DXB

I you need new shafts and yokes.Mooney used to sell an upgrade kit. The info is around here somewhere...

I hereby crown you the Nigerian Prince of Mooneyspace

Had no trouble pulling up on my iPad....scary

Based on the posted monitor data, this pre-ignition event leading to runaway CHT is horrifyingly real. Good for you for spotting it quickly and saving yourself! Please dump that jug in the trash now and put on a new one!!

I would think that an F model would be negligably different from a G in terms of glide performance.

sorry sold

Obvious added risk comes with landing off field in an engine out (hard to mitigate that one). There is some increased risk VFR into IMC if clouds are around, and some extra terrain risk. To mitigate, switching on the IFR skills mentally really helps if instrument rated. I tend to avoid small nontowered strips at night, or if I must use one, I load up and follow an instrument approach to the runway even if VFR. Use published departure procedures in the dark even if VFR. Or simply just file IFR. Use modern cockpit tools to avoid terrain, including the ipad (e.g. hazard advisor on Foreflight).

Congrats on the IR!! You got yours with roughly the same #hrs I had when I finished mine 1.5 years ago. Use it as much as possible. I found the post-rating learning curve almost as steep as in the training , and there are inevitably a few slightly scary lessons that must be learned from attentive practice. However, I find the ocean far more terrifying, and I so would suggest giving up SCUBA all together so you can stay alive and focused on your flying.

Yeah I remember Scott's lousy communication style plus the early experiences with the install did not inspire confidence, and so I'm glad I delayed. I did finally buy some senders from Oshkosh this year and will have the same guy who installed yours (I'm guessing) put mine in this January to make sure I benefit from the tough learning curve with yours. It's a little annoying that the JPI900 has to go back to JPI for the firmware upgrade, but I think they dropped the price from 300 to 100 recently to do so.

To me being a CB carries a positive connotation and means two things: 1. Being committed to resisting the vast sums spent in aviation to buy maintenance-induced failure risk in excess of safety dividend. This philosophy is captured in Mike Busch's book "Manifesto." Being a good CB involves taking the time to understand each maintenance issue thoroughly and the risks and benefits of addressing that issue in a particular way. It means never blindly following the guidance of an A&P, a manufacturer TBO, or your hangar buddy but rather taking the time to evaluate risks and benefits of each maintenance issue carefully. My impression is there are many owners who throw money at their planes with the delusion that it is contributing to safety, and then there are the ones who "get it." The latter are the CBs. Being a good CB is the very opposite of negligence. 2. Having contempt for aspects of both the regulatory bureaucracy and the litigious culture that drive up costs while failing to add safety and making a mockery of justice. There is not much that a typical CB like me can do about these problems, except maybe learning when to use a hangar elf occasionally (and when not to).

I love my Aspen PFD, and this is very disappointing to hear. I'm glad that I went with the intro upgrade price for the single screen of $3000, but now jacking it up to $7000 sounds a little nutty. I agree that the recently STC'd Dynon and Garmin offerings will make it very hard for them to compete in the market going forward for new installs as well.

That sounds laughably unreasonable to me. Four years ago I was charged $6000 as the installed price for one. It was part of a complete panel redo, so some increased labor to do in isolation is reasonable. Factor in inflation and the huge amount of business clogging avionics shops presently and maybe 10,000 might be reasonable on the very high end? The quote you got merely indicates they have more profitable jobs to be doing and don't want your business.

What tool do people use to set torque accurately on the screws? Not that I would ever do this myself

Folks remember this trial? It appears to have produced a jury verdict for the plaintiff in Philadelphia City Court...trying to figure out the amount. The most plaintiff-friendly place in the nation. Addendum: 6.3 million. Think about that next time you pay an obscene price for parts and/or labor. It would be nice to see cases like this get more granular coverage in the aviation world.

Good point. Another ambiguity in the company language - trying to cover their butt I imagine without a cogent approach!

