mooniac15u

The insurers have probably seen all the pictures of homemade jacks on this site.

How do the carriers treat hours in different Mooney models when looking at time in type? For example do hours in an M20C count the same as hours in an M20J for insurance in the J?

Air Parts of Lock Haven can repair those Rochester gauges. They quoted me $122 plus parts a couple years ago for an individual gauge http://www.airpartsoflockhaven.com/

Where is your plane currently located?

Your placard doesn't seem to match your tachometer markings.

We've all seen pictures of your panel. You already spent all of your money.

This FAA notice is an update of one initially published in 2000. I've been hearing that he's close to PMA approval for as long as I've been on MooneySpace. I don't know what the issue is but there seems to be a shortage of following through on the door seal claims as well as the PMA claims. Caveat emptor.

Did you resolve your unapproved parts issues with the FAA? https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/programs/sups/upn/media/2017/2017_98_071R.pdf

I hope the next caller isn't named Timmy.

Still listed for sale on Controller: https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/29208509/1969-mooney-m20e-chapparal

When compounds are exposed to a super-heated plasma some of the thermal energy is absorbed by the atoms through the movement of electrons to higher energy orbitals. At that point the atom is in what we call an “excited state.” As the electrons return to their normal energy states the energy is emitted as photons. Since electron orbitals exist at discrete energy levels the resulting photons have energy characteristic of the specific transition. Different elements have different characteristic transitions and associated proton wavelengths. By observing the light (photons) emitted by the sample you can tell which elements are present. Measuring the intensity of the emissions tells you the relative abundance of the different elements. Using this type of analysis allows a good quantitative measure of the elemental composition. Most chemical methods tend to be more qualitative. tl:dr, heat in – light out. Measure the light to see what you have.

Here's some information from Blackstone about the various sources of Silicon in their reports which includes silcone: https://www.blackstone-labs.com/the-silicon-bugaboo/ And here's their write-up on the ICP elemental analysis process that might help you better understand why both silicone and silicon dioxide would show up as Silicon in the analysis report: https://www.blackstone-labs.com/spectrometry-the-marvel-of-the-lab/

Silicone is a generic term for polysiloxanes which absolutely contain Silicon. It is one of the core elements in the polymeric chain: (-O-Si-O-Si-O-Si-O-SI-) The various polysiloxanes have organic substituents attached to the Silicon atoms. Varying the structure of the organic substituents influences the properties of the particular polysiloxane. Neither silicon dioxide nor polysiloxanes contain Silicon in its pure elemental form but both contain a high quantity of Silicon. In an elemental analysis it is not possible to distinguish the source of the Silicon.

The oil analysis provided by labs like Blackstone is primarily elemental analysis. It cannot distinguish between the various possible sources of Silicon. Silicone is a polysiloxane where the other non-hydrogen elements are generally Carbon and Oxygen. Oxygen is not detectable in this kind of analysis and Carbon will be abundant from combustion residues. So, the only thing detectable from a polysiloxane is the Silicon. FWIW, silicone is a generic term describing a whole family of polysiloxanes. Implants have an external shell made of some kind of polysiloxane but the gel inside is mostly silica. Neither of these are likely to be structurally very similar to silicone grease.

FWIW those serial numbers for the J's were designated as 205's. They were only produced in 1987 and 1988 and were limited to those serial numbers. I don't know what was different about 205's.

Can you post that section of your POH? The TCDS says 109 KIAS for all serial numbers of M20K. Airspeed Limits S/N 25-0001 thru -0889 25-1000 and Up Maneuvering 135 m.p.h. (117 kts) IAS 123 KIAS Never exceed 225 m.p.h. (195 kts) IAS 195 KIAS Flaps extended 125 m.p.h. (109 kts) IAS 109 KIAS Landing gear retraction 122 m.p.h. (106 kts) IAS 106 KIAS Landing gear extension 150 m.p.h. (130 kts) IAS 140 KIAS Landing gear extended 150 m.p.h. (130 kts) IAS 165 KIAS Maximum structural cruising 200 m.p.h. (174 kts) IAS 174 KIAS

Can you be a little more specific about the problems you're having? Do you have to push the bar hard into the carpet in order to slide the handle into the up lock? Or, does the handle slide freely into the block and just won't easily latch? The first issue is likely to be an obstruction or bend as suggested by others. The second issue is more likely a worn up lock block. I had the second issue in my old M20D. I found I could rotate the handle a little and get it to latch in. I suspect that it was a wear issue on the handle and/or up lock block. My ownership of that aircraft ended before I had a chance to address the issue.

Trying to extract airspeed limitations from text in the POH is an interesting approach but all of the limitations are described in the TCDS. If it doesn't have a partial flaps limitation in the TCDS then the Vfe applies to any amount of flaps.

I had my ADS-B transponder installed during the previous rebate. After installation I didn't have time to do a validation flight for the rebate before I went on a 3 hour cross country flight. After that flight I submitted the report request and everything came back ok except the "rules airspace" part. I got an email the next day from the FAA saying that it had been manually reviewed and no more validation was needed. I received my rebate a couple weeks later. I guess the moral of the story is it might not be necessary to do some kind of convoluted flight trying to stay inside rules airspace even though that's what they claim you have to do.

I had one that became independent. I was alerted by an alert pilot on the ground. The single light was not much help in identifying this type of failure. The landing would have been... surprising.

@steingar relocated a while back for the same reason. I think he was able to get someone to come onsite to change a tire but it wasn't easy. @Davarron is still based at KTZR. Maybe he can comment on how he manages maintenance.

I just relocated from KTZR to KOSU due to lack of a maintenance shop on the field. Maybe you will be in my old hangar.

The FAA provides pretty specific guidance on what is approved for use on runways and taxiways. It is covered in AC -150/5200-30D (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5200-30D.pdf ). See 4.6 for details. For solid deicers they only allow "airside urea, sodium formate, and sodium acetate." In general it is halide salts that are corrosive so they want you to use organic salts instead.

Lasar

Liquid water and water vapor are in equilibrium, meaning that water is constantly condensing and evaporating. Above the dewpoint the rate of evaporation is higher and below the dewpoint the rate of condensation is higher. At the dewpoint the rates are equal. The dewpoint will be governed by the actual water content in the air. It is the temperature at which the existing water content is 100% RH. The RH dictates the balance of the equilibrium and therefore the amount of available liquid water. So, it is the predominant factor in determining how the water will impact corrosion rates. Of course water itself is not a good conductor so the presence of ions is relevant as well. Chloride ion seems to be the biggest contributor to corrosion.