks to have suffered a nose gear collapse on landing, damaging both engines and props. In that situation, the owner has no real options: he’s limited to the one on-field shop, which is already overwhelmed, and bringing in outside help has become so tedious who the hell would want to work with the FBO. This policy applies across all four HCAA airports. Two of them (KTPF and KPCM) are managed by Atlas Aviation, which although I don’t love, seems to be a bit more pro GA than Skyport, the FBO that currently runs Tampa Exec. Many tenants were hoping Atlas would take over Tampa Exec, but Skyport somehow won the contract for a second time. The impact on tenants has been overwhelmingly negative. The one existing mechanic on the field opened his shop only a few years ago and is very capable, but his space is shared with the largest flight school on the airport. With limited capacity, the workload ratio is easily one mechanic to 200 tenants. The county has restricted all maintenance activity to that single hangar, preventing new shops from opening. They have built one new bulk hangar and are planning to build another. Space is not an issue, it’s them not caring or willing to put the effort forth to keep GA going. They have yet to build any new shade or enclosed hangars in over a decade. They’ve sure as hell have been doing construction non stop for the last 4 years, mainly to benefit the high dollar jets coming in. That leaves mobile mechanics, like the one I’ve used, as the only practical alternative. He currently works for a large avionics and maintenance company but started his own mobile business with hopes of eventually opening a dedicated GA shop. He’d like to open a shop for airframe and avionics work, but despite months of requests, the FBO has refused to provide him even a small space. The opportunity for growth at KVDF is obvious to everyone except the FBO and county, who continue to push policies that work against GA. I’d hate for someone visiting Tampa to find themselves stranded over a minor maintenance issue, unable to get timely help. Aviation is supposed to be enjoyable, but dealing with an airport system that feels anti-GA and anti-business takes much of that enjoyment away. Finally, a word of advice: avoid the $7/gal avgas at the HCAA airports. Instead, stop at KZPH, just 15 minutes from KTPF, where fuel is closer to $5/gal and the atmosphere is much more welcoming.

Mooney Flyers, I seek consensus and feedback from Mooney operators regarding the new FAA rule change (MOSAIC) that allows Sport Pilots to fly four-seat complex aircraft, provided the aircraft’s clean stall speed is 59 KCAS or less. Are Sport Pilots allowed to fly the M20 with the MOSAIC final rule? Using the TCDS, Owners Manuals/Pilot Operating Handbooks (POH), FAA definitions, and the final rule as a reference, it looks like the answer is not no. The answer is more like, “It depends!” Because we are dealing with a stall speed limitation (VS) and VS is measured using Calibrated Air Speed (CAS), we must determine how to adjust the indicated speeds published in most Owners Manuals (vintage Mooneys) and POH (later Mooneys). The aerodynamic design factors that impact the stall characteristics of the M-20 have not changed substantially from the original type certificate. Structural enhancements over time have increased the load factors that newer aircraft can be exposed to, resulting in increased speed and gross weight limits. Aircraft maximum takeoff gross weight (MTGW) directly impacts the published clean stall speed (VS1). Therefore, VS1 for the Mooney M20 is a function of MTGW, and the highest published MTGW, which equates to a VS1 of 59 KCAS, is 2740 LBS. So, my position is that a Sport Pilot would be entitled to operate an M20J or earlier with a published MTGW of 2740 or less. The data to support this idea is published in the 1977 Mooney M20J POH Figure 2-2. Published airspeed indicator marking ranges in Figure 2-2 are in CAS MPH. Specifically, the green arc range is 68 - 200 CAS MPH. When 68 MPH CAS is converted to KCAS, the result is 59 KCAS, the limit that Sport Pilots can operate. Why is this important? Sport Pilots only need a valid driver's license to meet the medical requirements to fly; the lack of a flight physical is no longer a limitation to being legal to fly an older Mooney and many other certificated aircraft. Is my position correct? - Cheers

Makes sense. The AV30s are nice little units, the 172 I trained in a bit had a pair.

More likely to be Nomex. It was commercialized about 10 years earlier.

I really wanted to restore the original system but after a partial repair I decided to remove it. There were still many unknowns to be discovered in the PC, Accutrak and the rest of this project. I also found my AI and DG needed to be replaced. So I decided to remove the vacuum system and install a pair of AV30Cs. An AeroCruze 100 will probably be installed in a couple years after the wallet recovers from this resurrection project. [emoji1787]

If you can, why not, it's not costly at all. after fixing(taping) mine, i can't see why the pneumatic/vacuum servos aren't used everywhere, no way they aren't more reliable than the electrical servos. My next upgrade is most likely the trutrac

LOL! That makes way too much sense!

