DXB

Seems like the MSC in question should provide a generous allowance for @M20Doc to remediate this issue and perhaps offer a bit of a labor refund to the OP, along with profuse apology. Assuming they do that with the appropriate attitude, I wouldn't encourage naming the MSC publicly or going to the FAA. Even very good teams f*ck up from time to time - it's how they handle it that matters.

This very recent Mike Busch article sheds further light on the valve failure issue and also calls into question some of my impressions articulated previously in this thread: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/may/pilot/savvy-maintenance-failure-to-rotate It also raises more questions in my mind than it answers... -He seems to think that valve failures are far more likely to originate from subtle defects at the time of manufacture and/or IRAN/overhaul than anything the pilot did. -Another striking point is his belief that a valve with early signs of a hot spot on its face can reasonably be lapped in place and the rotator cap replaced without pulling the cylinder. This impression runs contrary to my assumption that by the time you see asymmetry on a valve face, the guide must already be trashed. Maybe next time I see early signs of a burned valve on borescope I will insist on a formal wobble test before deciding to pull the cylinder. -He does do a nice job highlighting the differences between Lycoming and Continental valve design but leaves me confused regarding their implications. The rotator coils on Continentals seem to fail commonly but the same issue with the Lycoming rotator cap is rare. But in my experience the burnt valve issue in Lycomings is not rare at all. And does it really make sense often to simply lap a Lycoming valve in place and replace the rotator cap given that difference between the two designs?

Interesting. Your configuration is very similar to mine (richer carb, Surefly SIM, Powerflow, LASAR cowl closure). Also you have the same engine monitoring system - BTW I routinely see 18gph on takeoff but not 19 or 20. The only major difference is your adjustable cowl flaps vs. my fixed ones. I also have a Donaldson air filter vs. your Challenger and a different system for dumping waste carb heat air, but I can't see how that would explain anything. The OATs don't seem to be the critical determinant for me - things in climb actually got a bit better for me recently with warmer temps - making me think the extra power with the cold dense air was a major contributor to the high CHT on #4 in climb. I do think there is a basic issue with the design here, with #2 and #4 getting less airflow in cruise - that may be accentuated on my setup vs. yours since your #3 is hotter than your #2 in climb. I wish I could figure out why. Interestingly, since getting the Powerflow I basically haven't been able to use 2500 rpm in cruise at any altitude (unless I want to burn 13gph to keep it cool). But if I do try to use it, I easily see TAS in the mid to high 150s (kts) !! I routinely use 2300-2400 /near WOT at altitudes like yours (8500), ~8-8.5gph, to get the same airspeed you describe, maybe even a bit faster, and still often see CHTs on #2/#4 in the 395-415 range. If I choose to burn 10gph at those MP/rpm settings, my speed is solidly at 150kt and above - I think the variable timing of the Surefly gets some credit for that. For some reason, I think part of the issue may be that my engine making a ridiculous amount of power for an O-360, and its cooling capability wasn't designed for it. We've checked and double checked timing and retarded both sides 1-2 degrees from 25, but I saw minimal improvement

You definitely want the higher flow carb 10-4164-1. There is another version 10-3878M - this is 10-3878 that has been modified to match the flow of 10-4164-1.

Sadly already have the richer carb for the certified engine (there's a leaner carb, the leaner carb modified to match the richer version, and the richer version - the one i have) - can't get more than 18gph on it - the main jet can be reamed larger on the richer version, though not technically legal in the certified world. Sadly already retarded both sides to 23 (also not technically legal for the engine) - no much difference. If I retard it more, there may be a power dropoff... The cowl flap modifications may be in my future - I have the fixed version on the '68 permanently set to 1.1" opening - no heim joints there...

Missed approach, go-around, rejected landing, touch and go...related concepts with perhaps some important differences worth contemplating - suspect these differences and their related procedures are better codified for the guys who fly big jets. For them, the rejected landing may be one that's best left to practice in the big sims? For us, the practice missed approach from 200 AGL with the foggles on is a lot like the go-around from 20 AGL at the threshold, yet the visual cues are quite different. Also for us, practicing a rejected landing melds into the touch-and-go concept quite a bit... but I'm still not expressing opinion here on the appropriateness of touch and goes in a Mooney

I've zero opinion against safety of touch and goes in a Mooney for folks who have gotten practiced and comfortable with it, though I have not. However, I do think most of the go-around training value is offered by a practicing from a low approach rather than after touching down - the latter simulates a very late go around scenario, and the primary training focus should be on using an early go around to avoid that situation (there are of course rare situations where it may be unavoidable). I whole heartedly agree that go around practice is important. One of the things I like about doing an IPC every six months is that it automatically gives me that practice three times as part of flying the missed approach. I'd probably never get around to it otherwise. In real world flying, I've gone around/missed probably only a half a dozen times, and most have been under stressful circumstances, making it easy to forget something. Once I forgot to pull up the gear for several minutes and was puzzled as to why the plane was performing so poorly on the missed approach - the only time I made that mistake, which was clearly stress induced. I was stunned by my lapse.

