Leaderboard

Sorry to hear about the relative’s broken hip. Difficult process especially as folks age. Your doghouse is probably in good shape. The difficulty is that there are often big holes that are hard to see and work on. When you get back home and you take off your cowling’s side panels, put a drop light inside the doghouse and turn off the lights in your hangar. Look under all four cylinders for light leakage that isn’t through the cylinder fins. Also look behind the doghouse, particularly where the upper engine mounts are located. There should be large felt pieces that seal up that area, but are often missing or messed up. Finally, put the light just under the prop and look forward under the engine to where the generator and starter are. Additionally- there is supposed to be rubber baffle material attached to the forward part of the doghouse, top and bottom, all the way around the front. It goes inside a small aluminum u-channel on the cowling. All of that rubber material should be present and nice and flexible. Also additionally- are the inter-cylinder baffles still in place below the cylinders? These are sheet metal that extend between the barrels of cylinder 2&4 and 1&3. Engine cooling isn’t really about airflow, it’s about the air pressure differential between the top of the engine (doghouse) and the area under the engine (leading to the cowl flaps). Since it’s a fluid, the air in the doghouse will follow the path of least resistance- which is often big holes around the starter, generator, oil pressure adjustment, and engine mounts. That lowers the pressure differential so less air is being drawn through the cylinder fins. To summarize the problem areas: - upper engine mounts - around and under the oil pressure adjustment - around forward parts of the generator and starter - baffling in the u-channel at the front of the doghouse - inter-cylinder sheet metal baffles below the cylinder barrels - other areas of the doghouse where it fits around the cylinders and case

And what a peaceful, positive 7 weeks it was on here.

I disagree... This is exactly the sort of thing the FAA can do. "Any type certificated engine or airframe that is authorized or certificated to use ASTM D910 is allowed to also use G100UL in addition to or instead of any ASTM D910 fuel." Signed, some-dude-in-charge.

Well, I'm not going to do this in an open forum. It can be discussed via email as I stated before. This is a private forum system in which myself and the community decide the rules. This topic is being locked.

I was really hoping it wasn't fuel exhaustion. Mechanical failures are sometimes unavoidable, but knowingly taking off with low fuel is completely preventable. To take off with a low fuel light on in search of cheaper fuel has to be one of the most "Penny Wise-Pound Foolish" things ever. You're flying a $200,000+ airplane and if you're going to put 60-70 gallons in it to save $100-$200, yet risk your entire investment to make the trip to do so makes no sense whatsoever. Once again, the famous quote which is credited to Einstein applies, "The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has its limits." With that mindset he was likely under-insured as well. There were only two hundred thirty one 252s made, and more than a few were turned into Rockets. It is sad to see the rate at which we keep losing them. Edit: And he subjected a passenger to this as well.

In defense, it’s a design feature that allows lift point tracking during seismic activity.

Just a quick update. I sent in both alternator and voltage regulator for iran. The alternator needed overhauled. Voltage regulator was inspected and turned out to be fine. Reinstalled both of them. Tested on the ground and in the air. Problem gone issue seems to be solved. Six weeks turnaround time the only drawback but better safe than sorry.

The FAA just responded to my inquiry. I was told I'd need to fill out a Freedom Of Information Act Request that would be reviewed to determine if any information can be disclosed due to the proprietary nature of the issue. I responded by asking a few more general questions regarding the two populations of bushings. Update. According to the FAA POC, the failure mode for the two populations of bushings addressed by the two ADs appears similar.

I will test this next time I'm down at the plane. Don't know if the latch could come open from a rough landing, but by that point it's unlikely to be a safety of flight issue. Very very true. I took off once with the baggage door open and knew it immediately. Unlike an unlocked cabin door which you couldn't push open in flight if you wanted to, the baggage door will fly wide open like a sail - and bend if it stays attached. Flying for me was a non problem, but the embarrassment for being an idiot remains. So does the cost of repair. The door itself closed fine afterwards, but there was distortion around the hinge and that cost money too. This discussion has been very useful to me. As Paul and others have said, maybe the risk of flying unlocked outweighs any chance of being trapped by a jammed door and a locked luggage door. I'm slowly being persuaded.