Enough suspense. Take my money now please

The official company verbiage from their website (below) shifts the entire onus to the installer to determine whether it is a minor alteration warranting a 337 filing. Installing one is probably no big deal for the pre-'69 short rudder Bs/Cs/Ds/Es. But for the rest, I don't see how any installer could simply assume it does not affect flutter margin, even if the rudder is rebalanced. That is ultimately an empirical assessment for a given airframe, which I imagine the company had to do for the 172, an essential airframe for the STC from a business perspective. I suspect they recognized barriers to a blanket STC for 600-something aircraft like their wing tip version got precisely because of planes like Mooneys with rudder-mounted tail lights. Rather than excluding such planes explicitly from the STC, they hoped to sell some for these planes too by putting installers in an uncomfortable spot. It seems reasonable for both installers and owners of non-172 aircraft with rudder-mounted tail lights to be wary. I don’t have a Cessna 172. How do I install tailBeacon? The tailBeacon installation is considered a minor alteration and can be approved by the installer for most aircraft. At this time a form 337 should be completed and submitted along with the proper logbook entries. Please note, the installer must determine if the conditions are appropriate for installation on a specific aircraft. Additional guidance for ADS-B installation, performance verification, logbook entries and 337 instructions have been provided in the FAA policy memo titled “Installation Approval for ADS-B OUT Systems”

Like the OP, I did oil analysis religiously when I first got my plane and struggled with the innate ambiguities and resultant anxieties of interpreting it. I later solved this issue by pledging never to do oil analysis again. I think engine monitoring, routine borescoping, watching oil consumption, inspecting/ maintaining my plugs, cutting my filter, and the standard checks at annual give me all the data points I need to make good engine decisions in a timely manner. The cost of 5-6 oil analyses will pay for a pretty nice borescope

I am dying to stay at this hotel - supposedly the roof bar is one of the premier plane watching spots in the country. I will book a night there if I ever need to go through JFK.

I really like the towel bar NAV antenna conversion. Was that hard to do?

Yeah this seems like a good option for the '68 and earlier short bodies only, before the full length rudder was used on all the models.

I think it was @cliffy who provided a lucid discussion here a while back on why the enrichment circuit that gives extra fuel at takeoff makes essentially no contribution when WOT at altitude, but I have forgotten the details. I have tried the tricks of cocking the throttle plate slightly and / or adding a little carb heat in order to get a better mixture distribution and lean a little more (a true CB at heart). But I sadly haven't seen any benefit in my hands. Mine consistently starts running rough at between 10-20 degrees lean of peak on the leanest cylinder. It sounds like others have better luck. But when @Hank talks about running his Lycoming O-360 at -25 lean of peak, I'd be willing to wager he is just talking about LOP on the single cylinder he is monitoring, and the rest remain at peak or ROP. In aggregate, this is still a ROP situation, which I think is an insurmountable limitation of the O-360. I would add that, unlike the lean find feature on my EDM900, the fuel flow is an incredibly useful tool. The fuel flow at which I gets roughness when leaning seems quite consistent at a given power setting, so I rarely bother to pull it back to roughness anymore. I just set the fuel flow I want with the mixture knob and go. Doing so may reduce the hassle factor some for @bluehighwayflyer

Congrats!! And long live the J bar Mooneys. As you are aware, they still inspire passion 51 years after the last one was made.

The OP describes using 2400-2500rpm and 22mp. It's hard to predict where the individual cylinders each fall relative to peak EGT if you lean to roughness and enrich slightly until smooth again, but they will all be different. For me, one is 10 LOP and the other are various degrees ROP. 2400 and 22mp does adhere to the MAPA "magic number" of 46, and I doubt he is really ever leaning above 75% power against the POH and lycoming guidelines. I am utterly incredulous that all of his cylinders simultaneously developed exhaust leaks and resulting compressions in the 50s because of operating the way he describes.

Frankly the carb'd birds are so imprecise in leaning that there's not that much to say here. Even talking about "ROP" and "LOP" as general statements about the overall combustion state of an O-360 makes little sense to me - each cylinder is doing something different. I also see no reason to consistently cruise at 60 ROP on your leanest cylinder - waste of fuel for little added benefit, though probably nothing really wrong with doing it. If you're going for best power, it's hard to predict exactly where you will get it based on that one cylinder anyway but it will be somewhere with the majority of cylinders ROP. Don't lean at all above 75% power. I start leaning gently in the climb as tolerated by CHTs once at 75% based on MP at WOT - just to get a little more power for climb and cut fuel flow slightly. At or below 65% power, you really can do no wrong- might as well take the maximal fuel savings possible by leaning to roughness and then enriching slightly (assuming CHTs stay under 400). Trying for best power is guesswork since the cylinders are all different. It also won't be much faster but may cost a couple more gph. There is some concern with stressing your cylinders by leaning aggressively between 65% and 75% power based on the "red box/red fin" charts, but I have stopped worrying about this so much. I simply let my CHTs tell me how far I can go under those power settings as well and try not to cruise at settings above 65% all the time. Inevitably some cylinders will be stressed more than others under these conditions, but the "bulletproof" O-360 is not going to make you fall out of the sky because of this.