mooniac15u

"Its" is correct for the possessive.

I’m sure you are a fine IA and I have no doubt that you do your due diligence in researching AD compliance. However, that isn’t really what I was talking about. I was addressing your earlier statement: “the only logs required are from the latest annual and any STC and 337's that affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.” Which isn’t entirely accurate with respect to 91.417. The most recent annual entry in a logbook does not, by itself, fully meet the AD documentation requirements of 91.417. As an owner, in order to meet the requirement of retaining documentation of method of compliance of ADs I would need to retain any logs with those entries. If you are involved in an incident/accident related to the failure of a part that had been subject to an AD, the FAA will want to see your log books with full documentation of compliance with that AD. If you can’t produce those logs then you are not in compliance and you risk FAA sanctions. Presenting just the most recent annual inspection entry will not be sufficient.

You might want to reread 91.417. An annual may imply that all ADs have been complied with but the regulations say that you have to retain records of the method of compliance. (a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b ) of this section: (2) (v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. (b ) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed: (2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

You would also need documentation of compliance with any ADs.

There is a 1963 M20D with S/N 1 (N6522U). I'm not sure where that one fits. Maybe the prototype? Otherwise it was 101-200 in 1963. I owned S/N 110 for about 8 years.

The only name that comes to mind for a well-behaved girl in Texas is "Tourist".

Per the maintenance manual on page 1-5: For C,D,E, and F the mains are all 30 psi. For C,D, and E the nose is also 30 psi. For the F the nose is 49 psi.

Based on your use of the word "disastrous" I'm going with a Tecnam P92 with one door missing.

The only good argument I've ever heard against bladders is that they add some extra weight. If useful load is not an issue for your aircraft/mission then that argument is moot. I had bladders in my M20D and never saw a drop of fuel leak out of the tanks, plus I had extra fuel capacity. I have wet tanks in my M20J and they are fine but I know it is only a matter of time...

I think you are probably referring to Midwest Mooney in Flora, IL. The big shop there closed and it is currently being run by one of their former A&P/IA's named Matt. I'm not sure Matt has the resources to do tank resealing anymore but he is still a very knowledgeable Mooney MX.

There's a reason that insurance rates are high for low-time pilots in complex aircraft. The insurance companies know the risk and price accordingly. There are benefits to training in the plane you will eventually fly but there are also risks. Only you can decide for yourself whether the benefits outweigh the risks but I'm glad I had a few hundred hours before I moved up to a Mooney.

It's a completely different kind of salt. Salts that you typically think of are chloride salts such as sodium chloride and potassium chloride. The salts used in the aviation environment are organic salts such as potassium acetate. These do not have the same corrosive properties as the chloride salts.

Most northern airports do not put salt on runways. The only thing I've ever seen used is sand.

A clogged injector nozzle usually results in a higher than normal EGT because the cylinder is running leaner than normal. CHT isn't impacted as much.

I'm curious about your other CHT readings. When your #3 CHT hit 360 deg your other CHTs were around 260 deg? In a J the bottom of the green arc for CHT is 300 deg. What phase of flight were you in when #3 hit 360?

Last I heard this was on hold (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/December/20/FAA-puts-sleep-apnea-policy-on-hold.aspx). Was there a more recent change?

I see two new props sitting on the floor by your plane in that photo you posted on 1/14. I was hoping there was an STC to turn a Mooney into a twin.

I can't wait to see where you attach that second prop. Is there an STC for that?

I owned a D for 8 years (converted). I always called it a D but it was usually a good conversation topic.

It was not converted to a C. It was modified to be a D with retractable gear. An F with a J cowling is still an F.

Fuel caps?

Regardless of whether the center pad touches, more legs equal more wobble. I think you are overestimating the tipover risk of 120 deg spacing vs 90 deg unless you are doing something dangerous that applies significant lateral force while your plane is on jacks. Are you actually leveling the jack or just adjusting the bolts to remove wobble?

With a three-legged design you shouldn't need a leveling system. I believe that's why most are made that way.

It looks like you own an M20C. It's a different SB for C's, D's, and E's. It is M20-139A (http://www.mooney.com/images/pdfs/sb-pdf/sbm20-139a.pdf). You have to change out the bracket on this retrofit also.

They have a bunch of jobs posted on their website (http://www.mooney.com/careers/available-jobs.html). That seems like a good sign.