mooniac15u

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.

What kind of panel upgrade involves removing right seat brakes?

There was a recent thread on this.

3 hours ago, Boilermonkey said:

On our M20M Bravo we have replaced the seals on the calipers and master cylinder (twice).   The left brake still gets mushy after about three flights and air is in the line.   It is only happening on the left side and we do not use the parking brake.   No signs of fluid anywhere.

Any ideas of where air might be getting in?

Which way did you bleed the brakes?  If you bleed down it is almost impossible to get all the air out of the system.  Pressure bleeding up from the landing gear seems to work better.

16 hours ago, 201er said:

Finally managed to get 201 out of my M20J

Wasn't it 201 mph rather than knots that inspired the name?

Don Maxwell posted on Facebook recently that he had received a shipment.  Maybe @Pmaxwell knows if they still have any.

5 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Mooneys aren't Part 23 airplanes, though, since they were certificated under CAR 3.

Starting with the J they were certificated under a mix of CAR3 and Part 23.  You have to check the type certificate to determine which paragraphs from Part 23 are applicable for each model.  The amount of Part 23 used increases with the more recent models.

7 hours ago, bradp said:

Hi all

I recall Clarence some years back had a few pictures of a rear should harness he had installed in his ? E with some custom brackets. I haven’t seen much more for retrofitting vintage and early J with rear should harnesses. 
 

I’d love to be able to get some shoulder harness for the rear seats as the kiddos are growing and the little one is about to be out of her 5-point booster seat. 
 

Has anyone used the rear bench’s lower  bushing where the lap belts click in with the belt routed behind the seat back, over and back down? Seems like it would be better than nothing and not require modification to the airframe.  I suppose  geometry would be acceptable as long as the kids are short enough to have their shoulders lower than the top of the seat back frame. 

When I had an M20D I asked Mooney about retrofitting rear shoulder belts and they told me the short body Mooneys don’t have the needed tubular structure to attach them.  I assume this is why Clarence had to make a custom bracket.  My M20J has factory rear shoulder belts.  I’ve never really looked at how they’re attached but the M20J has an additional steel tube, not shown in Clarence’s diagram, in the right position and I assume the shoulder belts are attached there.  The extra tube is part 73 in this diagram.  Presumably you can install rear shoulder belts the same way the factory did without too much custom work.

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Making this spring is not rocket science.

What if you install it in a Mooney Rocket?

On 1/29/2023 at 8:55 AM, lamont337 said:

Hybrid or nah? Doesn’t seem to have the inner cylinder like pictured in the SB.

 

Those round areas look like they could be filler and paint over a hybrid weight.

37 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Before tearing into anything, I would get a voltmeter and determine if the electrical bus voltage is varying or just the lights. That will tell you whether it’s the dimmer or something affecting the whole electrical system. 

If it's the master switch or voltage regulator you can usually see rhythmic fluctuations in the ammeter that correspond with the changes in lighting.

I chased a similar problem for a while.  We focused on the master switch based on the many threads here and Don's writeup.  That didn't fix it.  Eventually we replaced the voltage regulator and that finally fixed it.

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

See aircraft are special, to fuel one you have to ground the truck, ground the aircraft and then bond the fuel nozzle to the aircraft or it will explode. Automobiles? Just pull up, ground nothing and fill up. Automobiles aren’t special.

Automobile gas pumps are grounded through the hose.  The metal handle/nozzle makes contact with the car and there's a wire embedded in the hose.

29 minutes ago, rickseeman said:

I don't think my tug has an alternator so I need to either charge after use or use a maintainer. Is it ok to use an automotive maintainer on these lead acid Gills? Thanks

Why are you using an expensive aviation battery instead of a cheaper automotive battery?

26 minutes ago, iamit said:

Yes - the A&P running the annual explained that first the fuel leak is a leak - cleaning the surfaces and letting the plane sit for a day clearly showed multiple areas where fuel was leaking out. Albeit not dripping to the ground - but nevertheless clearly coming out and since it was multiple locations on both sides he deemed it an airworthiness issue.

As far as the cracks - he stated that control surface repairs are not allowed based on the regulations, and Mooney doesn't have any technical guidance that allow for stop drilling or fixes - hence airworthiness issues unless replaced or reskinned.

The maintenance manual shows how to classify intensity of fuel leaks and tells you which do and do not constitute a flight hazard.  Is your A&P referring to the manual when making these decisions?

Does anyone here take their plane to the Mooney factory for service?  What is their procedure for jacking?

2 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

When someone says reasonable distance from St Louis you think the western part of Texas?

 

id never let anyone fly my airplane that far away from me without me having money in hand first. 

Longview is less than 100miles from Arkansas.  Not exactly the western part of Texas.

13 hours ago, M20Doc said:

While the AD may not apply, it doesn’t mean it can’t have issues later.  Nothing is certain in these engines.

You're absolutely right, as always.  I was just commenting on the fact that he hadn't seen any record of AD compliance in his logbook.

2 hours ago, WaynePierce said:

Thank you Clarence, I do indeed have the -D series and looking through the Engine Log books I have at home in a moment... I've checked the Engine Log books 1 and 2, and no mention of this AD. I see AD 2002 26-01 has been inspected along with "All AD's researched and found to be up to date" noted. But nothing on AD 2002-12-07. Now it might be in my ADLOG book that is with the plane at annual, the last entry I have is dated 3/28/08.

Newbie question... How does one look up an AD? I tried Googling it and nothing returned then I looked at the "Dynamic Regulatory System" and still cant find this AD. I'd like to read it.

There's a related Lycoming service bulletin (543A) dated August 30, 2000.  If your engine was assembled/overhauled after that then there shouldn't have been any AD action needed.

The retaining nut on top was only finger tight on mine.  The bracket flexes a little so I was able to remove the nut and bulb without a wrench.