"Acceptable to the administrator" covers a lot of ground, and ACs, opinion letters, and other methods are often used to convey and clarify what that means. If fuel x becomes "acceptable to the administrator" to qualify as a particular "octane" or "grade" of aviation fuel, then there's nothing keeping us from using it and being completely compliant with the TCDS. The TCDS wording for fuel isn't very specific, and that is true across most TCDS for GA airplanes. Newer ones often tend to be even more vague than older ones, it seems. It seems to me it'd be pretty easy for the FAA to convey, through a number of means, that a particular fuel is compatible with the description in the TCDS. Maybe just an update of AC 91-33 would be sufficient. AC 91-33A says: The FAA does not regulate the distribution systems for either aviation gasoline or automotive gasoline. Nor does it regulate the specifications for either fuel. It does, however, approve the use of fuel to a given specification in an aircraft engine. So AC 91-33 says the FAA can approve the use of fuel to a given specification, which is really all that is needed.

MSB 632B referenced in the first (2017) AD describes the bushings as non-conforming and implies that some bushings were of incorrect diameter.

That authority is codified under Title 49.

I had a relative that owned a ‘62C back in the 1980s and the baggage door opened on him when he hit some severe turbulence on descent over the foothills east of San Diego. The door did not unlatch. The sun had set and it was dark… but VFR. He speculated he transitioned through some kind of on-shore flow wind shear. The door was tweaked, but did not depart the airframe. I was stationed at Mather AFB at the time and he had me scrounge the yard at Kenny Faeth’s for a replacement door. I sent him one, but being the doors are hand-fitted, ultimately it was less work for his A&P to reskin his original baggage door and tweak it back into shape. Looking at my ‘63C, I cannot imagine how much fuselage flex would be required to unseat the baggage door latch pins. I also have a lot of friction on the pins to close the latch, to the point I have to apply some pressure on the door to more easily engage the pins in the strike plates. I installed a lanyard and don’t lock my baggage door. I installed the lanyard to pull aft and it’s at the aft end of the door next to the hat rack. Much less likely rear seat pax would be inclined to touch it. Perhaps the amount of travel of the latch pins should be investigated to make sure they fully engage the plates on the fuselage. I don’t think there’s any adjustment for throw (on the vintage birds anyway), but if the linkage gets worn, perhaps there is a risk of the pin(s) not fully engaging.

The test stand is incompatible with testing mixture distribution but there is no rush to do. Mixture distribution shouldn’t be tested till after break-in is complete because we want to do slow sweeps below 65% power not at 75% power for breaking in. Concur it usually takes a few iterations to get the mixture distribution dialed in but isn’t a concern. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if there’s a difference in mechanisms between the vintage models and later ones. My M20C latch pins are such a tight friction fit that there is no way -seriously, NO WAY- that it can come open by itself, as long as it was properly closed and fully latched before departure. And since I added an emergency exit pull to mine that only works if it’s unlocked, I’m going to keep leaving mine unlocked but checked (and double-checked) before flights.

And you wonder why your posts were deleted?

It may have been a fiberglass belly, which would likely wear away faster than the aluminum skins. It's still all repairable, but these days who knows whether it'll fly again or just be a parts supply.

I always lock the luggage door on my way into the plane. So far that hasn’t popped open on me… now if I could find a way to remember to close the oil trap door on the cowling before I put my seatbelt on I’ll be in good shape.

Yes. Also it has been recommended with buttons that stick in the G1000 or GNS 430 or 530 to exercise them 50-100 times. I had a GNS 530W where the flip/flop used to stick and that cleared it up.

You can shoot a wet rivet without enlarging the hole; most of the product ends up oozing out and very little is left in the hole. The make dimple dies that are a little bigger and I've tried them when building fuel tanks but they are not necessary. If you are going to shoot them wet, make sure the product you use will be ok with the paint and pre-paint work.

Great work, looks nice. And yeah, in a physics textbook that bolt isn't optimum, but real life it will never let you down. The bolted base is interesting, did you drill that out or were there holes there? I think most I have seen used supports around the edge rather than bolts. Anyway, here's to many uneventful times using them.

Great reasoning, but the stakes are much higher than $1K. A new baggage door will run more like $5K not counting painting it. Just saying… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's my take, as well. The "special tool" is designed to apply a known force to the bushing to try and push it out of the connecting rod. If it moves then it's deemed 'bad'. If it does not move, then it's 'good'. That pretty strongly implies poor manufacturing control over the outside diameter of the bushing.

The same law that gives them the power to prohibit flying with some specific Lycoming connecting rods.

Scored a super clean J panel upgrade takeoff VSI for $50! Thanks @EricJ for the pro tip. Plus I'll have a cool paperweight on my desk for my old one.

Maxwell in Longview, TX. About an hour’s flight away from Mena. Mooney experts. If there is something out of kilter they will find it.

