Cyril Gibb

Has the rigging ever been done properly? Previously it seems that rigging was checked, but it's not clear if it was then adjusted to within spec. The maintenance manual is extremely detailed in the sequence of rigging steps. Attempting rigging without the boards and the specifications from the maintenance manual ain't the way forward. Do it ONCE correctly and then it's done. You might want to rethink if your current A&P is the right person to do that.

+1 again... me too !

Useful info to understand more about aircraft fuel injection. Very interesting reading for someone already versed in engine technology of one sort or another. http://www.precisionairmotive.com/Publications/15-812_b.pdf http://www.precisionairmotive.com/Publications/15-810_b.pdf Now that it seems you have ruled out idle mixture, it's beyond hangar fairy capability to resolve, although there's nothing wrong with assisting in diagnosis. note page 15/16 in 812 regarding leaks in servos causing over-rich. Just one more data point. re: the posts above... after maintenance on plugs/wires/mags/other stuff, I don't think it's AP bashing to point out that a normal thorough post-maintenance check by the signing AP should have detected these anomalies and prevented a potentially catastrophic release to the owner. Let the chips fall where they may.

Sounds like you have a 200 rpm rise when it should be 50. Waaaay too rich idle mixture. Simple easy adjustment. Adjust that first. Then adjust idle speed to 700-750 rpm. Adjust them when the engine is warm. Your idle mixture appears so rich that the mixture setting / idle speed setting might take an iteration or two. Then try it. Note that rpm rise check is from 900-1000 rpm or so. If there is a hangar fairy around, the idle mixture is a threaded turn thing with an arrow and a "rich" word stamped into it. Tell the fairy to turn it opposite the arrow.

Agree wholeheartedly. From various threads here and elsewhere, people avoid PPIs at their peril. The J that I almost bought looked fine, flew fine and on paper had no issues, in reality had terminal corrosion very hidden and visible only with a mirror on a long rod. It would have been scrap value. If someone has bought 14 planes, they may be in a snack bracket where an unfortunate gamble may be just an annoyance. For many of us, finding out that our purchase was to be turned into beer cans would be a financial disaster.

Maybe a C is different from my F. I dip also, but the markings I did by testing are non-linear due to the dihedral of the wings/tanks. Also, my tanks are at 10 gals when the fuel is just lapping directly below the filler. To make sure that the 10 gals were indeed usable, I ran each tank dry (separate occasions for smartass comments) and then filled to directly below the filler to verify. I'd takeoff on 10 gals if I knew that it was all in one tank. If I can't dip a tank, I assume it's empty. I guess it's an academic question because I'd only do it for a single circuit which would be pointless really.

CARs 202.01, CAR 202.05, CAR 202.06, CAR 202.07 and Standards 222.01, 222.06 Mark Size and Location Requirements Generally, there are marks on the side of the aeroplane or helicopter, and marks on the bottom surface of the wings (aeroplane), fuselage or cabin (helicopter). In Canada, though, marks on the bottom surface are optional. If the owner has marks both on the side AND on the bottom surface of the wings or fuselage (or cabin for helicopter), the following applies: the marks on the side must be at least 15 cm (5.9 inches); and the marks on the bottom surface must be at least 50 cm (19.68 inches). If an owner decides not to display marks under the wings of the aeroplane or the bottom surface of the fuselage (or cabin in the case of a helicopter): then the marks on the side must be larger, i.e. they must be at least 30 cm (11.8 inches) except where the dimensions of the structure do not permit this. In that case the marks shall be as high as possible but never less than 15 cm (5.9 inches).

The ad says 3200 hours total. Looks nice paint and interior, but only about 55 hours total over the last 6 years isn't a good sign. If that's an ELT on the left side behind the back seats, I think it's installed incorrectly. If so, I'd be concerned about who was maintaining and what else less obvious is there.

That info would be informative if you have it handy. Someone of a higher payscale than I could comment, but I think that (again) Canadian and US requirements for documenting and getting engineering approval for mods/repairs to a certified aircraft are pretty well in lockstep between our two countries.

