Jump to content

mooniac15u

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,829

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mooniac15u

  1. mooniac15u
    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. mooniac15u
    Tell this guy: Do you think he ran off and hired a DER without the FSDO telling him he had to?
  3. mooniac15u
    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.
  4. mooniac15u
    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.
  5. mooniac15u
    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.
  6. mooniac15u
    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.
  7. mooniac15u
    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.
  8. mooniac15u
    So, you will do this as a minor mod for your customers?
  9. mooniac15u
    Every one of those links includes a discussion of the need for a DER and a 337 to complete that mod. Sounds like a major modification to me.
  10. mooniac15u
    IIf you aren't concerned that this might be viewed as a major mod by the FAA then why the reluctance to discuss it publicly? Changing a plane so that it no longer conforms to the TCDS seems like a good time to file a 337.
  11. mooniac15u
    Another carefully worded statement. The photo already reveals a non-standard seat position. Did you file a 337 for the mod?
  12. mooniac15u
    That's a carefully worded statement. Was that hole present when the plane left the factory?
  13. mooniac15u
    I took the Hartzell deal sometime around 2008. I had them do the work at the Hartzell facility in Piqua, Ohio. The hub was half price and the total was about $4500 for the overhaul (including the hub).
  14. mooniac15u
  15. mooniac15u
    Hartzell saw enough cracked hubs to change the design and issue a service bulletin in 1998. The FAA didn't issue the AD until 2006. But sure, it's probably BS. Because internet.
  16. mooniac15u
    I agree. The loss of those sensors makes it look like a grounding issue. The engine ground strap is a likely culprit since it was affecting engine sensors and the alternator.
  17. mooniac15u
    I should probably clarify my earlier post by saying that even at 6'5" I flew my D for over 700 hours. If you're motivated enough you find a way to make it work.
  18. mooniac15u
    I'm 6'5" and in my M20D I didn't have even an inch to spare between my knees and the bottom part of the panel with the seat in the last hole. In my M20J I still fly with the seat in the last hole but I definitely have more clearance around my knees. I can even fly with the seat one notch forward, although it's pretty tight. I've heard people say that the pilot legroom is the same in the short and mid body Mooneys but I can definitely tell a difference. It might just be in how high the bottom of the panel is above the floor but it makes a difference for me.
  19. mooniac15u
    She only sat behind me a couple times in my D. She's only 5'4" so she made that work somehow. She almost always gets the back seat now that the kids want to help with the flying and she seems pretty happy with the space and seat in the back of the J. It's comfortable enough that she usually falls asleep.
  20. mooniac15u
    Interestingly my wife's biggest complaint about the back seat of my M20D wasn't legroom. It was the angle of the seat back. In that plane the seat bottom and seat back formed an acute angle which she found uncomfortable. The J has a more comfortable obtuse seat angle.
  21. mooniac15u
    I assume you are talking about Joe's E. That was an exceptional E and he ran the engine hard. What were the power settings on the J at the time? How was each loaded? Either way, you're a scientist and I know that you know better than to use a sample of 1 to draw conclusions about an entire population. There is a range of performance for the E's and a range for the J's. There's definitely some overlap but in general if you buy an E expecting it to handily outrun most J's you might be disappointed.
  22. mooniac15u
    In the service bulletin I mentioned earlier (SB M20-217) it says all hydraulic flap aircraft and it lists serial numbers. The highest serial numbers appear to be 1968 model year aircraft. I think it's safe to conclude that Mooney didn't think there were any hydraulic flaps after 1968.
  23. mooniac15u
    I don't know all the details but the service bulletin issued in 1979 specifies, "Aircraft equipped with manual or hydraulically actuated flaps with over 500 hours time in service." You can read the whole SB here: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4147179/technical_documents/service_bulletins/sbm20-217.pdf I have not heard of any Mooneys with electric flaps having a similar problem.
  24. mooniac15u
    The bigger problem with the hydraulic flaps seems to be the spar cracking at the attachment point. That repair is somewhat complicated and expensive.
  25. mooniac15u
    I'm not sure where you got the impression that an E with "just a bit of help" will outrun a J "handily." The E that I think you're talking about was an exceptional example and even at that I'm not sure he had an edge over most J's. The data I heard on it was around 160 Kts groundspeed at 7500 ft with a slight tailwind while pushing the engine pretty hard.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.