MikeOH

I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and did NOT stay in a Holiday Inn Express (ever!). So, with that disclaimer, my understanding is that, yes, OPP is allowed even if PMA parts are available. Thus, usurious pricing is a perfectly fine reason to go to OPP. I think there are four criteria to be legal: Properly designed (e.g. may have to use a DER), proof of conformity to that design, adequate documentation, and QA (ongoing, in some cases). Here is the cite: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/january/09/aircraft-maintenance-owner-produced-parts

Thanks for that tip. I'll keep it in mind but, so far, I've not had that issue (thankfully!). My usual stunt is impatience and I advance the mixture too rapidly and get too much fuel.

WOW! And I thought I was the cynic! There are plenty of alternatives, they are just ones that have not previously made economic sense when Mooney was an actual factory and going business concern. Now that it is not, and the fleet is shrinking to a volume level that will no longer support factory parts without actual aircraft production those alternatives will become more common. Namely, salvage and OPP. Some simpler parts may see PMA, but only those with low engineering and production cost. I predict that the Mooney owner market will bifurcate into those with enough money to 'pay the piper' (LASAR) and those who will shift to salvage/OPP. Some will, as you allude, just sell and move to another better supported aircraft. This is not an unprecedented progression in the life of any product; especially one that has been around for over six decades! Eventually, like other now 'rare' makes, there will remain only a few airworthy 'museum pieces'. How many Beech Staggerwings remain? Yet, those that do still manage to 'find' parts, one way or another.

This is why you need to crank for a bit BEFORE you advance the mixture AT ALL! That is the 'clue' to if there is fuel/vapor remaining. If there is still fuel/vapor from the last shutdown the engine will fire. If it does NOT, then SLOWLY move the mixture and introduce fuel; it will fire when you get to the proper fuel/air ratio. The ONLY reason to run the boost pump/prime is if the engine is stone cold and you need to get fuel in there. Otherwise, you're going to flood it. This advice is for fuel injected Lycoming IO-360s ONLY! I have no experience with carbs or Continentals

Well, I don't know about better, but there are nearly twice as many Bonanzas as M20s...I would think that fact alone helps with the economics of part production!

QED

Nothing wrong with that. My comment was towards those that are somehow "impressed"; i.e. 'skill'

Me, too! The ‘trick’ where it differs a little from Maxwell’s technique is cranking a few second BEFORE moving the mixture from ICO. This ensures the mixture is lean, first!

Yeah, that method is why I just can't get to enthusiastic about these 'sky images'. Sorry to be the 'wet blanket' but I just don't see how there is much skill involved; hell, just let the AP fly it if you go to the work to load the waypoints into your panel GPS.

For anything but a cold stat my technique is to leave the throttle where it was at shutdown (1100 rpm), NO boost pump, mixture ICO, start cranking and WAIT 2 to 3 seconds to see if it lights off...if not, then I SLOWLY start advancing mixture until it starts. This works for me for anything from a few minutes to a couple of hours after shutdown.

@blaine beaven 54 ppm CO seems a bit high for an in flight number. Have you looked into that?

That was exactly my point: get to TO config. Personally, I prefer going to TO flaps, then gear up (assuming positive rate), then bleed off the rest of the flaps. As you say, some POHs, including some Mooneys, are written that way.

Sure, all GAs are NOT the same. But, worst case, you MAY need to apply full power. Of course, how to remove the flaps is different on different planes. My F is like yours, just a momentary contact switch; I haven't found it difficult to reach it blindly, start the retraction, and glance at the indicator. It's pretty clear from examples that even various POHs go both ways on this. That's why I capitalized OPINIONS...and why I stayed out of this, because I just knew someone would ARGUE...hence the 7 frickin' pages! This really isn't a RIGHT or WRONG situation, it's technique.

WOW! I never imagined this thread would hit 7 pages! It's as bad as an ROP/LOP 'discussion'! So, here are my OPINIONS on this: A go-around is NOT the same as a take-off (DUH!) On a take-off you are already climbing and accelerating with full power and take-off flaps, not to mention being properly trimmed. So, to just a priori say you should treat the GA the same way, gear then flaps, seems poor justification. Prior to a GA you are descending, at low power, with full flaps, and NOT trimmed for the GA. Something unexpected happens necessitating the GA. FULL POWER!! Then push to keep the nose down and get the plane accelerating and CLIMBING! Until it's CLIMBING I am NOT raising the gear! Meanwhile, I would like to get rid of drag. Thus, getting rid of full flaps, i.e. going to TO flaps, seems logical. If, I do continue to sink, either because of weight/DA issues, or the slight loss of lift from going from full to TO flaps, the wheels are still down and I will NOT have a gear-up situation! I also now have time to trim. Once I am climbing, and accelerating, with TO flaps set, I am only THEN in a TO configuration...THEN the gear is raised and the TO flaps removed as I further accelerate and trim appropriately.

