mooniac15u

I have an intercom there in my J. There's quite a bit of space.  You can access it by removing the side panel in the pilot footwell. It's only a couple screws to remove the side panel.

On 6/7/2024 at 11:23 PM, Hradec said:

Well I pretty much have it resolved, however now I have interference elsewhere.

The truss pivot bolt head is hitting. Parts manual calls for an6H21a

Service  bulletin m20-212 replaces there bolts with NAS1306 bolts,these have a considerably thinner head but the length called out for in the sb is too short. I want to replace bolt A.. remove an6h-17a install nas1306-21h. Will be too short. My goal is to replace an6h21a bolt with an Nas equivalent but with a thinner head. Specs say nas1306-26h is the one to use for my 1964 m20e sn 311. Any one run into this bolt interfering. This is not the an26-17 with the thin castle nut that hits. I have this resolved.

 

Thx

Glenn

I can’t tell from your description exactly what’s interfering so I’ll throw this out there. There’s a small bracket that should have been replaced when your landing gear was converted to the new style of shock discs but I’m not sure this always happens and I think if there’s enough play in older gear it might not cause a problem. It’s described in Mooney service bulletin M20-139 https://www.mooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SBM20-139A.pdf. On page 4 item 8 describes the bracket that needs to be replaced. On page 6 under “Main Gear Parts to Install” item 6 is a note that the gear won’t retract unless this bracket is replaced.

I’m not saying this is necessarily your problem but it seems worth confirming that you have the new bracket.

When comparing the older models to the J everyone focuses on the speed mods and purchase cost but nobody talks about the single greatest design improvement of the J. It doesn't use one of those accordion air-intake boots made of unobtanium.

When you say the "inside diameter of the nose gear" I'm guessing you're asking about the tube where you insert the towbar. If so, then what you're looking for is here:

On 4/28/2024 at 6:05 PM, SilentT said:

Anyone have or know where I can find a working kns 80? Looking on eBay they're all parts only with unknown status assumed to be defective. I bought a Mooney this week and the buttons light up with the master but the unit itself will not power on everything else seems to work okay.

Have you turned it on and left it to warm up for a while? Since I don't use mine very often it usually takes a while for the display to warm up. If it's been sitting for a long time it could take a while before you can see anything on the display.

On 4/28/2024 at 7:54 PM, MikeOH said:

@SilentT

Yes, I get it. You just spent money on the purchase and are looking for a low cost way to limp the avionics along until you build up the checkbook to 'do it right'.

Thing is, I don't believe the KNS80 is any longer certified for any kind of terminal or approach use (no VOR/DME approaches left that I'm aware of); enroute nav only for IFR.  There is no database, for one thing!  It's been decades since I flew with a KNS80 and it was a rental so I was only slightly familiar with its use.  Basically, it is a rho/theta system in which you enter waypoints by specifying a VOR, radial, and DME distance. IIRC, only 4 waypoints can be entered at a time. That's it.

IMHO, no way it's going to help get your IA rating except for the IFR cross-country

If you really, really want one ($1,500) these guys will at least offer a warranty: https://www.bennettavionics.com/rnav/

 

You might be thinking about a different radio. The KNS80 is capable of receiving localizer and glideslope so it works well for flying an ILS or localizer approach. It has some interesting features for en route navigation but even if you never learn how to use those functions it is a perfectly good backup nav radio that includes DME.

54 minutes ago, Tim-37419 said:

On the Aero Classics website it says that part number is for a piper. They have a different part number for the M20J.

14 minutes ago, Lax291 said:

Thanks for the link to the SB and to the new straps.  This is where I think it confuses me, someone pointing out the SB that says to remove (even though I don't believe it's mandatory?) and then someone pointing out to new straps.  

Maybe I should have made a poll of who has the straps still attached.

The SB I linked references the AD that makes it mandatory (AD 97-26-08 just below the subject line in the SB).  Here's the AD.

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/3663F2D3749FE48286256A8F006C5ED6.0001

https://www.mooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SBM20-259.pdf

PM sent.

5 hours ago, RoundTwo said:

Interesting and yet disappointing that the software isn’t smart enough to adjust to local time while accounting for seasonal shifts. Does this mean you have to change your offset when you fly to locations, like Indiana, that don’t recognize DST?

Indiana has recognized DST since 2006.  Aside from a few counties in the northwest and southwest corners of the state, it is always aligned with eastern time.

6 hours ago, Pinecone said:

You have to sign up for the tour of the restoration hangars.  If you can't get a reservation, you can show up and get in the standby line.  Last time I went with some friends, we did the standby and they took something like 15 standbys.

If you haven't been for a while, the museum has grown.  It is up too 4 of the buildings, so it takes a while to get through.

