Leaderboard

Missile science.

The original Bravo brakes thru serial number 27-106 were 2 puck just like the 201. My serial number is the 27-106 so I had the 2 puck system. The plane at gross weighs 623 pounds more than the 201. The 2 puck system was really inadequate. In the beginning of ownership, even treating the brakes gently, I had to replace the pucks every 73 hours. I still thought it was cheaper than buying the 4 puck brake kit at about $4,500. By 2016 labor rates and fuel prices had gone up so much that I revisited doing the brake update. The kit cost had increased to $8,000. I decided to do it anyway. Lead time from Mooney at the time was 6 weeks and they required upfront payment at time of shipping. Included in the kit were new axels and gear doors that needed to be fit. Labor was 20 hours. Total cost in May of 2016 was $10,353.81 and that include a 10% discount on the parts. The new brake pucks now need to be replaced about once a year. One other VERY IMPORTANT thing; you need the gear door stops discussed above. Failure to have them installed will result in multiple broken costly rods over time. They were NOT included in the kit and I spent an untold amount of money replacing rods over the next couple of years. My maintenance facility tried their best to figure out why the rods kept breaking. Finally with their approval last year, I flew down to Kerville and had Mike Knesse look at it. They found the problem in a couple of minutes because they still had a mechanic working there from 30 years before. The issue arose when Mooney went to the 4 puck system on the Ovation and were having many broken rods. The fix was adding the door stops to prevent the inner gear door from extending past vertical and thereby being exposed to excessive loads on retraction. They even had a Service Bulletin about it, but being 30 years old, it wasn't obvious to my service center that it existed. Luckily, Mooney still had a couple of them, and since being installed I've never had an issue with broken rods.

Yup. Our guys can be unprofessional too. Customs clearance going in either direction across our "longest undefended border" is still a crap shoot. In most instances both CBSA and US CBP officers are good and professional. They have a job to do, but are not acting stupid about it. As of today, my instances of running into martinets is about even for y'alls and ours. Once had a CBSA supervisor officer tell the new person to settle down and let my wife go to the washroom. Once had a CBP guy tell me to make sure I trained enough US folks to be able to replace me so I did not have to cross the border so often. Once had a CBSA officer try and tell me that I was 15 minutes early (instead of them being 15 minutes late) when I showed him the time on my iPhone synced to the iridium clocks on the GPS satellites and asked to see his watch for comparison. Once had a CBP officer start going through the baggage compartment because he said he had to make the trip from the border control point on the bridge to the airport worthwhile. Today, I only fly into airports that have permanent CBP Customs posts or CBSA Customs posts. Don't need the agro.

Some of the 22 Mooneys gathered at KLEX this weekend.

I took off the engine end fitting again and shave a bit of the cable cover so I could push the fitting further up on to the cable. That did trick. The small key at the cable end was not fully engage the tach drive.

A big thank you to all the instructors (especially @Jerry 5TJ, who was my instructor) and everyone else who made the MAPA event in Lexington such wonderful experience. I put the training to good use on the way home and ended the weekend by having to shoot an approach to land at home. Thanks again Jerry!

I think there is confusion around the definition of inner doors. An older M20K has 2 gear doors on each side, outboard on the wing and one on the gear leg. So on an older M20K terms, the lower door is the inner door. The 252 and Encore have an inboard gear door attached to the wing to close the remaining gap when the gear is retracted. This needs to be replace if doing the Encore mod, but if its not there in the first place..... Attached is an image of all 3 doors - showing the bulge that covers the double puck brakes. Also a picture of the inner door open - I think the earlier M20K's have a fixed panel that mostly closes the hole. Aerodon

why not just go with new and core exchange...its cheap enough and reduces your chance of AOG...... overhaul just to save a few dollars? what does a plane ticket or tickets cost and remote mx?

Not true, they are the same except for the location of the mounting holes for the brakes. I have heard the suggestion that you can just re-drill the mounting holes to accommodate the aft mounted calipers, but that is below my standard. And the lower gear legs are heat treated, so a well known welding shop declined to modify my standard gear legs. I think it is a worthwhile mod for Erik to do to his 3200lb Rocket. Aerodon

My biggest concern would be how the gear doors got bent like that. If I saw my gear doors bent with no explanation, I wouldn’t fly the plane until I had a very clear understanding of what happened and I’d probably want someone to look over the plane pretty carefully.

