wombat

When I'm filling up, I do main, aux, main, aux, then put the main cap on and switch to the other side. Then with as much time as I feel like putting into it, I'll just go back and forth topping off the aux tanks. I've gone back and forth for about 30 minutes and it still wasn't done. I've gotten 52.5 gallons in that I've measured fairly accurately, but I think I could probably get another 5 gallons in if I gave it enough time.

I thought the flap was added with the long-range fuel STC to reduce the speed of fuel flow into the main tank when the fuel level in the aux (Outer) tank is above the level of the main tank filler neck. Otherwise it'd be really easy to fill the aux tank and then have it just start flowing out of the main's filler onto the ground.

I had mine done last month. 3 altimeters, $550. They also updated the software on all my Garmin stuff for $187.50

The amps on my plane has been quite variable ever since I got it. It never just holds steady unless the engine isn't running. Positive to negative, sometimes up to 25 amps. Here is an example flight and what my ammeter reads during it. It's basically useless in terms of what the draw or charge is because I can't average these somewhat random values in my head at 3X per second. Does anyone else have similar behavior?

I've landed at Copalis dozens of times but never in a Mooney. The sand can be hard as a rock, or it can be soft enough that you'd sink in and rip off at least the nose gear on a Mooney but the soft sand is easy to identify because it's very dry and light colored. If we are willing to ignore the salt sand damage problem, landing a Mooney there would be no problem. I'd get a recent report (like last 30 minutes or less) before landing my Mooney there though. I'll land a 182 there without that. The basic question for the OP here is... How soft is soft in this case? Of the other planes you've landed there, the DA40 probably has similar tire pressures and sizes and aircraft weight... Do you just roll *on* the surface, or does it sink in at all? If the Diamond rolls on top without deforming the sand at all, the Mooney is probably just fine. You could deflate the tires a little to help. But it's probably very condition dependent. I wouldn't bother changing the oil and air filters, but I would really wash thoroughly where the salty sand gets kicked up. Maybe tape some areas off ahead of time.

Sooo.... Got the plane back from the shop. IFR certified up to 28,000'. Yikes! But the interesting part is that the oil is coming from the quick-drain on the sump and from the mess that I made when changing the oil. The quick-drain is apparently supposed to have a cap over it and it didn't have one when I bought the plane, so I never thought to look in the box of spare parts for one. And then when I changed the oil, I accidentally spilled and it ran down the bottom of the oil line to the bottom of the turbo.

It's just showing the relative awesomeness of that section.

Talked to my regular A&P; he said he noticed similar oil during annual and tightened the bolts. No other turbo work has been done since I bought it ~200 hours and 2 years ago. I have a bit of a hard time believing it's the wrong fitting, that seems like something that wouldn't take multiple years to manifest. Maybe? Just seems odd to me that it would take so long. An oil pump or check valve failing seems more likely partway though the life. I'll try to do a runup tonight without the cowl and see if there is any indication of if the oil is showing up during the engine run or after.

I don't know exactly how long this has been going on, but I just noticed it while doing an oil change. I'm at 35 hours since annual. I wasn't there for the annual so I don't know if it was getting wet at all then. Before next flight? Within the next couple of flights? Before next annual? At next annual? I did call a local shop and they have room for me on Monday, so that's nice. Any thoughts on what is likely the problem? Just loose? Crack? Pilot miscontrol? I'm at < 400 hours (tach) since factory re-manufacture and 35 hours since annual.

I replaced mine with this one: https://www.aircraftdoorseals.com/door-seal-entry-door-mooney-m20-series-ads-m1201/ It works SO much better than the one that was on it before. It actually stops almost all of the noise.

@kortopates Thanks for that additional info!!! I'll consider my 26" and 30" manifold pressure to be high MAP / Low RPM combo. I have not been running LOP at all, so that puts me in the danger zone for increased wear. Interesting to note that Continental did say that there were two IO-520's that had this problem as well as the two TIO-520's that I think we can attribute to Cape Air. So while I'm feeling quite a bit more informed about this and more confident that I am unlikely to just fall out of the sky if I cruise at 2,200 RPM, I'll probably avoid it. I'll consider it if I've got amazing tailwinds and a flight I need to scrape all the range out of but I'm not going to use it regularly.

I've found this to be the case with a lot of things. While it's true that A is better than B, (In this case, lower RPM) the improvement margin is not significant and might be outweighed by the benefit of other factors that we hadn't even been considering. Some examples: 2,300 RPM is more efficient, but the plane is 'smoother' at 2,350 RPM. Overall, you'll spend less money at 2,350 because there is less wear. One hike is 'better' than another, but because it's on the list of best hikes, it's less pleasant than a different trail that has lower traffic. A refinance loan might be at a better interest rate, but refinance costs take away the benefit of refinancing.

I'm assuming you are talking about Mike Busch here. And while I tend to give a lot of weight to his opinions, until I feel I have enough information to decide that something doesn't increase my risk more than I'm comfortable with I'll usually go with more conservative options. And I don't have any information on what the actual wear/failure modes were for these four engine stoppages and why Continental issued the SB. Was this a harmonic issue that causes cracks and sudden failure, or was this a wear issue? TCM does say " TCM will continue to evaluate these reported counterweight releases in an attempt to establish a root cause" but that was 15 years ago from the original, and over 10 since the update. I don't think they are actually doing this if they have not done it yet. There are only 4 stoppages noted on this. While they are pretty catastrophic, 4 is not a very large number. But I don't have even an estimate of the fleet size of these engines that run regularly below 2,300 RPM. So I don't have a way to judge the risk increase. I don't have much time on my plane so far, but I have not yet used 2,200 RPM in cruise and as such, the cost to me of continued disuse of this power setting is low enough that when combined with my lack of information about the risk increase, I'll probably continue to not use it. To make life easier on myself I went ahead and made a new in-flight reference sheet that doesn't include them. @kortopates Can you clarify what you mean by 'Cape Air profile', and what you consider 'very high MAP' (does 30" or 26" count? What about 35"?) and assuming that ROP means Rich Of Peak, why that even matters? I want to be clear that I'm not trying to call you out or say your data or opinions are bad or wrong, I'm trying to say I don't understand this situation and I'm looking to you for help understanding it better. https://continental.aero/service-bulletins/CSB09-11A.PDF

I made an updated performance quick reference sheet for my plane removing the 2,200 RPM options for cruise. They are not illegal, but they are recommended against by the engine manufacturer. I've also included the TIT test procedures and eliminated some things I don't use. M20K Rocket 305 Power Settings and Performance - Google Sheets.pdf

I have also just taken pilots up to 17,999' (You can go higher if you want to be IFR) so they can experience it in real life. I'm on O2, but they are not a required flight crewmember, so it's up to them.