If you read the procedure for installing the old style bushings, it looks like a better deal if done right. You drive the bushing in, then burnish it, which, I believe will cause it to expand locking it in place. Then reaming it out to the final size. This probably produces a superior fit, but it involves a bit of craft work and experience. If this procedure was done wrong, things could go to hell. Perhaps, it wasn’t bad parts, but all the craftsmen retired and the new kids just didn’t know how to do it right. The new bushing just presses in with no other processes.

https://www.globalair.com/articles/faa-issues-ad-affecting-16000-lycoming-engines?id=8168 I'm still ferreting around trying to find a hint of anything that suggests whether the bushings supplied between Jan 2009 and Nov 2015 (requires oil filter inspection) are any different than the ones supplied from Nov 2015 to Nov 2016 (requires visual inspection and a press fit test). So far nothing...

Sensata doesn’t sell direct to customers… because they suck… (plus they won’t sell just the printed switch caps) I use aircraft spruce… they may have them in stock, or can get from Sensata quite quickly… +1 for holding onto your existing switch caps… they snap on and off an oversized metal body… Landing lights of the original kind…(not LED) use a lot of electricity and generate a tiny spark each time you turn them on… this tiny spark knocks a micro piece of metal off the contact surface…. After years of operation, the CB switch loses its over center nature… the click gets softer and softer over time, as does its ability to resist tripping. PP thoughts only, not a mechanic… best regards, -a-

same for mine, not easy to open thte thing when you want, if it comes open after being properly latched, something probably took half the plane with it

Nicotine gum can help to quit smoking, just shape it around the rivets.

Let’s not. This is specific to your account and not General Mooney Talk content. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think I was 0007 !

Feels like this whole STC requirement paperwork mess could go away if there was the political will to do so. It isn't like some natural law of physics that it has to be done this way. Like has been done with many of the recent FAR changes, Congress could effectively force the FAA to bless G100UL (or any suitable fuel) as a blanket addition to all type certificates or whatever other regulatory remedy was most expedient. But I think to get to that point, G100UL or another unleaded replacement are going to need to get a critical mass of adoption first. It's just too bad there isn't some better carrot/stick situation here like there was with the ADS-B mandate. (FIS-B weather, traffic, etc) Ultimately I think California is probably (inadvertently) doing GA a service with their mandates that are forcing this along. Certainly it was going nowhere fast otherwise.

So I got a Starlink mini (mainly for Hurricane Preparation here in Florida) and I decided to temporarily upgrade to the $250 plan and throw it on the glareshield of my Mooney. Heading north (Orlando to Charleston), it worked perfectly. Over 100 Mbps at times. I didn’t find it to be in the way at all. Heading south, this evidently didn’t provide enough northern sky view so it would get stuck and refuse to initialize fully (“Calculating orientation”). I decided for fun just to hand hold it up to a side window and point it as north and east as possible. And it finally connected. But the interesting thing was, once it connected, I was able to throw it back on the glareshield and use it just fine! It held connection that way with no noticeable drop in speed for close to another hour, including a few course changes. If anyone else decides to try this, try that if it gives you trouble. I sure wish the mini had been available when I went to Alaska. Wasted $600 on a used Iridium satphone and $500 or so on 200 (very slow) data minutes to get in-flight weather in Northern Canada. I’m willing to bet Starlink would have worked much better!

Not really a great idea to LOCK the baggage door. That’s the escape hatch in the case of a rough landing that jams your passenger door. There’s actually a mod to tie a loop of piano wire to the latching mechanism so you can unlatch the baggage door from the inside. But back to the original question, I *try* to tug the baggage door when boarding the plane. Leaving it wide open until latching and leaving the keys in the lock are both good habits, as is looking back at the baggage door when you check the passenger door before takeoff. That saved me from taking off with it open just last week. Felt pretty foolish shutting down the engine so I could latch the d@mned baggage before taking the rwy, especially with another plane coming up the taxiway behind me.

Dear Mooney Enthusiast, We had zero people show up for our last event because it was canceled for Hurricane Milton. Our next event will be this Saturday, November 9 at Williston (X60). As of today on Foreflight their self serv price for 100LL is $4.82. All events start at 11:30. Future events: November 9, Williston, X60 December 14, Fort Pierce, FPR January 11, Winter Haven, GIF. Please let me know by Thursday if you are going to try to come so I can give the restaurant an approximate headcount. If you tell me you are coming, and can’t come do not worry about telling me, just do not come. I do not want anyone flying for any reason if they shouldn’t. Hope to see you soon, Dave and Ruth N46DT 352-408-3343

Indeed, but the average was twice that and in the range of TCM position tuned injectors. Can’t go by your single lowest one. It’s the repeatable average that counts. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like my Beacon (as well as the 3 point strobes). The difference with the Beacon is that I **NEVER** turn it off. So if the Master is On, the Beacon is On.