I don’t know. Somebody should ask Mooney.

IMHO, the issue is if G100UL was misrepresented in its advertising. Was there a false statement of fact? Claimed to be a "Drop in replacement". Is it? Was being a 'drop in replacement' a major reason people chose to buy the STC? By relying on that did buyers suffer damage/losses? While damage to your aircraft from using G100UL is certainly a loss, so is the cost for an STC that you cannot use because the product will not meet claims advertised. I see no reason you have to actually buy and use the misrepresented fuel to have a financial loss from the misrepresentation. Paying for a 'license' (the STC) to use a misrepresented product is still a loss due to relying upon a false statement of fact.

Did you get your PC system running? I have the same PC/B11 setup and it was a mess but I got it working great just recently and it's definitely worth it. The Accutrak seems to work but VOR navigation isn't particularly useful, I'm having it connected to the CDI/GPS that's going in soon. The PC allows for very straight flight once trimmed out and it's nice in light turbulence. I installed two aileron servos (previous owner removed them at some point and got rid of them, but it's not a bad job to put them in), and replaced a bunch of the vac lines, there were some unnecessary T's etc from someone fiddling with it before and the gyro wasn't connected to the vacuum source properly. Following the maintenance manual carefully gives you all the info you need. I'm not a fan of the disconnect button on the yoke though, the controls are way too stiff to leave it on in the pattern and annoying to hold the button while trying to make radio calls. Hopefully I can figure out a good panel mounted switch like I've seen Brittain put in some planes. If anyone has a part number or advice there I'm all ears.

Yeah, I was that cancellation. Life got in the way. Paul is amazing to work with.

Hmm, Kevlar was invented in 1965...57 year old M20C, ya think Mooney was that early an adopter?

You're probably right - it looks pretty much like this. Tacking this stuff with a stitch gun over the old materials in the foot wells shouldn't be too hard... https://www.soundassured.com/products/fire-retardant-acoustic-fabric?variant=45293361397918&utm_campaign=gs-2021-06-21&utm_source=google&utm_medium=smart_campaign&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=17518101047&gbraid=0AAAAADiZDVTaGw9_7gsEXMZ1EZygrZXWp&gclid=CjwKCAjwk7DFBhBAEiwAeYbJsTqyqokx5iicq23eDzEJTUH9uOOXqF1tZRB2MhmUO94pbxlgORVZFxoCDMUQAvD_BwE

That would be me. Thanks for the info!

It doesn’t look like asbestos to me. It looks more like Kevlar. The stuff behind is fiberglass.

I'm thinking of the ensuing pandemonium in the Vintage Mooney community that a positive result would bring, plus the airworthiness directive whose cost will total our planes I'll hold off for now unless someone has real info that asbestos might have been used

I can believe that. I won't be surprised if the hydraulic fluid in my brake and flap systems are all gummed up as well.

Just to clarify, its to a plane power upgrade kit, SAL12-70

Hi, I'm looking at upgrading my charging system since the old one is not working safely. The old one is a delco generator with an Electrodelta regulator. The charge circuit has a 50 amp breaker. In the install instructions it says it only needs to be upgraded IF you want to take advantage of the higher current available. I would be fine to keep it at 50 (safer for old wires as well), but how does that work? Can the alternator or regulator be tuned lower??

Thinking of using this black nomex fabric to cover over the ugly disintegrating areas - thoughts?? https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productdetails.asp?RecID=3136 Maybe use a simple stitch gun to tack it in place over the old material?? https://www.amazon.com/MicroStitch-Tagging-Gun-Kit-Fasteners/dp/B001CE8JPQ?th=1

It does indeed look like a very sturdy golden/amber fabric encasing fiberglass - just not sturdy enough, as it has come apart at the bottom of the foot wells behind the rudder pedals, and in a few spots above. It seems like one should just fasten some more fabric over it in the areas that have just opened up. I don't see any way to replace it fully without entirely dismantling the avionics, most all else behind the panel, and the panel itself. Even then cleaning it out will be a messy job. I might even tackle the patch job myself if someone can tell me what fabric to use. I want to avoid doing a sketch job with dissimilar materials so as not to inspire regulatory scrutiny (or premature demise in a fire).

If have some material you can buy a test kit at Home Depot and send it to a lab to find out (IF you want to know) https://www.homedepot.com/p/PRO-LAB-Asbestos-Test-Kit-AS108/202731785

Prop blades erode, sometimes you have to dress out nicks and if you have de-ice boots so do they. Mine did not change much but it did change.