mooniac15u

3 hours ago, jetdriven said:

I’ve read that they actually don’t weigh every plane.  They weigh every (5th, or 12th etc) and apply that to the ones in between.  This is before equipment is added.  So the original number is an estimate.  

So, at recent production rates Mooney probably hasn't weighed a plane since 2017.

1 hour ago, NJMac said:

I was taught for short hops like most of mine, 45 mins in the air, to lean to 100 ROP. I found peak to be 1515 so I usually lean the hottest cylinder to 1410 or so making fuel flow about 12.5gph.  If #3 was similar temps with the others, I really think 10ish gph would be possible.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

Have you verified that 1515 is still peak for cylinder #3?

On 6/13/2020 at 5:02 PM, NJMac said:

 

I keep seeing high temps on cylinder #3 on my M20E. Had the mechanic clean the fuel injectors last year and nothing improved. Can hardly lean the mixture wanting to stay around 1400-1415 EGT, ROP. It won't run well LOP. Would you accept this as is or do I ask for some specific digging with my annual in a week?

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Are you unable to lean because you are trying to hit an arbitrary EGT number?  Or is it causing some actual problem with the engine when you try to lean?

Maybe @Alan Fox bought it for parts.

18 hours ago, PTK said:

Avblend is mineral oil. The same stuff that’s in engine oil. The CAS (Chemical Abstracts Service) no. is 8042-47-5 which is mineral oil. Difference is it costs about 43$ per quart! That is some expensive mineral oil to put in my engine! It’s more than 8 times what my Aeroshell 15W50 costs! If I wanted a 4% increase by volume in mineral oil in my engine I could drop some more Aeroshell in it! But why?

 

Just a little clarification on CAS numbers. For well-defined chemical substances like acetone the CAS number is unique and specific. For things like hydrocarbon mixtures the CAS numbers are less specific. There are multiple CAS numbers for things that could be described as mineral oils. The descriptions for these usually involve ranges of hydrocarbon lengths and the processes used to create the specific fraction. The mineral oil in Avblend is likely to be a different mix of hydrocarbons than what you would find in your regular Aeroshell. The other issue is that while CAS maintains the list of numbers it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine which number(s) is applicable to their product and they are not always consistent.

I'm not saying there's necessarily anything special about Avblend but based on the CAS number they used it is likely a lighter fraction of hydrocarbons than what you have in your regular oil.

Here's a more detailed write-up on what @M20Doc described.

http://donmaxwell.com/fluctuating-ammeters/

19 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

For compass turns for sure, I’ve taught them.  But for the determination of attitude I’m afraid it’s hopeless. Perhaps a few more seconds than without at best. 
 

-Robert 

Are you kidding?  You asked about one G5 showing a right turn and the other showing a left turn.  It's right here in case you forgot.

8 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Assuming the failure mode is a red X. But if it’s  like the OP shows here and one G5 shoes a turn to the right and the other a turn to the left what do you do??

 

 -Robert 

I suggested using your compass to tell you which way you were turning and give you a clue which G5 was indicating correctly.  Now you're talking about trying to determine attitude?  Nobody said anything about using a compass to determine attitude.

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

Turning from the north the compass will initially Indicate a turn in the opposite direction. It’s really the reason we have gyro dg’s. 
 

-Robert  

Didn't you learn to work with your magnetic compass (including accounting for that) as part of your partial panel training?  There will be a lag and then it will indicate which direction you are turning.  If the point is trying to decide which gyro is providing you the correct information then you will have your answer fairly quickly and you can switch back to using the gyro with the mag compass as confirmation.

You can also get some indication of which way you are turning from any moving map display in the cockpit including on a tablet.  Any of these things should point you towards the gyro with the correct information.

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

Assuming the failure mode is a red X. But if it’s  like the OP shows here and one G5 shoes a turn to the right and the other a turn to the left what do you do??

 

 -Robert 

Look at your magnetic compass?

12 hours ago, EricJ said:

That's a bummer.   I've not tried a similar experiment with the cheapie AHRS in my Stratux, but I may try and do that.   I've always wondered why they need GPS to keep it aligned in the flight instruments, as that's seemed odd to me given it's application.

In the Stratux they use a MEMS gyroscope which is vibrational and tends to drift.  They use the GPS to compensate.  The issue is most significant in prolonged turns where the MEMS gyro loses track of the turn and starts to indicate level flight.  The developers worked on this problem for a long time before settling on using the GPS as a secondary information source.