Thanks! just got back safe and slow

At our last IA seminar one of the FAA reps said, pretty much unsolicited, that the FAA can grant permission for use for STCs if the owner is unresponsive. I didn't follow up to ask whether that was only through the abandonment process or if there were cases that were easier than that, but abandoned STCs can be used on request to the FAA. There are ACs that cover this.

Once the nose wheel comes down, I reach out a finger and raise the flaps without letting go of the throttle. This puts more weight on the wheels right away. Then I wait and don't brake until below 50 on rollout. This worked well the seven years I was based at an obstructed 3000' field, and I rarely go anywhere shorter except for the occasional grass field (which slows the plane much faster than asphalt or concrete).

I try not to use brakes on the runway and rarely need to, but I do know that with my 2700 Lb. airplane, I can skid the tires any time I want. Without more weight on the tires, I'm not sure what more brakes will get you.

This is, IMO, the most difficult thing to understand about parts on certified airplanes. Everything installed on a certified airplane must have a "basis for approval". But there are many, many such approval mechanisms, including at least: part listed on original type certificate replacement part provided by a manufacturer with PMA aftermarket modification with STC aftermarket component which meets a TSO aftermarket component meets NORSEE standards replacement or add-on is an "industry standard part", see https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/aircraft/safety/programs/sups/standard_parts.pdf replacement or add-on is judged in the opinion of an appropriately certified mechanic to be a "minor modification" aircraft is a "vintage" aircraft and part falls under new VARMA regulations Anyone who tells you that you can't install a non-original part on a certified aircraft without an STC is ill-informed. But that doesn't mean you can install anything you want regardless of STC. If there is no STC which permits installation of the component on your certified aircraft, then there must be some other basis for approval: TSO, NORSEE, signoff as "minor modification", etc. The "minor modification" sign-off is the one that generates the most argument. Appendix A of 43.13 explicitly lists items that count as major repairs/alterations, such that a mechanic cannot really claim those specific items are "minor modifications". Beyond that, though, the definition of what constitutes a minor modification is - best as I can tell - just up to the judgement of the individual mechanic. Some mechanics are a lot more liberal than others with this interpretation.

Im about to purchase an M20J 205 with an upgraded IO 390 engine and Im looking to see if anyone has a performance profile for this setup?

I’m hoping to meet as many MSers in Lexington as I can. Heres a picture of my bird to help find me at KLEX. With 22 Mooneys inbound, it will be a great looking ramp for sure. Chuck

I did it little by little so as not to take too muck. Hopefully I got it right.

With the caveat that I have NO experience with aircraft mechanical tachs, only automotive, I would check your 'reinstallation' of the tach fitting you 'reinstalled'. The end of the cable has to engage with the recessed drive in the engine side. If the fitting is not properly installed on the cable end then there can be insufficient cable length protruding to properly engage.

It climbs a bit better and you get a couple of knots more. At cruise power, you’ll only have ~7 more hp. Roughly. From the other folks on here, the change was noticeable mostly in climb. Less so in cruise. It’s a newer design and has all the improvements incorporated into the newer versions of the io-360.

I would call the airport. That is the best way to get info.

To be sure his energy management was pretty darn good.

Yes I did, I found the parts of a M20R. Had to buy more than I wanted, but have successfully sold most of the remaining components. Aerodon

Here’s that video. I was amazed at how well he did this show with zero preparation - despite the obvious regulatory hot water.

Depending upon the thickness of what you are bending/straightening you may want to look at hand sheet metal seamers. https://www.amazon.com/ABN-Inch-Straight-Metal-Seamer/dp/B01M22HF9K/ref=sxin_16_pa_sp_search_thematic_sspa?content-id=amzn1.sym.fdcf0922-3645-4367-8fef-7b209ee72614%3Aamzn1.sym.fdcf0922-3645-4367-8fef-7b209ee72614&crid=3SYQXG54Y8AOY&cv_ct_cx=sheet+metal+tools+bending&keywords=sheet+metal+tools+bending&pd_rd_i=B01M22HF9K&pd_rd_r=bc0dfcd2-1b25-4fe4-995a-742725fd4d8d&pd_rd_w=ghng1&pd_rd_wg=oSknK&pf_rd_p=fdcf0922-3645-4367-8fef-7b209ee72614&pf_rd_r=ZFME10R33DZFZE01A9EF&qid=1686464613&sbo=RZvfv%2F%2FHxDF%2BO5021pAnSA%3D%3D&sprefix=sheet+metal+tools%2Caps%2C185&sr=1-4-f198e6a3-f8ba-40fc-adb1-ef5348fd130e-spons&psc=1&smid=A1UMBRA5ZTBCX8&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEyWUFYRlVVUU9IVlZJJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwODExNzkzMjRRV1VLM1VUNk5XWCZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwMjU1NzE2UU8wTVdHMU1aTThZJndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3Bfc2VhcmNoX3RoZW1hdGljJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ== I think I have also seen them with nylon-protected jaws. John Breda