What a shame - glad pilot survived and appears likely to be ok and no one else hurt. I've flown into 47N many times uneventfully - nice 'lil restaurant next door and cheapest fuel in my area. It's a standard ~3000x50ft rwy without much obstruction at the approach end of 07. There's some stuff at the departure end but not too menacing if I recall. I wonder if there's more to this event than simply being too fast and making a late go around. I also wouldn't consider it beyond my ability to botch it in this scenario with similar consequences.

Sickening. I wonder where and how the navigators find value on the black market. I think having the serial number flagged as stolen with Garmin prevents database updates??|

You are correct - the LASAR oil cooler STC is for Es and Fs with the open baffle, not the C - another reason not to attempt it on mine . I was just considering a "minor mod" to redirect the air out of the back of the oil cooler so it doesn't increase pressure in the bottom cowl. The nonadjustable flap is supposed to be set to 1.1cm max open at the trailing edge (where mine is) vs. 2.0cm full opening minimum for the adjustable ones (see diagram you posted above). I do think the full open 2.0cm does improve cooling - at least folks with adjustable flaps do report full open does make a difference. I don't think removing flap entirely would mimic effects of a wider cowl flap opening - that would create some ram air pressure into the lower cowl based on the angle. On newer planes, the sides of the cowl flap are boxed in (as opposed to the gap present on the sides of ours) to further limit this effect.

Not sure what "pre-detonation" is... just detonation and pre-ignition. #4 is the leanest at some cruise settings, but I don't know at WOT for takeoff because I don't lean then obviously. I don't think it's pre-ignition because that condition should run rough, produce thermal runaway, and have completely trashed my cylinder long ago. I think a "colder" plug means it dissipates heat to the cylinder head more effectively, so a colder plug would raise CHTs I would imagine. "Hotter" plugs are generally recommended for lower HP engines like this one. Regardless, I run Tempest UREM37BY plugs, which are in the middle of the "heat" range for spark plugs that will fit my engine.

That's actually not my plane - just for illustration. My oil cooler doesn't look much better but cools very well - perhaps too well in the winter. I do have significant (but stable) oil consumption and evidence of blow by, but again no oil temp issues at all. And the same problem was there years ago when I had lower oil consumption, and the issue is specific to the left side of the engine, so I gotta think it's predominantly cooling airflow to blame.

That's an interesting point - if flow reverses out of the cooler, there must be quite a lot of pressure in the bottom cowl to exceed pressure in flight on the outside. In principle, the cooler is contributing to the high pressure on one side of the bottom cowl also? Will report back results of taping off part of the cooler on the front for a quick flight... On the C there's no space to move the oil cooler behind #4 without also moving the battery to the tail - a much bigger ordeal.

-It's terrible - though I believe red line on these O-360s is actually 500F? If I'm very attentive to airspeed from the moment I lift off (getting above 120mph as quickly as possible), I can keep #4 in 430s-440s on climb, if not I can see >450. Occasionally I've seen 470+ on #4, leading me to sweat a little and pull back power. #2 usually gets to 430s when #4 really gets out of control, otherwise more like 410. -Yes I got a Powerflow, and everything got worse - i.e. the temps I describe above - no surprise in retrospect. But the overall pattern among the cylinders stayed exactly the same - #4 would just see 440s when things went bad pre Powerflow instead of 470 after the new exhaust. The right side (#1/3) cools well both pre and post Powerflow, so it's not the added power alone that is the issue. - Yup the 4 tie rods underneath and the inter-cylinder baffles are all there. I've heard somewhere that there are optimal measurements regarding their position but never really understood what was adjustable here - the baffles seem form fitted to the cylinder heads. - Yes - it's an important point about the cowl flaps - which are fixed on my '68C. I've seen that diagram before and my measurements do match up. I've considered what it would take to retrofit movable cowl flaps buying the parts off a salvage plane - seems like a big project but it may come to that. Thanks for input

