macosxuser

I got one from Alan, so Mooney Man can have Brian’s.

Sweet, done. Paypal or Venmo? Shipping to 93561?

Hi guys, does anyone that’s done an engine monitor upgrade to their C model have their old Manifold Pressure/Fuel Pressure combo gauge for sale? I need one for my 180HP converted Swift.

Mine is similar to yours, I just finished the major installation stuff, doing a couple wiring fixes, and tying everything up. This is a interim panel until I do a full Hendricks with a JPI900 or JPI930. PS8000BT GNS480 KX155/GS KN64 Sandel SN3308 G5 Attitude

Wonder why the E is less than the F? Seems punitive as well.

I know that only half of the users will care, but very quietly (it seems to me anyway) Continental Motors Titan division has been issued a PMA for angle valve cylinders. It took a few minutes of googling to verify, but here is to hoping that the ridiculously high cylinder prices are a thing of the past! http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dxTEDvyVBXQJ:continentalmotors.aero/xPublications/xService%20Bulletins/PDFS/SIL001/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I don't see what the problem would be with 25"/2500RPM. It's an approved power setting for the O-360 Lyc. I run my E at 27"/2550rpm when I'm trying to get somewhere, that puts me in the middle of the yellow at 3000' DA. To gain some speed, overshoot your cruising altitude by 100-200' and then descend back down onto it. Brings the airplane up onto 'step'. In smooth air, can be good for 5-10mph.

I'm working on the drivers side sub panel of my E right now. Quite a few options out there for Mooney's. I like http://www.hendricksmfg.com/panels.html the best for mine so far. Good price too. For now I'm doing my own fab work to save money. I'm going to do the full panel when I get an engine monitor.

I'm keeping quiet for the most part about Mooney "experts" because I know a few guys that work on a bunch of Mooney's that I wouldn't trust to wax mine. I got to say though, no problem with a good honest mechanic if he knows what he is getting into (he knows he will have to learn) and doesn't charge you for his learning curve. There are many times where I bill 1 hour for every 3 I work because I have to educate myself of a specific problem. If I think that the knowledge I gain will pay dividends on future work, I have no problem taking the time hit if the owner is willing to let me do it. That is how experience is gained. Same reason I pay my apprentices $15/hr and charge the customer $75, because I can only bill for one out of every 4 hours they work

Ever look at the D'Shannon baffle kits for Beech? The top cowlings have a fiberglass piece that gets added to the ears of the cowling. These have a lip in them that the baffle seal rests in to create a better seal. Here is a picture, you can see the lip in the top of the picture.

I like having the overhaul done, and I like it being at a shop I trust. I've done 2 in the last 3 years. I am a mechanic, so do the R&R myself. The only other option for me would be an overhauller I trust, or a factory engine.

Two ways. Breaking the rules, or determining through engineering that the limitation is based on something else (stress during retraction) then proving that to the FAA and getting your AFM revised to add an extension and extended speed limitation.

And this is what I'm getting at. From everything I've seen, there is NOTHING different about the E to the J except the actual mechanical actuator itself. The system does not need to be modified, the gear doors do not need to be changed, nothing. I would even venture a guess that the Ovation and up 160mph gear speeds would work in a J if the motor and trans was changed to match, but that is just speculation, as I have never had anything newer than a 80's 252 in for annual. $4k for speed brakes, or a 337 to add VLO (Extension) and VLE speeds to the airplane...? Seems like it might be worth the paperwork exercise.

That 30 hrs may include disassembling the interior, REMOVING and replacing transponder wiring, replacing antennas and antenna wire (Garmin likely specs RG400 or RG142 for the new antenna wire), and reinstalling everything. Yeah, almost anyone can chop wires and pull a tray, but some shops won't leave the old stuff in there to fester. I know I much prefer working on a panel that has only active wires in it over the ones with remnants of 3 avionics installations zip tied all over the place. Just saying. I know I would expect to pay about 3-4k for that install, and would charge that if I was doing it for a customer.

Sounds like a fueling issue to me. I would second the Flow Divider check to start.

My E got the generator cooling from the back of the birdcage, before I converted it to Plane Power.