Very very very unlikely that ADs or STCs would be a problem. Canada/US reciprocal agreements cover that. With the US being country of manufacture, any ADs are also applicable in Canada. STCs the same. If it's a US STC (essentially all for Mooneys), it's mandatory in Canada. Canada has a few more stringent requirements such as the mandatory overhaul of CS props every 10 years and the logging requirements. eg. the journey log which must include crew, times, routes and maintenance records (in addition to airframe/prop/engine logs).

There's 50-60 planes imported and exported every month from Canada. Clarence (eastern Canada MSC) handles these frequently.

Okay, inquiring minds want to know..... I used vinyl for my registration lettering. It worked great and after a few years, there's no lifting at all. However, the rivets were a pain. I used a pin to deflate the "bubble" and a plastic scraper to gently form the vinyl around the heads. It wasn't very very fast. What is the right tool? (and don't say a competent installer)

** this isn't intended to be a pro/con Camguard topic. That's been covered ad nauseum already... too often ** A few years back, we heard of a tentative plan between Camguard and Continental (Mattituck rebuilds?) that owners could opt into with a goal of determining the efficacy of Camguard claims. I searched MooneySpace and the interweb (thanks Al Gore) and couldn't find anything more about it. Did it happen? If it did, were there any findings?

Me too !

That's not what I do. It meets Lycomings stated minimum requirement. There are no objective findings to say Camguard is superior. However, after reading the background of the Camguard guy and the rationale of the additive package, I use Phillips 20-50 and Camguard. Because there are no objective findings of Camguard advantages, I would not give an opinion of what others should do. But I use it.

Plus has several additives over non-Plus, but it doesn't include the Camguard additive package. It does include the Lycoming anti-wear LW16702 which meets Lycomings suggestion/requirement. The Camguard additive package was apparently too expensive to include. Since sp many people use Camguard now, I'm surprised that none of the oil companies sell a version including Camguard. With their volumes, they could sell the oil/Camguard combo for less than what we pay currently and mix ourselves.

The internet is filled with information, some of it is true and much of it is false. It can be a useful tool if one knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Personally, I find the evidence for LOP advantages compelling based on scientific evidence. Engineering studies, engine manufacturers documentation, observational data gathered in labs, government studies and instrumented aircraft in operation. Namely: lower cylinder temperatures, less fuel use, less pollution (especially lead), less carbon monoxide production, less plug fouling, less lead deposits on valve stems... and more. However, I'm always open to new information. Do you have ANY references (not subjective or anecdotal) that documents LOP as being bad? Or even any objective references that dispute ANY of the advantages I've listed above? PS. An example of accuracy on the internet from your post: My son spends a lot of time on the internet. He's dating a model (true) but she's not French (false)

Some unasked questions that may narrow down where you go from here: How much oil was in the crankcase when you landed? The POH would probably say 6 qts minimum, but Lycoming says (per certification standards) that 2 qts is the safe minimum. If you still had at least 2 qts on landing and didn't perform any aerobatic maneuvers, your oil pickup wouldn't have been unported. If it was less than 2 qts, the bearings would now be suspect. Did your oil temperature increase as the pressure decreased, or did it stay more or less stable?

Poor quality control...

We stopped in at the Beech Heritage Museum at KTHA (Tullahoma TN) on one of our trips last year. Very impressive collection! The buildings are a bit over the top. They were less like a hangar and more like having planes in your living room as conversation pieces. My favourite was a Beech Starship you can climb into. Lots of memorabilia too. ..and the Jack Daniels tour nearby was pretty neat also.

Summary based on Lycoming SI1042a from January of this year: Any Lycoming 360 that can use REM**** plugs can use BYs. (5/8" harness and short reach) except helicopter engines for whatever reason. Anyone know why? Is the compression ratio, hence piston to plug clearance, different (higher)?

Nope... BYs are extended nose NOT fine wire. They are my personal preference (contrary to the consensus opinion on MooneySpace). .. and BY37s are cooler in heat range than the alternative typically 38s.... lower heat range number is cooler, higher hotter

+1 .... top and bottom for me

Before shelling out for new plugs, do you lean very aggressively in ground ops? To the point of engine stumble if you add an additional crack of throttle? And I assume you've verified that it's lead fouling, not oil fouling? Wet usually means oil. Sooty usually means rich.

I just tried to change to multiples... not sure if it took