If you are into amusement and water parks, King's Island is also in Dayton.  Both the dry and wet parks are quite nice.

According to their website they aren't currently offering tours of the restoration hangar.

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Groups-and-Tours/

Kings Island is in Mason which is part of the Cincinnati area.  It's about 40 miles from the Air Force museum.

On 6/27/2023 at 6:13 AM, mike_elliott said:

In the past, you had to sign up for the presidential hangar tour for sure and had to do that early. WELL WELL worth in. I dont know what the rules are now, but be sure to ask early in the day. My last visit was in 2005, so I am a bit outdated on all the ops, but I had the pleasure of flying an 80 year old couple to Xenia who used to own my F and host them. In fact, Carol Ann Garratt was giving a presentation on her J travels that day and a number of Mooney's showed up, while Karl shuttled us to and from the Museum if my aging memory serves me.

The presidential collection has been moved into the main museum.

36 minutes ago, wombat said:

@A64Pilot I'm right there with you on the questions regarding what to keep and what to toss...  On my new to me plane, I've got manuals for equipment that was removed to be replaced by something that was then later removed to make way for the current generation of equipment, which happened 11 years ago.

 

What I've decided is that I'll keep all that old junk (aforementioned avionics manuals, engine logbooks for engines that were replaced, etc) but keep it separated from the maintenance records.    It doesn't hurt me to have a giant box of old stuff, and maybe someone who ends up buying the plane will want this old paperwork.  But I'm not even bothering to put it in chronological order.  It's just all jumbled together.

 

@Mcstealth There is also the question of what makes something 'damage history'.... If as a completely random example, someone were to run my plane off the side of a runway and a bush tears one of the gear doors off, does that count?   What about if the damage is exclusively on the gear door itself and they replace it?   There is no damaged part on the plane.   What about if the plane regularly lands on grass and after 5 years of this the A&P says "The gear door attach holes are worn out, we need to get a new gear door."... Is that damage history? 

Personally I'd call any single event that requires a 337 to repair 'damage history', but that's just me personally.

There's an M20C for sale here on Mooneyspace with an ad that says "No damage history" yet Aviationdb.com says there was a gear collapse.  Is that damage history?

On 5/1/2023 at 7:27 PM, 0TreeLemur said:

Recently bought replacement wingtop sight fuel level indicators.  I've read that they are held in their socket by silicone.   How does one go about removing them without damaging the socket?    Is there a snap ring around the top?  Thx.  -Fred

Where did you find the new ones?

On 5/14/2023 at 8:45 AM, Pinecone said:

Just be careful going down the light rabbit hole.  First it is landing/taxi lights.  Then LED recog lights, but while you have the tips opened up, you might as well add LED position/strobes.  And then there is that loud, old, rotating beacon.

 

 

I don't think they were shipping many 2008 Ovations with rotating beacons.

2 minutes ago, Hank said:

I thought the Js had the lawnmower pull behind the front seats. The vintage birds have the window crank on the sidewall. I'd like a spare sidewall cable myself, there's some wear on the far end of my cable. 

The 1977 Js have the old crank style mechanism.

21 hours ago, carusoam said:

The ‘Book of Steingar’ is oft quoted around here….  https://mooneyspace.com/search/?q=Steingar book&quick=1&updated_after=any&sortby=relevancy&search_and_or=and
 

Is there really a ‘book’ written by Steingar?

 @steingar is quite the origami artist and has several books on origami airplanes.

I owned a (converted) M20D for 9 years and now I've owned my M20J for the same length of time.  The J is slightly more pitch stable than the D but I never really found the D to be unstable.  It's just a difference I noticed when I upgraded.  The difference in rear seat leg room is meaningful.  I'm 6'5" and there was essentially no room behind me in the D.  My wife (5'4") rides comfortably behind me in the J.  The rear seat of the D was ok when the kids were in little and in car seats but they quickly ran out of room as they grew.

The rear bench seats in the two planes are also slightly different.  The angle between the seat and the seatback changed.  In the D the angle was more acute and less comfortable.  I no longer get complaints about the comfort of the back seat.

14 hours ago, FlyingDude said:

Whatever’s in wine 

Anyway, kidding . I’m not as knowledgeable in chemistry as you are, but I was hoping you have a final conclusion on whether corrosion x would eat into tank sealants…

@A64Pilot Mike Busch really recommends camguard. Along with all the APs I know. I’m not knowledgeable enough to comment on whether it’s a cure-all or snake oil, but I’m sold at least on cam guard…

The SDS I found online says Corrosion X is >90% petroleum distillate so it's hydrocarbons like fuel or oil which shouldn't affect sealant.  The rest of it is some proprietary amine in some proprietary percentage.  I wouldn't expect that to have much effect on sealant but it's hard to say for sure.