I was once vectored into a developing thunderstorm cell at night.  While I held it level the VSI shot up to 2000fpm climb and then just as quickly swung all the way to 2000fpm descent. Approach helpfully reminded me to maintain 3000ft. It's the only time I've ever told ATC "unable." Just when I was sure that I was going to die we flew out the other side of the cell. That experience still bothers me a little every time I enter a cloud.

On 2/10/2020 at 10:39 PM, Joe Larussa said:

Do all your fasteners on the top cowl have retainer washers on them? I find it impossible to remove it unless the three in the pic can be removed. Am I doing it wrong? 

Per the parts catalog those 6 fasteners should be AN526 machine screws that screw into a nutplate. They should come all the way out for cowl removal.

19 minutes ago, Ibra said:

Thanks for sharing, 300ft to stop from 50kts is still like taking 5G for 10s, survivable but I don't think you do much flying there, I re-checked C177 POH, if main gears fail to fully extend/retract after pumping by hand, you put Gear UP and hope they swing inside with belly landing 

Yes, landing on remaining wheels may give more stopping distance but could end up really badly if you go off runway to one side or nose ditching in the soft (unless you can maintain yoke/rudder coordination at slow speeds while taking 7G)

I think your math is off.  Decelerating from 50 knots over 300 ft is nowhere close to 5 Gs.

2 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

I wonder what their CHT's were like on that flight.

 

-Robert

It was an M20D so I guess it was meant to be flown with the gear down.

2 hours ago, Ibra said:

Yes, better touch on whatever remaining main wheels you have than nothing preferably on a wide hard tarmac (I don't think raising the remaining one to be a sensible idea? ), unlike other types, not many (alive) Mooney drivers would dare touching on a front wheel first

Yoke, all the way back, maybe no ailerons and full rudder to pick no wheel wing for skilled guys
Flaps, all way down for low energy touch as in a normal landing (or I am missing something here?)
Power, idle on long runway one can argue about using some power to get directional/vertical control but I don't want to play with that under stress on one wheel
 

Raising the remaining two gear and landing on the belly is the safest option.  People land gear-up all the time with no injuries and minimal damage to the aircraft.  Trying to land on one main gear and the nose gear puts you in an unknown situation with unpredictable results.  I used full flaps, shut off the engine, and held it off the runway as long as possible to bleed off speed.  It skidded about 300ft right down the center of the runway.  In the debrief the FAA inspectors agreed that the belly landing on the runway was the right choice.

3 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

To bad his N number is fuzzed out, we could ask him if he applied left brake.

N1086S

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/12/mooney-m20m-bravo-n1086s-incident.html

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I bet with left brake application, you could keep it on the runway. A dragging  wingtip may have less friction than you think. But we will never know.

This guy knows...

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/small-plane-goes-off-runway-during-landing-at-paine-field/

https://myeverettnews.com/2019/12/29/no-injuries-as-small-plane-skids-off-runway-at-everetts-paine-field/

1 hour ago, steingar said:

It's funny.  I always thought the one green light was overkill when I have the giant bar sticking out of my panel.  If the bar is where it's supposed to be and something's wrong, I think I'd rather not know.  My knowledge won't change the outcome, and at least without it  I suffer a little less dread.

The knowledge that my right main gear was retracted came from someone on the ground.  Having that knowledge definitely changed the outcome.  I was able to make a choice to retract the other two and put it down on the belly on the runway.  Not knowing probably would've resulted in departing the runway as the right wingtip started to drag.

3 hours ago, ilikethewoods said:

This is an old thread. This exact problem happened to me on final. M20f fresh out of Pre-buy and we had the "gear down" and the indication on the floor. Landing over 40 times, that 41th, the right hand gear collapsed. Damages: the fixed step (still looking for one of those) and small part of the flap. I removed the belly panels to find a sheared off rod-end from the right hand retract tube, and a bent retract tube. Basically exactly whats in the last photo. The bent tube didn't retract/extend the right hand gear fully down, thus whenever we landed the right hand gear failed. Really bummed. Now, my question is: I need to ferry it home, the gear is down and locked, I have a retract tube but the shop might not be able to install it. Has anyone used something to (gear pin) the gear down? Thanks

AirMods bought my plane from the insurance company and flew it back to NJ without repairing the broken retraction tube.  If the over-center lock is in place then the gear isn't going anywhere.  I think they safety wired it in place.  They could probably give you the details if you contact them.

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Everyone is reluctant because it does not fit the definition of a major alteration (major mod is your term, let’s stick to the FAA’s verbiage). Seat rails are not a structural component of the airframe and that is what is meant by “structural”. By your definition drilling any hole would require a 337 because there is no such thing as a hole that does not affect the structure of the object being drilled. The question revolves around whether the object being drilled is structural to the airframe. The answer in the case of seat rails is no. Your CG argument doesn’t hold water either. Neither the CG range nor the max gross weight of the aircraft is being altered.  Extending the seat’s CG station aft slightly while keeping it within the factory specified CG range does not constitute a major alteration.  It does not affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness.

