All Activity

I can see from your posts that you are a relatively new Mooney owner. "1. I assume this part is not correct - not supposed to be bent like this, correct?' and "When you start to articulate the seat upwards, the left side gets higher than the right side, it also leans from front left to back right." There are older posts here that highlight that heavy pilot/pax re: 300 lbs (even 200 lbs in turbulence) will damage the articulating seats. "2. Does anyone know the part number for this part?" A good place to start is the Illustrated Parts Catalog and the Service Manuals found in the Downloads Section (you can also find the M20J manuals free on the internet but MooneySpace Downloads is your best source). I think you find that is it #26 in the parts diagrams 140216-501 "Bellcrank Assembly" "3. Where is the best place to potentially source this? " At this point have to chuckle - not trying to be a smart ass but after all you did buy a Mooney. Mooney owners need to repair & rebuild and scrounge in many (most?) cases. Yes the Factory does make some parts but this is not one of them any longer. Articulated seats are one of the most sought after parts yet least available. In the post last year @LANCECASPER had a used pair for sale for $3,300 and wanted $1,500 for one base frame alone without cushions. You will not find them in at any aircraft salvage scrap yard - they are the first thing sold. They are made out of aluminum. LASAR used to rebuild them but that was more than 10 years ago before they sold and moved to Oregon. They would reinforce the aluminum. I don't think they do it now. One owner posted here that he made one out of 4130 steel tubing -"cut and drilled the tubing myself and had a local FAA repair station do the welding (exhaust overhaul shop). The only paper work was $75 for the welding job. Don't bother with the original aluminum parts they will break again. I have seen four of them broken" Your best bet is to have the seat disassembled and straighten/weld/repair/add doublers for likely cracks that you find.

In UK, it was a requirement to be able to operate public transport in PC12: you have to keep glide into aairfields at cruise and you have to be able to return from takeoff with dead engine once reaching standard pattern altitude (they forget to ask for demo of ILS on 1:20 glide with idle engine from FAF and some headwind ) In PC12, your wing is way "too optimised" for this task, you are climbing 1:6 and gliding 1:16 with 2000ft short field capability In M20J, I am on 1:9 climb and gliding 1:11, I need some extra runway to make it back ! In C172, I am on 1:10 climb and 1:9 glide, these maths do not add up even with 0ft loss after the turn, I am not making it back to the point where I lifted the wheels, one need some wind (or long runway) to make it work but not too much for tailwind landing On short runways, these 180 or 360 turns tend to work in something that climbs 1:1 (power), glides 1:30 (clean) and lands 1:5 (flaps), I have done plenty in gliders after winch cable breaks, the lowest was 360 from 300ft agl (I should have landed ahead, however, I had enough adrenaline for the whole day !). I tend to be skeptical, how these 180 or 360 turns after EFATO work with aircraft that have shallow climb, steep glide and can't handle short runways, I am also skeptical about the human factor or the required reaction time.

There was a Redbird Acclaim sim in Kerrville. @mike_elliott did you ever try an impossible turn in that? -dan

I agree, one need to stay on full power at VY, to optimise their profile, there is some value in VY climb as it's near best glide and does not require lot of attitude changes between max power and idle power, also, if one measure risk in time, then Vy is the speed to fly up to some (power off) pattern altitude. There are some who claim that VX climb to altitude is better, however: * EFATO at VX attitude is likely to lead to loss of control (stall warner rings quickly) * Pitch attitude at VX is nowhere good to see what landing options are? * Consuctive and unnecessary climbs at VX do not sound good for long-term engine health (high CHT) and cause a lot of stress on the engine during the initial climb, so it is likely to lead to an EFATO one day. One day I heard someone suggesting they do climbs at VX instead of VY as it allows to "stay over airport vicinity at pull chute altitude" (BRS/CAPS), at some point one can only say "each to their own"

Great to see your factory photos….. so sad at the same time. So many memories and so much history!!

Good problem to have

Any idea how many people still work at Mooney in Kerrville?

That's who I called. They have my RFQ. We'll see.