The Encore brakes are the Bravo and on brakes, spindles, master's. My Encore mod parts came from a M20M, part numbers matched the Encore parts list. Rumour has it that when Mooney produced the Encore in 1996, they just took the then current brake system, aileron, rudder, elevator balance weights and used it on the Encore. The brakes were probably necessary for the higher gross weight, but I don't think the balance weights are? No change in V speeds. There is also a SB that applies to the inner gear doors to add a door stop to the M20M's and on. Mooney didn't apply this mod to the Encore, but given the problems that some have had with the inner gear doors links, it seems like a smart idea. The 252 is still an M20K, so it is less of a major modification than say asking someone to sign out installing M20M into M20K parts. Also, there is a drawing package available, so there is some solid data to use in a 337. But don't underestimate the cost of doing all of this. There is a lot of labor and expensive parts. Yes BAS have a set of gear legs, I tried asking if they would take the spindles off and they declined. But the whole gear legs are less than factory spindles. Aerodon

Not a good thing and needs repair, but I don't think it will hit or hurt the tire. That door is mounted to the wheel/tire, so they move together. It won't get any closer to the tire than it already is, unless you did a very hard landing and bulged the tire out more. My opinion.

Not surprised. There is no profit if designing, STCing and tooling up for a shrinking fleet/market. WYSIWYG. Be happy with what you have….

Long body spindle assemblies won’t work - too short. Other parts may or may not be the same as Bravo or others. @Aerodon talked about doing this in 2021 - the thread below will take you to it. There is a comment that the master cylinders were the hardest to find 520002-501

I have been to canada a few times recently and read that as well. I took it to mean that the GA and corporate air programs were not affected. I will say that i had my first negative experience going to canada and using our company Corporate Canpass. I’ve been doing it for a while and I follow the rules exactly as published on their website. When I arrived in Kelowna, I was ~10 minutes after my scheduled time and well within my 30 minute window. Iaw the corporate rules, we didn’t need to call, so we exited the airplane and headed to the fbo. About 15 minutes later, I walked out to supervise fueling and customs officers drove up. They weren’t pleased that I was outside the airplane. As politely as I could, I pointed out that I was on corporate canpass. No change in attitude. I pulled out the rules. The officer said, “The people running CANPASS are teenagers and don’t know what they’re doing. Get your passengers back here immediately.” Since he had the badge and gun, I complied by calling them and they drove back. They (but not me because I was “only the pilot”) were taken to the cbo office for about 15 minutes and then released. Funny, the next day I had to come back to pick up the pax. Paranoid, I sat in the airplane and called CANPASS (which you don’t have to do on corporate canpass). Officers (different ones) showed up while I was still on hold about 10 minutes later. I mentioned that I was on corporate canpass and they asked why I was calling and still in the airplane then?

You would want to talk to a principal inspector at the FSDO. They would rather talk to your IA, but it doesn’t hurt to call and ask. Some of them prefer e-mail. If you go to the FSDO website, use the contact email and the admin will route it to the right person.

