Basic Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

About cctsurf

  • Rank
    Full Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Reg #
  • Model

Recent Profile Visitors

472 profile views
  1. I think there is a way in which you fold a bill so it looks like a swan, I bet a bit of adjustment and it could look like the mooney bird... Best looking mooney bird around ('though I'm still partial to the older one from the early '60's mooneys)
  2. I'd wager less if you get it at Oshkosh...or possibly Sun 'n fun
  3. I'm not talking hangar fairies, I'm talking about how much of our planes came straight off of cars (door handles, alternators, gas tank vent valves--out of a holley carburetor, and those are just a few things I have personally dealt with) or off of the shelf and yet the parts must first be blessed by the oem many of which haven't "manufactured" one (by which I mean, put a sticker on one from an auto parts store) in years. I know that's not true of Brittain, but as geoffb said, They know that the tubing manufactured for windshield wipers is adequate for their system, why have to touch every piece of tubing, charge extra for it, and waste their time?
  4. I love aircraft parts companies that take a real-world attitude toward parts and don't expect you to purchase the same thing from them with a blessing from the pope, the faa and themselves...
  5. Apparently, while this is the old way the POHs and our instructors taught us, it is the hardest way on the engine to run it. It runs the pressures within the cylinders as high as we can possibly make them (as tested on highly instrumented cylinders), shortening cylinder lives. The even older method of leaning is actually better, leaning until roughness and then enrichen just to the point of smooth operation. This method will provide a slightly lean of peak operation on the o-360's and io-360s in these antique Mooneys we fly. The cocked throttle can be helpful for mixture distribution, 'though it is not as necessary on these engines as say the o-470 which has notoriously bad mixture distribution. We must also be careful to avoid seeking after that peak egt as carefully as I often have. Running close to peak egt (as in looking for it) brings with it the almost certainty of detonation above moderate power settings. Detonation destroys engines quickly, as in minutes... Again, all of this is from Mike Busch's webinars, excellent information and confirmation of our attitudes for us CBs:
  6. ALWAYS take off with full rich, you are risking detonation by taking off without full rich mixture unless you are above 3,000 ft density altitude. Lycoming now says to lean to best power mixture for ground operations, including run up. Mike Busch has an excellent webinar on leaning (actually 2, there is an advanced leaning webinar as well).
  7. I was searching for GeeBee baffles online and found this: It's an unapproved parts notification... GeeBee definitely does not have a PMA for producing baffles. As someone mentioned above, you may be able to install them under the owner produced part language, but make certain you and your mechanic know what you are doing about that (Mike Busch has an excellent webinar on the topic
  8. According to Mike Busch, aggressive leaning means to lean according to Lycoming's new guidance on the subject: lean always other than takeoff and early climb or starting the engine. For taxiing or run-up, lean to best power mixture (highest rpm). I tried this for the first time recently and found that it was WAY leaner than I had been "aggressively" leaning to previously. I have been listening to Mike's webinars quite a bit recently, they are excellent! I can't remember which webinar specifically contains this guidance, probably the one on leaning or advanced leaning. Lycoming's Leaning recommendations:
  9. With regard to the Prop AD, depending on how much you fly in a year, you may only have to have it checked at annual (every 100 hours). The work for the AD is quite minimal and the replacement of the hub comparatively expensive. OTOH, you may well want to look for a plane with the upgraded hub and avoid the fun all together. As I have read Mooneyspace, unless you are an a&p (or have one who will work with you), you usually are money ahead looking for a plane with the upgrades you are interested in rather than expecting to save money and do those upgrades yourself. Some of us like the lower gear speeds on the pre-J models because they force you to make that a high priority in approaching the pattern, lowering the probability of a gear-up landing... I don't have statistics to support that assertion, but that's how I feel.
  10. Just a thought, if you're looking at that breakdown of flight time 90% single, 5% with a passenger and an additional 5% with more than just one passenger, you might look at a C or an E model, you can probably get one with a really nice panel for far less than an F or especially a J model. The best upgrade an F has over a J model is the Johnson Bar. I can think of at least one Mooneyspace member who has upgraded his F model to J specs, but retains that Johnson bar. As to corrosion issues, make certain that it is clean pre-buy and then hangar or make certain it doesn't get wet. Where is the plane you are considering from? If it was near an ocean, it needs specific examination. If it has been consistently hangared, it is much safer, 'though that is not always a silver bullet.
  11. I was doing 200 mph a couple of years ago in a Piper Cherokee (before I had my mooney)... I was at 12,500 heading to a thanksgiving celebration... funny part was the wind was the opposite direction of the trip on the ground... descended kinda early forgetting about that and spent almost as much time on the last 40 miles as the rest of the trip.
  12. I switch regularly between flying my M20C with push-pull controls and a Cherokee with a quadrant. I like them both and for different reasons. I have many more hours with the quadrant and it took some time for me to get used to the push-pull controls, but I feel very comfortable with both now. I'm afraid that this whole thread is pretty much a religious crusade over personal preferences. The fact that the mooney quadrant precludes the possibility of having manual gear makes it a non-starter for me. I love me my manual gear... I have seriously considered redesigning the homebuilt I am building to use Al's retraction mechanism. So simple, yet so effective. I have mentioned elsewhere that I am hoping to change the mixture cable on my 'C, I want to move to a vernier control for the mixture. The current control is newer, but I have yet to do what I consider a good job leaning it. I look forward to much more granular control.
  13. "the reduced back pressure should reduce CHT", the more even flow across the engine should even temperatures. If you're looking at a significant difference across your cylinders, you should also check your baffling... I say this as one who already has the PFE (apparently not PFM, wanted one of those, though too...), but has not yet had the additional AMUs to purchase an engine analyzer.
  14. In the article mentioned above (, the author mentioned "Tom Rouch's" article about moving an airplane after gear up without adding more damage. Does anyone know where I can get my hands on this article? I have no desire to land gear-up, but I would like to read it.
  15. Yeah, but I figured that was just for the experimental market, I figured Mooney could have figured that out years ago...Oh wait, they pushed him out of the company.