It appears as though you’re trying to make this into something that it’s not. I would never try and get in between a man and his desire to generate paperwork. Knock yourself out when it comes to your own aircraft.  I am genuinely confused by your determination to inflate such a minor change made on someone else’s airplane into a Major Alteration. I’m not saying you wouldn’t be able to find a FSDO to except it as such, but there are still quite a few commonsense folks at the FAA that would tell you that this does not meet the definition of a Major Alteration. 

Tell this guy:

Do you think he ran off and hired a DER without the FSDO telling him he had to?

3 minutes ago, Yetti said:

What you should be worried about is how the holes were drilled to conform to the drawing.  a 0.250 hole 1.5" away from the other hole.   If the holes are not drilled properly the pins or only one pin would engage.   Realizing that the new rails come undrilled from Mcfarlane.  The rail is slightly convex.  And they should be drilled to the proper depth.   

When it comes to your particular implementation I have no doubt that you did the work properly.  Your attention to detail is well documented here.

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

Finding a whole sheet of paper in the logbook pile is easier than finding a written entry in the Airframe book itself???

My "logbook" is a zippered notebook, overflowing with papers, including a zippered poich with the Engine, Airframe and Propeller logbooks near the front to find quickly. Anything else must be searched for.

If you submit a 337 it becomes a part of the permanent record on file with the FAA.  When purchasing an aircraft you can (and should) get a copy of the all the 337s from the FAA.

9 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Fixed it for ya 

This is a public internet forum and this mod has been mentioned several times in the past.  Topics like this deserve some discussion so that anyone else considering this mod is aware of possible implications.  I have no illusions that anyone who has already made up their mind will consider any new information or viewpoints that might be presented.  This is the internet.

10 hours ago, Hank said:

Because the FAA doesn't list it as a major mod. Because the CG is only effected while slid back, and that can be calculated preflight. Kind of like others here who take off then slide their seats all the way back. The seat rails are already full of holes, thenpiece at the back serves no additional structural function affected by another hole. It's not an "appreciable" change. His IA is fine with it.

Should I keep listing reasons, or can I stop?

Why do some people repeatedly insist that everything is a major mod, when the FAA has kindly defined what they think is a Major Mod? Or is your opinion more worthy than the FAA's either because it's more restrictive or because it's your opinion???

I have never insisted that everything is a minor mod.  That is a strawman that has nothing to do with this particular issue.

With the extra hole any other pilot flying that plane could reasonably make the assumption that they can put the seat in that hole and be within the the CG range described in the POH or the TCDS when calculating the W&B for the plane.  Filing a 337 would at least create a document trail for future owners rather than hoping that they find it buried in a logbook entry.  Realistically I would hope that notations were made in the POH about the change.

Anything that allows a pilot to create a more aft CG without their knowledge is a significant change.  Call it a major mod or call it a minor mod but the impact of this change is potentially greater than most of what the FAA would think of as a minor mod.

1 hour ago, Hank said:

I have no dog in this race, other than general dislike for people who say that everything not cover3d under PMS, STC, etc., is of coirse a major modification requiring DAR / DER input, 337s, etc. But I did a 1-second google search, the first hit was an AOPA article [https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2014/october/22/aircraft-maintenance-major-vs-minor-alterations-part-2] from which I extractex the following:

It is the responsibility of the installer to determine whether an alteration is minor or major based on the federal aviation regulations. This makes choosing a good shop to do the alteration very important. There are a lot of excellent mechanics out there who understand the regulations, can help you navigate the process, and can get your alteration done in a safe and legal manner. Unfortunately, there are also quite a few shops out there who follow the “No STC = No Alteration” philosophy. This approach has no basis in the regulations, so steer clear of anyone not willing to evaluate your proposed alteration on its own merits. 

The primary regulatory guidance for determining a major vs. a minor alteration can be found in 14 CFR 21.93  and 14 CFR Part 1.1.

According to 14 CFR 21.93, “A ‘minor change’ is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. All other changes are ‘major changes’ (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section).”

Definitions provided in 14 CFR Part 1.1 state, “Major alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications—

(1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.”

And “minor alteration means an alteration other than a major alteration

FWIW, I generally agree that there are a lot of unnecessary 337s filed for minor modifications. In this case it impacts the W&B by changing the range of stations for the seat. It also involves drilling holes in seat rails which are structural. I don't understand why everyone is so reluctant to call this a major mod.