wombat

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.

It seems that in M20Ks there are several cowl flap actuation options. Mine is not working well. It won't stay shut, and when it opens it goes overcenter and then I can't close it. There is also so much slop in my system because it's badly worn. Does anyone else have a system similar to this? cowl flaps.PDF cowl flaps0001.PDF cowl flaps0002.PDF

I take my Rocket up to FL210 every now and then. And I've been up to FL230 for one long flight with 73 knot tailwinds. Yes, there are some increased dangers at those altitude. If you are new to it, I recommend you read "An Aviator's Field Guide to Middle-Altitude Flying" By Jason Blair https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/may/21/field-guide-to-middle-altitude-flying I recommend at least one experience with hypoxia either as a non-required crewmember or in an altitude chamber where you can focus on the hypoxia and not on flying. One thing I've noticed repeatedly in aviation is that people tend to upgrade to aircraft with increasing capabilities and safety throughout their flying career. Then after they have upgraded to something more safe, they will decry everything less than their current budget permits as 'too dangerous'. The FAA sets the standard for minimum safety. If you want to be more safe, that's great for you. I quite often want to be more safe myself but I won't argue if others want to do no more than follow the rules.

@William Munney It looks like you've probably got a GTX-345R in your panel which should provide ADS-B in as well. I just link my iPad to the GTX-345-R for ADS-B, FIS-B and TIS-B input to see in ForeFlight. So I'm wondering why you have the Stratus on the dash as well.

If an airport has a landing fee published correctly and I land there, I will pay it. I don't care how they identify me or even if they do. I will call them up to pay if I have to. If an airport has a tie-down fee with appropriate notification, I will pay it. I will figure out how to pay it. If I get a bill that I don't owe, I will not pay it unless forced to do so by the government, but that hasn't happened yet. It sounds like Vector has a lot of false positives which is too bad.

Interesting. No, I don't have more recent documentation, I'd never even heard of this one. I learned something today!

You are wrong. 30" and 2,200 RPM is an approved power setting 26" and 2,200 RPM is an approved power setting Also, 25" and 2,200 RPM is listed as minimum descent power I suggest you reference the documentation

I fly a TSIO-520NB in a Rocket. Take-off: 2,650 RPM @ 38" MP Climb: 2,500 RPM @ 35" MP Cruise: Pick a setting from the chart. Higher headwinds == higher power Higher tailwinds == lower power RPMs are either 2,200, 2,300, or 2,400 MPs are 30, 31, 32, 33, or 40 inches 26" is also an option on the chart, but I never use it..... I didn't buy an airplane to fly slow.