Andy95W

Lead in the fuel, plus normal carbon deposits.

If you don’t like it, why do you bother reading or posting here?

Kydex works well. Basically, you can use anything that meets the flame resistance requirements. For our CAR3 airplanes, all that means is that the material meets a nationally recognized flame resistance standard, is placarded no smoking, and doesn’t have ash trays. .06 or .08 thickness works good. https://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=125116&clickid=search

Hi @Buckeyechuck. Hope your annual is going well. Since you have the cowling off, this would be a good opportunity to take off the top part of the doghouse and look down at the cylinders for holes that can be blocked off. I found a big area behind #3 around the oil pressure adjustment. Also check for the intercylinder baffling (and its tightness) below the cylinders. It’s sheet metal that is between #1&3 and #2&4. You’ve done nice work with the aluminum tape, but to put this in perspective: the tape is sealing a 1/16” gap that’s about 10” long. That’s about 5/8” square. In just the one picture below, you’ve got a 1/2” gap that’s about 5” long- or about 2.5 square inches! The only way to cool CHTs is to get the air to flow through the cylinder fins. Any air that isn’t going through the fins isn’t just detracting from the cooling, it’s actually working against you by also decreasing the pressure differential. It’s a lot of creative work to seal up the air box. It’s definitely worth it in the end. Good luck, and good luck with your annual. Please keep us posted!

Oftentimes the -R refers to a “rebuilt” part. I definitely think the carburetor is part of @Buckeyechuck’s problem, particularly in the initial climb phase. IMO, he should get his overhauled to the -M version, or better yet exchange for the 10-4164.

Hi @Wingover- when you have time, could you please take a picture of the bottom of your door? (so I can see how you oriented the seal with regard to the slider.)

Those were added in 1968, IIRC. My 1967 did not have them, my current 1964 also never had them from the factory. @Mark942 has a 1964 M20E, that won’t have these drains either.

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

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.

I did the headliner. It was my 3rd airplane interior and second headliner so I’d call it difficult but not too bad. It’s the kind of job that when you’re halfway through you’ll wish you’d paid someone else. But when you’re done, you’re glad you did it yourself. And there is the chance that if you are conscientious and take your time, you’ll do a nicer job than a shop would do.

Those numbers are extremely high compared to my 64 M20C. Most air leaks, I’ve found, are either to the front of the engine or underneath. I added metal and rubber material to close significant holes around the starter and alternator, and also under and behind the oil pressure adjustment, behind and under #3. Another factor could be your carburetor. Some have approved modifications to flow more fuel. Check your carburetor part number on the data plate. If it is 10-3878, it is the lower fuel flow. It should be either 10-4164-1 or 10-3878-M. This would explain your climb CHTs but not cruise. Since yours is a 1962, are your oil cooler lines still routed above the cylinders? That adds a significant amount of heat to the whole system. Later versions of the M20C those lines are routed below the engine to the oil cooler.

The company’s OPSPECs are controlling, because those are the ones approved by the FAA for that company. The template is what the FAA will consider approving if all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed.

A General Aviation forum about Mooneys is hardly an appropriate place to have this discussion. So for any reader getting annoyed by this, I apologize. ——————- OPSPEC C054: b. Limitations on the Use of Landing Minimums for Turbojet Airplanes. (1) A PIC of a turbojet airplane must not conduct an IAP when visibility conditions are reported to be less than ¾ statute mile (sm) or RVR 4000 until that pilot has been specifically qualified to use the Lower Landing Minimums (LLM). (2) If the destination visibility conditions are forecast to be less than ¾ sm or RVR 4000, the following conditions must be met: (a) The destination runway length must be determined prior to takeoff to be at least 115 percent of the runway field length required by the provisions of § 121.195(b); and (b) Precision instrument (all weather) runway markings or runway centerline (RCL) lights must be operational on that runway unless authorized to conduct enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) operations and use EFVS operational minimums. ——————— Nothing is mentioned here about the use of flight directors or autopilot. However, you might be referencing C052, which allows a reduction in visibility from the ILS “standard” of 2400 RVR to 1800 RVR with runway centerline lights and markings and does require use of autopilot or flight directors under Part 121. I specifically noted 200 and 1/2, not 1800 RVR. And I said “1/2” instead of 2400 RVR simply because this is a GA forum where not everyone needs to know the subtle nuances you and I have to be familiar with. ——————- Thank you for the discussion. It’s good to review this stuff occasionally, and I generally find something I hadn’t noticed before! And I’ll be sure to ask during my next Line Check.