If I close my baggage door, I lock it. And every time I board the airplane, I tug on the handle.

EVERY TIME the plane is up on jacks, especially if the gear will go up. The O-ring can fail at any time and it could become really expenive really fast (prop strike and/or injury). It only takes a minute to lock the collar or put a safety bolt through the ram and it will prevent injury or damage to the plane.

Maybe if it’s on an engine stand, you can R&R all cylinders in 8 hours but on the plane by the time we take the baffling and everything else apart it’s quite a bit more than that. And then you still have to end up honing the cylinders and putting new rings on it and you gotta file fit the rings to the right end gap and then you still got to check the dry tappet clearance too. Then reassemble the whole airplane with the exhaust, the induction tubes, the baffling, spark, plug leads, plugs, valve train, and everything else.

You must have the TCM position tuned injectors then, which more typically yield 0.6-0.7 GPH - rarely 0.5 but occasionally 0.5. I've seen hundreds of these and no one with stock injectors that can get a verified repeatable 0.3 GPH spread

I don't see a requirement for spectrographic analysis, just a visual inspection of the filter media for bronze particles.

My fuel flow, max power at sea level is 29 GPH

Because I value my time as well. Most of my flying recently has been purpose driven. Flying two to three days a week means I don’t need an excuse to get the plane out. I am not making a special trip for $50, nor would I add a stop to an existing trip for $50. I like my local FBO and I want to do business with them. I enjoy having local services available. I had to delay my trip to NC a few Saturdays back because of a leaking line to the fuel pressure gauge. I had a new line fabricated with my old fittings (local shop), installed (by me) and signed off by an IA at the FBO before 11:00am Monday morning for <$200 total. I was able to do that because I support and have relationships with the service providers on my field. Shopping all over hell and half acre to save $50 is not a big concern. I might feel differently in my retirement, but that is quite a ways off.

From what I understand, Paul Maxwell handles the avionics end of the business. Lynn Mace an A&P/IA, who used to own a Mooney Service Center himself, oversees the shop. Don Maxwell owns the business. I'm sure no shop is perfect, and no shop finds every squawk, but comparing how Jewell handled overhauls and closed down, to Maxwell Aviation who does a couple hundred Mooney annuals a year and helps many people calling for advice, free of charge, is not a fair comparison.

No one needs data anymore, that only comes from useless, overpriced studies that no one understands except maybe the authors. Avgas contains lead, and that's bad for the children, so it must go away! Lead, plastic bags, (functional) plastic straws, even cars that burn gasoline--all must go away, so that everyone suffers the same inconveniences. If it's pleasant, fun or useful, it must be replaced with "stuff" that will only be invented under pressure, and brought hurriedly to market without useless studies that shows that the new alternatives work at all, or that they are any better for the environment, the children or the economy.

SB 1193 states that the ban will begin Jan first 2026 for “disadvantaged” communities and 2028 for “urban growth” communities. And these definitions can be very subjective. Once again we are forcing with mandates before the solution is completely ready for prime time. 2026 that’s less than two years from now. I have spent my entire life in California and have seen so many regulations forced upon us by the air resources board. It started many years ago with spare the air days making it illegal to have a fire in your fire place when they decided it was a bad day and not just in the summer but on winter days when the air was just fine. Recommend no BBQ no operation of gas tools and as of last year many gas powered tools are now banned. New homes for the most part must be all electric and if any of you haven’t experienced the cost of E service in CA you would be floored. Be VERY careful what you wish for because these restrictions will be coming soon to your state especially if a certain former Cali senator becomes our next president. Don’t believe a word she says. I have lived it. I can remember when the California summer blends came out for auto gas and quite a few retailers just stopped selling in the state. Can’t remember the last time I saw a Texaco or union 76 or BP chevron is checking out and moving to Texas. If the unleaded is still not ready we might not have any suppliers willing to sell in this state. Yes unleaded worked well for auto and other vehicles but not until manufacturers updated their engines. Just think of the log jam if all our cylinders have to be modified or replaced with hardened seats. Just saying be careful what you wish for.

I wonder how proportionate the distribution of GA is to CA, by either population, land area, or GDP. It might be another spur to out-migration of those who can still afford GA electively. The same people who can afford to leave and leave due to large total tax burden, etc. In terms of "working GA", I do sincerely wonder what they'll do... The elites will mostly be burning Jet A and probably don't give a rip, or can pay the nuisance taxes. Though the other NIMBY factors will continue to nip at their heels (noise as you say).