9 hours ago, FlyingDude said:

Thanks for the info. So far all indications point towards it being innocuous, but yours is the most direct experience.  I also asked Don Maxwell by email - I'll copy his response here if he gets a chance to respond.

I think it resists ethylene and isopropyl and gasoline, but gets softened by methyl based stuff (MEK).  They use toulene as solvent in the sealants and I used acetone while stripping (scraping more likely) my tank, so those soften it too.  Some people had used paint stripper to remove the sealant - though we know that such chemicals are aggressive to aluminum due to their chlorine content, so there's also that.  Though I highly doubt it has chlorine based aggressive stuff in it...  I doubt it contains alcohol-based stuff, as they would be volatile, whereas Corrosion X touts forming a thin film that never goes away.  I wonder if it is similar to Cam Guard that coats your cam?

 

 

 

Ethylene is a gas and isopropyl is a hydrocarbon substructure.  Are you referring to ethylene glycol and isopropyl alcohol?  Methyl is also a hydrocarbon substructure and wouldn't have much affect on something designed to resist fuel or oil.  Acetone and MEK are structurally similar ketones.  That's likely what's impacting their ability to soften the sealant.

I don't have any personal experience with One Wheel devices but if you're considering getting one it seems relevant to know that the CPSC has issued a safety warning about them.  The company has not agreed to a recall.

https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2023/CPSC-Warns-Consumers-to-Stop-Using-Onewheel-Self-Balancing-Electric-Skateboards-Due-to-Ejection-Hazard-At-Least-Four-Deaths-and-Multiple-Injuries-Reported

20 hours ago, Austintatious said:

This may be a hand grenade of a topic, but  it has been bothering me a lot lately.  We are constantly warned that man is increasing Co2 and that we need to stop or face doom... Even on NASAs website they state that in the last 150 years man has increased Co2 levels by 50%....

But the people who say these things seem to be operating under the belief that their audience cannot do basic math....  

Here, let me show you, and please feel free verify all of this on google and with a calculator.

There is 5.5 quadrillion tons of atmosphere on the planet. 

Co2 currently makes up .043 percent (430ppm) of that,   which is 23.65 trillion tons of Co2 in our atmosphere. (23,650,000,000,000)

They say that the global levels for the last several hundred years were around 280ppm or .028 percent.    That would have been about  15.4 Trillion tons 15,000,000,000,000

If we subtract the past levels from the current levels, we can see the increase in tons of Co2.   23,500,000,000,000 - 15,400,000,000,000 = 8.3  Trillion tons.

It is clear and undeniable that a change from 280ppm to 430 ppm has happened and that this means there is about 8.1  trillion tons MORE Co2 in the atmosphere.

 

Now,   Our current co2 emissions are about 55 billion tons of Co2 per year...  We can divide the 82.5 trillion ton increase in Co2 by the 55 billion tons of Co2 we currently produce and see how many years it would take at our CURRENT (record high) rate of production to produce that much Co2 from fossil fuels.  And that math looks like this

8,200,000,000,000  /  55,000,000,000 = 149

That is right.... our current rates of co2 output would have to have gone on for 149 years to account for the additional Co2 we see in the atmosphere.

Now, of course, we have not been producing 55 Billion tons of C02 per year over the last 150 years,  So, where has all of this Co2 come from?  Certainly some of it has come from man, but we simply cannot account but for a part of the total increase.  It appears the last time levels were measured at around the 280ppm mark was about 200 years ago.  This means that the levels must have risen by an AVERAGE of 54 billion tons per year (8.1  Trillion tons / 150 years = 54,000,000,000) for the last 150 years

but we are only currently putting out 55 billion per year with the levels 150 years ago being DRASTICALLY lower.

According to data by the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), humans have pumped more than 650 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since 1751.   Another source said 1.5 trillion tons over the last 150 years.  But remember from above, there is  8.3 trillion tons more Co2 than there was 150 years ago.  Where did it come from?

 

I may be wrong, but this is pretty basic... maybe I have painted myself into a corner with faulty logic.  I am all ears and curious what others think.

 

 

Two points:

1) Atmospheric gas is normally represented in ppmv (parts per million volume) not mass even though they write it as just ppm.  Details here:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/

2) I think your calculation is off by an order of magnitude.  23 trillion is 0.4% of 5.5 quadrillion not 0.04%.

Installation instructions are here: http://sarasotaavionics.com/manuals/appareo/Stratus-Power-Installation.pdf

It specifies a CB but no fuse.  It looks like the power can easily be disconnected from the back and you could use a multimeter to determine if power is getting to the unit.

When it says something like 25-0640 THRU 25-TBA it means that all s/n above 25-0640 are included.  So it looks like VI and VII are both valid for your plane for part #3.