Car, especially for track is a different situation. You need to brake several times a lap, lap after lap. So you need to dissipate the heat. The car I track weight 3400 pounds empty, so about 3700 pounds on the track. At the local track, I am doing 145 at the end of the front straight. A LOT of energy. The heat buildup causes the pads to lose their friction, in some cases even melting the pad compound. It can also boil the fluid. My car, driven hard on the track, can boil 600 degree fluid. There are two fairly heavy braking zones, one medium and one light. All in less that 90 seconds. Repeat every 90 seconds for 20 minutes. And I still stand by, if you can lock the wheels, you have all the brakes you need. Funny story. Back in the 60s, Hertz had a run of Shelby GT-350s for rental cars. In DC, the deal they had was that one of each model car would be inspected, and then all the cars of that same model would get an inspection sticker. They took a GT-350 in, the guy inspected it, then did a test drive. He came back and told Hertz the car failed due to the brakes. They didn't work well. After some head scratching, they figured out, that the high performance pads did not have good friction when cold and also required more pedal pressure. So they arranged to use a local drag strip and took the inspector out there. A race driver took the inspector on about 5 drag strips passes with heavy braking at the end. No bid deal. They they took a regular street car. The first pass, the car stopped fine. The second pass, it took a LOT longer to stop. The third pass, the brakes faded to nothing and they ended up in the catch fence. The inspector got out, and said, that they all passed, but he even wanted to ever see one of those f***n cars again in his life. The issue with Mooney brakes, IMO, is the same reason they require you to be precise on speed to land. The wing is closer to the ground, so there is more ground effect lift at touchdown, leading to less weight on the tires and less traction. The problem is not that our brakes are weak, but they if you try to brake too hard, you will flat spot the tires.

Any FAA office would be happy to ground an airplane with no official paperwork approval for a non-compliant prop. I'd be working with a very knowledgeable mechanic or DAR who could look at whatever local paperwork you do have and understands the rules and the bases for approval @Vance Harraltalked about earlier.

I’ve never thought my brakes were lacking.

As Eric mentioned, prop combinations are at the more difficult end of the certification spectrum. Was there any engineering that backed up the install in the other jurisdiction? If the harmonics were not analyzed, tested, it could theoretically be doing fatigue damage to the crank/internals. This may be a bigger consideration than the legality.

every year, you will need an IA to sign that the aircraft is approved for return to service At some point, an IA (in theory at your first annual) will check that all components had a basis to be installed (STC, field approval , ....). A prop is major component so it is unlikely to go unnoticed. the local approval may be a basis for the approval (for example, the FAA, CAA , EASA have agreements to validate modification / approvals). if the local approval is from a local mechanic in a remote country with not many standards ... it may be difficult to use that as a basis for approval

The short answer is no, as a non-approved propeller is a pretty significant thing, not like a smaller part or modification. Propellers are listed specifically in the TCDS, so one needs a STC or some sort of other formal approval like a field approval, which is not trivial to do. I'd suggest just getting an approved propeller fitted. Since you need to engage a DAR anyway, I'd ask this question to the specific DAR that you use ahead of time, since their opinion will be the most important one.

That is not a battle you will want to have every year during annual. You need some kind of permanent approval or a new prop.

While the technology could be better, I agree with some of the later posts. I’ve never run out of brake in my plane, but it is easy to skid a tire if you aren’t conscious. I have put a full gross acclaim down on a 2400’ runway, zero displaced threshold and water on both ends of the runway, without having to crush my brakes. if you’re needing that much brake power, you way want to look at your approach speed? in the event that sounds critical, please know that was NOT my intention!

THIS ^^^^^ The limiting factor is the friction between the tire and the runway. If you can skid the tire, more brakes will not do a thing. If you can't skid the tire, there is something wrong with your brakes, probably some air in the system.

It’s kind of hard to predict the future when it comes to what looks like minor cam distress. What the lifter faces look like would tell us a lot more of the total story. This cam could run for quite some time or it could go bad in a couple hundred hours. At 1500 hours if I ended up buying it I would continue running the engine while making sure to pay very close attention to ferrous metal in the filter which is the sign the wear is accelerating. If the lifter faces are in good shape It wouldn’t surprise me if the engine made it to 2000 hours. If the lifter faces are all chewed up the CAM could be toast in 100 hours. So we don’t don’t really have enough information to say anything definitive other than this is a higher risk motor than one with a pristine CAM.