Right now that's correct. I suspect that the ASTM standard will open a lot of doors for further acceptance, but you're right that we have to wait for that. Engine and airframe manufacturers would have participated in the ASTM standard development, so they will already have a head start on whatever its limitations might be to know how broadly approvals should go. It would be highly unlikely for them to spend time on development of a standard that is limited to only a few makes/models, so I expect it'll broaden in time. I hope we don't have to wait too long to see the details.

You are correct.

I think you're right, in that Swift can now put 100R at all the airfields they want, with support of the big distributors, big oil companies, and even the airframe manufacturers. But end users can only pump it into a few 172s, and only after they've purchased the STC. So G100UL is still the only unleaded option for my IO-360-AIA. Please correct me if I misunderstood.

I agree that an ASTM standard is important to production and distribution, but face it, we could have an ASTM standard for rubber chickens. The question is, can you burn it in your engine?

It now has an ASTM standard associated with it that it can claim compliance to. This is relevant to acceptance in the entire production and distribution chain as well as insurability of the various pieces.

No kidding. I'll give it a try after it's been run about 10,000 hours at high MP in big-bore turbocharged engines.

No question about that ! It's fair to say that 100R may have more challenges with "stressed engines" while G100UL seems to have more challenges with "older airframes". I am sure there are various trade-off? I have fuel A that reduce metals wear by 50% (potentially increasing TBO) and reducing spark plugs fouling, prevents pre-ignition and reduces engine maintenance costs, then I have fuel B that reduces my airframe and pipelines wear, preserve paint and does not require rank reseal. Hopefully we will be allowed to mix both depending on what a "consumer" care about? takeoff or cruise?

Yes, the KAS297. I also enter the desired altitude into the GI275 as it offer altitude call outs, alerts, TOD, BOD and what I call the banana on the map to show my both. My navigator is a GTN750. Works great but definitely no Alt. Select or ROC via the GI275.

Because it is an STC, detonation testing is the responsibility of the STC applicant, not the FAA. Swift needs to get a test cell with full instrumentation including knock sensors. Lots of detonation is undetected by the operator without sensitive knock sensors. Equally so the FAA requires a 12% detonation margin. The anecdotal fact that a Cirrus ran, "detonation free" means nothing in certification. The hp/cylinder is equally meaning less. Cylinders have different volumes, head designs, piston tops, intake and exhaust efficiencies. There is a reason why "It's a Hemi" actually has meaning in ME terms. There are few test cells designed to detect detonation and believe it or not, the best test cell in the world is owned by.........GAMI.

Even 2k doesn’t seem bad for a part to keep a ~80k airplane going another 25 years.

Same here, even though I have a spare 20:1 it's important that others have choices and can keep their aircraft flying for years to come. And not having to face the possibility of ending up AOG every 200hr inspection.

I don't have schematics for a M20E, but I looked at the schematics for the 1977 M20J that also used the Dukes and the motor shows only two wires, a red and a black. I don't know what the other two wires would be for unless yours has separate wires for the armature and the field windings.

Correct You can see it better in the pictures that @LANCECASPER posted when selling his seats Articulating Seat Frames or Complete Seats - SOLD - Avionics / Parts Classifieds - Mooneyspace.com - A community for Mooney aircraft owners and enthusiasts

Swift pushed 100R with FAA for C172S STC with company specs (this was a year ago). In parallel, they worked with stakeholders for ASTM approval (this is recent) for their "STC route", now they have an option to get it through PAFI... There are two main routes to get fuel inside aircraft, the "STC route with company specs" (regulatory and airworthiness requirement) and "PAFI route with ASTM specs" (consumer, industry, regulatory requirement), the latter is way more demanding and involve more parties, there is a middle route that is also very demanding is STC with ASTM specs. VPRacing are working on last stage for their "PAFI/ASTM route" It's complicated, hope this graph helps: G100UL is "STC with GAMI company specs" while 100R is "STC with ASTM specs"

I got mine from peerlesselectronics.com

New correct price $650.