mooniac15u

Can you reach the battery through an inspection port to detach it?

I had a gear extension failure once and had to do a belly landing. The airport manager called a towing and recovery service that normally worked with overturned semis. They wanted to wrap some straps around the fuselage and lift it with a crane. I was afraid that would do significant damage so I declined. Instead they were able to put inflatable airbags under the wings and lift the plane enough to get jacks under it. We were then able to get the gear extended with some manual intervention and ultimately towed it back to the hangar.

Is a battery board used for crawling into the tailcone?

In a perfect combustion event the hydrocarbons are converted entirely to carbon dioxide and water. Once that conversion is complete any excess oxygen in the combustion chamber will potentially promote formation of oxides. At high enough temperatures some of the normally relatively inert nitrogen in the air will be oxidized.

The farther you go lean of peak, the less oxygen is used in the combustion process and the more is available to form oxides. I was trying to keep it simple in my first post regarding nitrogen and sulfur oxides. In reality, with sufficient excess oxygen you will also generate some organic alcohols and acids.

Of course the absolute quantity of oxides produced depends on the the conditions. However, regardless of where you are on the LOP side, the oxygen rich environment will promote oxide formation more than ROP operations.

Cleaner from the standpoint of visible residue in the oil. That doesn't mean it's less corrosive. You can't determine acidity by visual inspection.

Combustion in an oxygen rich environment (LOP) will tend to promote the formation of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides. In the presence of the water formed during combustion these can form nitric acid, nitrous acid, and sulfuric acid. I'm not sure it's safe to assume that exhaust gases from LOP operations are less corrosive than those from ROP.

I think you are too early. Mr. Huerta has a year left in his 5-year term.

The change was made with the introduction of the 205 in 1987. At the time they were still making 201s with the thinner tubing. They continued to make both in 1987 and 1988. The GW upgrade was applied to new M20Js starting in 1991 and the retroactive increase was announced in 1992. That seems like a long time to be running a marketing ploy. Maybe it took them that long to get the increase approved

The external connectors that you plug into the power port are typically wired with the positive and the relay power connected together. As a result, once the relay is engaged the airplane battery will continue to power it because electricity can flow back through the relay and through the connector to the relay circuit. The relay will stay powered through the connector even with the charger shut off. You have to physically remove the connector to power down the relay. Once the relay is engaged, the battery charger will just sense the total draw from the battery and the relay and will provide up to that amount of power. If it doesn't have that much capacity I guess you will drain the battery. Even if the charger can provide that much power it isn't a good idea to leave it connected that way for long periods of time because the charger won't sense when the battery is charged and at some point you will probably burn out that relay.

A couple more takeaways from this: 1) It doesn't address the steel tubing issue that Mooney used as a cutoff for their GW increase. There is no reference to a difference for serial numbers below 24-1686. So, it doesn't provide any additional answers to that question. 2) The increase to 3200 lbs is not a straight GW increase across the board. It is an increase in takeoff weight with a lower landing weight. I believe the Mooney increase to 2900 lbs did not have limitations. 3) What is the modification to the "right hand lower tubular fuselage longeron"? It is required through serial number 24-1037. Is there a drawing that shows this change.

Thanks for sharing these. I have to agree with @PTK. In these three pages there is no requirement listed to modify the landing gear on serial numbers 24-0764 and up. Mooney made a change to the gear at 24-0764 per the parts catalog. There is a separate drawing for 24-0001 - 24-0763. You said yours is 14-1302. Was the gear modified on yours?

The nose gear definitely has to carry more weight. How much extra weight does a stock M20K have up front? According to the Rocket Engineering website the Missile conversion adds 250 lbs. Does the M20K have the same nose gear as the M20J?

I suppose that one way to look at it is that because Rocket Engineering got an STC for a 300 lb increase it means that the original thinner tube can handle the weight. The counter to that viewpoint is that the engineers at Mooney appear to have felt that a stronger structure was needed. The former is largely regulatory and the latter is hopefully based on in-depth knowledge of the airframe. Either way I don't think the issue is catastrophic failure from a single flight with an extra 300 lbs. It seems more likely that the concern was the long term stress on that tube. What does that mean in terms of the pre 24-1686 M20Js with the Missile conversion? There probably aren't enough of them to know yet whether the increased load on that tube will lead to failure. Rather than assuming that the Missile STC validates an increased GW in my early M20J I would personally be more concerned about the long term potential for issues with early M20J Missile conversions. If I owned one I would make sure my IA looked carefully at that tube and its associated welds at each annual.

I had a leaking gascolator in my M20J that caused a fuel smell in the cabin.

What's your point? First you ask why the difference, which Mike answered. Then you ask which tube, which I answered. Now you are asking whether it matters?

On the FAA website the Missile conversion STC is dated 1992 and the gross weight increase STC for the conversion is dated 1997. That's well after Mooney increased the certified max gross weight. It seems likely that Rocket Engineering used the current gross weight data at the time when applying for the STC. The earlier J's probably got approved as part of the STC because nobody in the approval chain knew there was a difference.

The tube numbered 26 in the diagram was upgraded starting with s/n 24-1686 which is the effective s/n for the 2900 lb gross weight increase.

How much is your time worth? Once you factor that in you may not be saving as much as you think.

What does it look like with the master switch on but without the alternator running?

LASAR has a very helpful parts department. Parts-Mods@lasar.com (800) 954-5619

So, it is the trim indicator that is getting jammed rather than the trim itself?

Most of the flammability is associated with the solvents. In most cases the once the solvent evaporates the adhesive shouldn't be very flammable.

I'm 6'5" and I have more legroom in my M20J than I had in my M20D (also a short body). In my D with the seat all the way back I didn't have an inch to spare. My knees were just barely clear of the panel. I can fly my J with the seat one notch up from the back.