I suspect we are in violent agreement here, but I still fail to see why compass errors would not affect the NTPS technique, as well; you have to input the headings flown, so a compass error would still affect the calculation. Frankly, there is no need to use the compass with either technique. I've just picked a heading, say north, held the heading on my HI until GS is stable (no need to worry about track), turned 90 degrees using HI, stable GS, turned another 90, stable GS. DONE. Seems the NTPS technique just allows you to pick arbitrary headings, and add an extra leg to improve accuracy, as you mentioned.

While I’d agree it is more general in the sense you don’t have to fly headings 90degrees apart, I don’t see how it eliminates either compass errors or reduces the accuracy to which headings need to be held. After all, if the headings didn’t matter what would be the point!

My first question would be how many Mooneys has this particular A&P worked on? The eddy current hub inspection, to my knowledge, is only on the Hartzell 2 blade props. Maybe there is something else for 3 blade? I agree, reviewing the logs should be first. Added thought, there is some amount of interior disassembly required to access the rear spar and the tube frame (SB-208), make certain the A&P is signed up for this. It wouldn't be a bad idea to be there to see for yourself. IOW, if this is a 'fixed price' pre-buy make sure this inspection is actually included in the price!

@PT20J This looks to be, fundamentally, the same as Prof. Rogers "Horseshoe Heading" technique: horseshoehead_screen.pdf

Passenger sub-limits, even $200K, are why I do NOT fly with any non-family passengers except a CFI. (I'm okay with family suing me since they're in the will anyway) That measly $100K or $200K limit is going to be reached pretty easily in all but an injury free accident. THEN the plaintiff is coming after MY assets! And, while I have a decent umbrella policy, it specifically EXCLUDES GA flying! I have NOT been able to find an umbrella policy that will cover private flying.

On my F Vfe is higher than Vle, so it's first notch of flaps, then gear, then full flaps on final.

My numbers were BTU/pound for both dry ice and water ice. Dry ice is denser than water (at least it's always sunk when I've dropped in water for Halloween 'effects')

YUUP! That's why I don't think this idea is worth pursuing. The venting needs to be 100% effective and 100% reliable. Not realistic. I've considered a CO2 monitor, but when it goes off just what are you going to do? Crawl in the back seat and start throwing the dry ice out the storm window??? (Better have gloves on)

Maybe I'm wrong, but my research shows the latent heat of vaporization for water ice is 144 btu/pound, but COOLING the ice below 32 F only gets you 0.5 btu/F. Most ice is purchased is around 20 F to 25 F, so only another 6 btu/pound, so around 150 btu/pound is the best you're going to do. Dry ice's latent heat of sublimation is nearly 250 btu/pound. Dry ice is at about -110 F, so you could pick up another 80 btu if you used the dry ice to cool the water ice as you suggested; that would get you around 225 btu/pound. But, that seem quite the hassle as you still need to get rid of the water! Again, this is just 'back of envelope' spit-balling, so my numbers may be way off

I've toyed with the idea of using dry ice, rather than water ice, to build an "Arctic Cool" type of system. Dry ice at minus whatever it is, has almost twice the heat capacity of water ice and it doesn't leave behind all that water to get rid of! Dry ice sublimes at less than 0.5 lb/hour. At the higher heat capacity you'd only need about half as many pounds of dry ice and very likely to last 6 hours, or more! Thing is, it is IMPERATIVE to have a fool-proof system to vent the sublimated CO2 gas overboard; 1 pound of dry ice generates about 8.5 cubic feet of CO2! Mooney cabin is around 75 cubic feet, so directly adding over 4 cubic feet per hour of CO2 to the cabin would be seriously bad!

How much does all that weigh? Check your 'buffer' battery capability/capacity carefully because, on the ground when you really need the AC, the engine is NOT going to be running at a high enough rpm for the alternator to help much. I.e. most of that 60 Amps is going to have to come from the battery for as long as you need to startup, taxi, run-up, and wait for release. Also, I'd be very careful with tying in a non-aviation electrical item into the aircraft's electrical system (alternator and ship's battery).