Ok, trial and error aside. My gear comes UP at 80 or slower, that is not a factor. BUT in level flight, I have to be at <15"mp for 2-3miles to get to 120mph, and it's impossible to get there in 500fpm descent at all even at idle. The gear doors and everything associated with them are good to 140mph as indicated by the later J models. I have no trouble controlling the Johnson bar AT 120mph, is there anything else I'm missing? I AM an A&P, and a CFI, but I'm just trying to figure out why what is OK for a J is not OK for an E. Obviously the Ovation dropping the gear above the rating operating speed is a bad idea. OK, that we understand. The Ovation has three sets of numbers posted though, VLe 164KIAS (Speed where the landing gear may be left extended without damage). VLo Retraction 106KIAS (Landing gear operation speed in retraction cycle). VLo Extention 140KIAS (Landing gear operation speed in extension cycle). These equate to MPH like so: VLe 188 MPH (Above my VNE) VLo (Retraction) 122mph, almost a dead ringer for my E's VLo VLo (Extention) 161mph. Now anyone who has flown an Johnson bar knows you don't let it get fast on retraction. Above 90mph, it's really tough to strong arm it up. I have personally never had trouble keeping it controlled going down though. I guess my question is, has anyone attempted to get a faster EXTENSION speed approved to make the airplane more friendly in IFR operations? This is especially relevant to me in Socal, where almost everything the controllers want you to do is slam-dunk style approaches. A gear EXTENSION speed of 130-140MPH would go a long way into not wanting $4k worth of speedbrakes. I really want to do some basic speed mods to mine, but anything that makes it slicker at this point is a negative to me in the approach phase. Also, shock cooling is not a myth. I'm all about being easy on the equipment, and gear doors are cheaper than major overhauls.

I'm curious, the gear speed on my Johnson Bar '66E is 120mph. Of course, as soon as I'm off the runway, the gear is coming up. The part I don't understand is why the slow speed for extension? How is the later electric J models different to allow the faster extension speed, except for the gearing of the motor? The motor should be irrelevant for the manual gear, but the rest is the same? Doors, weldments, all of it? Basically, why to I have to pull my power darn near to idle for 2-3 miles to get the gear down, and how the hell can I do real instrument work in a busy environment with these restrictions without killing my 25smoh IO-360. Input is appreciated.

Price to benefit ratio seems to lead here: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/el/landinglights_zlamps/whelenplus461l.php

I'd say 75% plus of the business I see at the shop I use is straight overhauls. That these are mostly labor has to help out their bottom line too. My props go in every 7-10 years no matter what.

Hi Jerry, it isn't an AD that says this. Hartzell has amended their overhaul manual to disqualify those hubs from being overhauled. Because props cannot be worked on by and A&P, you have to take them to a repair station. Repair stations have to use current data in their repairs and overhauls, and the current data makes those hubs un-airworthy. This is true for ALL the hubs, not just the B hubs. I called 3 different local prop shops, then Hartzell themselves to confirm this. Obviously with 2 "B" hubs in my possession, it was in my best interest to be able to reuse them. The sticky part, is that if you simply provide a part to a prop shop, with no documented history, it's hard to prove if it has been in a strike or not. Realistically, how many used "B" hubs are going to be available that were NOT in a strike? That may be neither here nor there, because if the part from a salvage yard still passes NDT, and dimension checks, do you really care if it was in a strike or not? I don't know, but if you do, maybe only buy new.

I suspect that for the Top Prop installs, the spinner spec'd for the 201 should work? That was my plan when I order my prop.

For whatever its worth, it's no longer legal to use a Hub that has had a prop strike that renders a blade unusable. This is in Harzell's current guidance to their prop shops. I do believe it's a money making proposition for them, but there it is. I had two of them that were in pretty hard strikes (B hubs) that were otherwise completely fine (the prop shop verified that there was nothing wrong, other than the strike.) I don't think the blade shelf on the B hub is less robust than the straight hub, in fact, if you look at the cutaway of the B hub in the picture above, it's quite robust. The lack of ability to reuse is simply a factor of Harzell's overhaul guidance.

That is good! I don't know exactly what approval basis I would use to relocate the oil cooler though. The SWTA kit would theoretically come with all the baffles and the approval. Maybe we can work with Airforms to make '67 and later C and E baffles PMA'd? That is really my only gripe, I don't want to go through all the work and keep this tired baffle setup and long oil lines running next to my exhaust.

Glad you asked, yes there is. This is like your car tires, the tire manufacturer recommends a maximum normal inflation pressure, then the car manufacturer sets the actual values as installed on your car. I can install the same 6.00x6 6 ply Flight Custom III on a 172 or a 182. Depending on the operating weight of that airplane, the recommended pressure by the airframe manufacturer is different. The idea is, you always want the same amount of tire tread touching the ground, so if the Gross Weight of the aircraft is higher, the PSI in the tire has to be higher so the sidewall is not rubbing. Over a given pressure, you need a thicker sidewall to accommodate the PSI required, hence the step up between the C and F. For reference, some Turbo 210's have a 5.00x5 10ply nosewheel tire running at 90PSI. . . Those are a little alarming to fill the first time.