Many things we are taught during PPL about operating an engine apply to NA engines only, which is what the great majority of school planes have. For example, we may have been taught to lean in the climb, which works in an NA to keep the mixture from going overly rich because the ambient pressure is decreasing. The turbo wants to be full rich when at full power in a climb to keep the engine cool and the input pressure can be held to a full power pressure like 36-38” all the way to critical altitude; no reason at all to lean in a climb. The “full rich for landing” is another. During the descent on final the engine will not quit when too rich or too lean because the movement of the aircraft is helping the prop. But during the rollout when the help stops and the engine is on its own, either too rich or too lean will cause the engine to stop. The “make the engine full rich for landing” lesson we are taught is another OWT better left to school plane operation. There is no great trick to pushing two knobs in for a go around instead of just one. Haven’t heard of a pilot crashing because he/she had to push in two knobs. The turbo engines need to be set rich to keep the engine cool. It does seem to be tricky to perfectly balance the idle setting and the full power setting. Paul K. can explain it better than me. But the pilot has full control over this problem. I operate LOP quite a bit. But whether I was cruising at LOP or ROP I make my final approach at a lean setting. There is a “perfect” point for this, which is idle rise. On the ground, with the engine at idle, if you pull the mixture slowly out, the RPMs will rise about 75 until they start to fall again. Remember approximately how far out the stick was and use that for your landing setting. I personally go even further, I will make my final approach at a much leaner setting and just put in some mixture immediately before or after touchdown. It is not hard to do. Changing plugs will help whether you are making your approach lean or rich, if the new plugs are generating a stronger spark. The whole point of a LOP or a ROP setting is that the mixture is harder to ignite, resulting in a slower flame front during the combustion cycle. Make the spark better and the mixture will ignite more readily. That said, if you are burbling during landing or rollout you are operating the engine too rich, which eventually is going to gunk up the plugs. Just find a better setting, which is one that is leaned out somewhat. Not to say there are not some more exotic engine issues that could cause a stoppage on rollout. But the most common one is just that the pilot was taught to operate a school plane in a particular way, and now is driving a different engine entirely. I wish when I first started flying my Mooney that there had been someone around to tell me these things. One dark night some 13 years ago I was flying pattern practice. This was when the landing lights were still incandescent and drew a ton of current, more than the 231 alternator makes at idle, and before I had a good engine monitor that would tell me how bad the electrical situation was. I came in for a landing, taxied toward the little operations building my FBO had back then, and the engine stopped dead right in front of it. No battery left to restart. All the instructors came out and helped me push my “new” plane in. They had a lot of fun with that! Now we have Mooneyspace.

Did the just start, or have you always had the whine? One diode in the alternator may have failed.

Ugh, I've had to deal with this issue with the Continental IO-360-ES on the Mod Works converted 201 I fly. After the rollout, I'd turn off into a taxiway and then the engine sputters a bit then dies. Not a common occurrence, but more likely during hotter days. Same thing with a Baron 55 I flew for my multi training (IO-520-C). My quick workaround is to hit the LO boost pump after landing rollout. However, as others pointed out, the real issue is likely improper idle fuel metering. I'm not a powerplant expert but from what I'm aware of, the Continental fuel injection system requires some serious tinkering to get just right, and the average A&P doesn't have the proper equipment to do that as the tooling costs north of $2000 as far as I know. I'd recommend taking it into a knowledgeable shop with good Continental knowledge.

It gets murkier if one looks at the differences in part 91, part 135 and part 121 O2 mask requirements.....apparently, the human body reacts differently to oxygen deprivation depending on which FAR he is operating under. The sherpas that march briskly up mount Everest without oxygen apparently operate under a special set of rules.

I wonder how the auto-shutoff at idle stuff in new cars plays into this. It seems like a lot of wear and tear on the starter, battery, and engine for a minimal savings in fuel, but what do I know? whenever I drive my wife’s car, that’s the first thing I disable before leaving the garage. -dan

Kennon used to have an article up on their website about crazing of windows and windshields. They claimed the temperature differential between the outside side and inside side of the windows, and not the sunlight passing through the windows, causes the crazing, and this is why they sell sun shades but no longer covers. I dislike covers for a few reasons: If the windows or doorway water, fix the problem; don’t paper it over with a cover. covers will scratch the windows and windshield. covers are a big, fat, soggy mess to deal with on a dewy or rainy morning. I would recommend an anti-corrosion treatment for the airframe as well. With the Bravo, you’ll probably be up high quite a bit, and when you land, the cold-soaked airframe will get condensation in places you can’t see. +1 on cowl plugs. My rocker covers developed some spots of surface rust after only a short time outside in Vlorida despite the cowl plugs, but every little bit helps. +1 on making sure the controls are belted. -dan

You may want to rethink that… Or think about it a little more… Many threads come alive when the next guy with same problem awakens the thread… could be a year or two later… Often a new guy with a new2him plane arrives… and awakens a thread to better understand the discussion… Very few threads ever get locked down… usually a tragedy of writing… Starting a new thread loses the history of what has been discussed prior… Best regards, -a-