The left side of my engine of my C model (#2/#4) cools poorly (#4 is terrible in climb, #2 is bad in climb, both are comparably marginal in cruise), and the right side (#1/#3) cools great. I've been trying to get this issue sorted for the almost 8 years I've owned the plane!. I can't get my doghouse any tighter. Fuel flow is 18gph WOT at takeoff from sea level. #2 and #4 are leaner I believe but not much I can do about that on my C (I know about the cocked throttle plate and carb heat tricks). No evidence of induction leak. No runaway temps on the ground. My oil temps are fine - sometimes too cool in the winter. In desperation, we've recently pulled timing back to 23 from 25 on both mags with limited benefit. Our hypothesis is that the oil cooler being on the lower left front cowl of the C pressurizes the bottom left cowl and is a major contributor here. Oil cooler relocation on the C would require moving the battery to the tail from current position behind #4 - I am not interested in this option presently. I am going to fly briefly in the next few days with my oil cooler partly taped off to test this hypothesis. Question: Has anyone ever tried ducting the air coming out the back of their oil cooler on a C using a plenum like the one on the backside, plus some scat hose? I'm not sure where to route the hose. I realize the plenum shown is designed to route air to the cooler, but I'm sure it could be put on the backside also...

I just renewed my Foreflight subscription for $250 - a bit painful on top of the ~$700 subscription for my GPS databases. I'm basically paying an AMU annually just for the privilege of navigating IFR. As a Stratus receiver user, I'm intrigued by the Appareo Insight offering: https://stratusinsight.app/ for only $100 annually. It seems to have everything I actually use in Foreflight plus some other interesting features, and I would anticipate the receiver integration is seamless. Anyone have any reviews and/or experience making the switch from Foreflight?

Not sure this is relevant to Mooney safety so I am depositing it in here miscellaneous: https://www.flyingmag.com/one-black-box-recovered-from-eastern-china-accident/?fbclid=IwAR3Lot15iU19Xi3GMKeCUjj9JDU8lNGyahrGsUDVfJ9Zv4iLVDLHTjMKun0 Do any of the seasoned ATPs here, some of whom I know even have 737 experience, have any reaction to this crash? It's a two minute descent from 29,000 ft cruise in good weather into a smoking crater, with maybe a very brief level off and climb occurring around 8000 ft. No distress call. Final pics show a near vertical nose down attitude with parts of the airframe being shed. I imagine pilot training and operations are rather different in China, but they have a good safety record over the past two decades. The only thing this reminds me of are the pilot suicide/mass homicide cases (e.g. Germanwings 9525). To think it was a major mechanical failure on a relatively new and highly ubiquitous airframe is perhaps even more chilling.

This information about glazing seems contrary to any other guidance I've ever read including lycoming's https://www.lycoming.com/content/hard-facts-about-engine-break My understanding was that It's low power operation that fails to seat the rings against the crosshatch on the walls and thus don't wipe oil off the walls. If that goes on too long the oil glazes the wall into a smooth surface, thus preventing break in. High CHTs up to 440 or so are expected and tolerable during the initial break in. Not an expert -please correct me if I misunderstood.

It does not. Cylinders are finicky and fungible assets, albeit not cheap ones. Their demise can come from running them too hot, too rich, too lean at high power settings, very subtle manufacturing defects, or for no discernable reason at all. I suspect the most common absolute indication for cylinder IRAN, overhaul, or replacement is a visibly burnt exhaust valve, which portends an inexorable progression toward catastrophic failure. Massive blow by due to a broken ring would lead to the same. Either could lead to low static compression test results, but not necessarily. Some decisions to change a cylinder are soft calls and must be weighed against the substantial risks of invasive maintenance. Regardless, the decision to change a cylinder does not indicate anything is wrong with the bottom end of the engine, whose condition is the driver of major overhaul.

Ha! Yes I VERY briefly mused about mimicking your C -> big O transition when I saw this come up, but this particular cb's personal tolerance for operating expenses, overhaul costs, time and effort learning and mechanically sorting a new plane, etc. was quickly exceeded in my mind. Plus I have way too much "invested" in my own panel already

Stunning - this should sell fast! Unusual to see someone let a plane like this go right after such a stellar avionics upgrade.

Wonderful step up to the C model! Mine is based at KPNE, and I've gotten deep into the ownership experience over the last 8 years if you ever need anything...

Thought I'd check in. Yep - this is still the saddest non-accident-related thread on this website.

Unsettling times we live in. My C is the only major asset I have other than my '18 Honda Fit that is performing well as an investment at the moment - ironically these two items are the only major assets I own that I do not consider to be investments. And be careful what you call my plane - if there were a large millennial segment of the Mooney community, referring to the C model as "lowly" would have been labeled hate speech, and this thread along with @Mooneymite would have already been cancelled on Mooneyspace .

Agree everything points to this being an ongoing issue. I suspect the dark blue paint was masking the stains previously, and the previously small amount dripping on the ramp asphalt would evaporate too fast for you to see it. The snow on the other hand accentuates it beautifully.