??? 200 and 1/2, standard CAT I ILS, our OPSPECs do not require autopilot or flight directors. Definitely recommended, though. Are Delta’s OPSPECs different?

I specifically talked about an approach and landing in “IFR or gusty or challenging conditions.” Can I hand-fly an Airbus on an ILS down to 200 and 1/2, with no Flight Director? Yes. Do I do it? NO. And at midnight after a 12 hour duty day, I’m truly hoping you wouldn’t either if you had an autopilot available. And for the original situation that started this whole thread- I absolutely agree that the less hazardous course of action was to fly to JFK. My post’s intent was to give insight into real world considerations that actually happen to airline crews, even when they are legal to fly and have tried to get adequate rest. Also, I specifically said “for guys who don’t regularly practice turning the auto thrust off”. That is the important issue to me. My airline encourages us to practice our skills in situations when it makes sense and doesn’t compromise safety.

Because he/she has one more thing to monitor. Not a big deal, but still more. I normally hand fly (Airbus) up to 12,000 or so. Once or twice a month I turn off the auto thrust at top of descent all the way through landing. On an easy visual approach to a fairly quiet airport it’s fun to turn everything off, but I won’t do that if it’s IFR or gusty or challenging conditions. The people in the back paid for the safest operation we can provide, which means using the automation. I don’t know the exact situation for the crew in question that started this whole discussion, but here’s a little insight to a possibility. There’s a decent chance this crew were east coast guys, so their bodies and brains were on Eastern Time. So they woke up in California probably around 0500 or 0600 local time (0800 EDT) and their report time at the airport was likely 1500 local. That will put them at their destination around 2200 EDT. But their flight gets delayed 3 hours, so their report time is now 1800- which is actually 2100 Eastern Time. Their actual wheels up time is probably about an hour later, which will have them landing at 0300. How alert do you expect to be at 3:00 in the morning? And for guys who don’t regularly practice turning off the auto thrust, you’re looking at a very long fatiguing flight with 200 passengers on board.

Don- I thought your spring compression tool was effective, common sense, well thought-out, and inexpensive. Nice!

https://izitleather.com/izit-collections/ The Izit Leather by Willow Tex looks and feels like leather but is lighter weight and easier to care for. All of their products will pass FAA burn certification tests.

FYI- the 4500 A1 valves sell for a couple hundred $ on eBay normally.

@saltydecimator- if possible, please take a picture of the parking brake valve and reservoir. If it’s the one I’m looking for, I’ll take it and one oval inspection panel (8 hole). Thanks!

@jetdriven owns a shop near there. Not an MSC, but he owns his own Mooney and works on a lot of them.

If the parking brake valve is marked “4200”, I’m interested. It’s on the cabin side of the firewall above the pilot’s brake pedals.

If you find a supplier for the internal seals, please let me know!

Scott- you probably have the 4500. You’ll have to put your eyes on your valve and order what you need. You probably know this, but it’s on the cabin side of the firewall above the pilot’s feet. By the way, I have the 4500 but my parking brake doesn’t hold because of an internal seal that you can’t buy without buying a whole new valve. The seal kits that LASAR sells seem to be if yours is leaking and dripping, not if it’s not holding the brakes.

Hope it goes well tomorrow too! Good luck, good flight.