chrixxer

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    580
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by chrixxer

  1. Just a couple of laps around the pattern to finish troubleshooting the JPI. Went with the 730 to replace the 700 as a slide-in replacement and upgraded to an 830 once I saw SavvyAnalysis reports. $1200, an hour of labor, plus some probes. A -900 would have been several thousand more. Ultimate goal is to go full glass (G3X now), if I don't end up swapping to a FIKI Encore, Bravo, or Ovation... But that's probably a year or so away, and last June, the 730 swap made sense. If I'd known how long I was going to be troubleshooting the install, though... :/ Mechanic is bending to my will and replacing the factory CHT probe... And seems to accept that when I give him a detailed written list of exactly what I want done, it's because I've researched it ... "saving me money" by hammering down the one obvious nail, isn't, when I already know the truss has to be replaced too. Sigh.
  2. Not sure if serious or trolling, but a 1969 Mooney M20F came with an owners manual, not a POH (which started circa 1979 if memory serves). The owner's manual says, for Required Equipment - VFR (p. 5-7): "Cylinder head temperature gage." But I don't know if an STC'd/TSO'd (but not PMA'd) instrument can substitute. Could my A&P (he's also an IA) sign it off on a 337 or similar? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. Okay, none of this in any way addresses what I asked (and my 1969 M20F has neither a POH nor an MEL)... Factory CHT required when a TSO’d EDM-830 (including 4-probe CHT) is installed: yes or no? If yes, based on what?
  4. If you're flying with a FreeFlight 978 ADS-B system (I'm sure there are half-dozens of us; half-dozens!), don't upgrade ForeFlight just yet. 11.2.1 (36515) has an issue where ~99.95% of the time, GPS Altitude is "Unavailable" and ADS-B traffic information isn't properly processed. (An iPhone running 11.1 (34885), connected to the same hardware at the same moment, had no issues.) ForeFlight is looking into it, and confirms at least one other user has reported something similar:
  5. I'm troubleshooting a JPI EDM-830 that goes cray-cray intermittently in flight (multiple reported "bad probe" alerts that usually clear themselves up after a minute or three, including brand new known good probes). We've run a new ground and it's still problematic. JPI's advice was: "Disconnect factory CHT probe and go n a flight. If that probe is bad or not grounded well, will induce voltage into EDM." The factory CHT gauge reads very low (never gets up above ~200°F even when the EDM - when the CHT functionality is working - is reading mid-300s). My A&P checked it out and confirmed the factory CHT probe is "shot." He "disconnected [the] harness and tied it back [and] placarded CHT indicator as inoperative." But I don't think that's enough; the EDM-830 is not a factory gauge replacement. I'm exhausted, battling over this stupid fracking instrument. The shop that did the install didn't do a proper post-install test (and they're in Marana, so it's not going back there to get sorted out). Another A&P installed several sensors during an annual (bringing my -730 to an -830 configuration), but installed the wrong RPM sensor and installed the MAP sensor incorrectly. Another A&P diagnosed several issues while I was in St. Louis but didn't have time to fix everything. The current wrench is local to my field at least, and is supposed to be a great avionics tech, but I've several times given him clear instructions ("remove and replace these known bad probes"), but he'll, e.g., see that one of the identified probes is loose, replace it, do a run-up, and declare it "fixed," only for me to have the exact same failure happen the very next time I fly it ... Urge to go Jeremy-Clarkson-on-a-Prius on this thing, rising... (If only the 35-year-newer SR22 I also fly didn't have many of the same issues; pretty much every flight, at least one, usually two EGT or CHT sensors go out and give us pegged-hot or zero'd readings, etc. :/)
  6. "Whatever." A telling rebuttal. "To put it simply, I don't think 5'9" pilots will fly with the seat anywhere near as far back as 6'2" pilots." You don't think. Without any evidence or running the numbers. And ignoring completely the role that inseam, not height, plays. "It is not anecdotal to say that the average sized male pilot, and an even higher %age of female pilots, can fly a short body and leave enough room for an adult behind their seat." It's also not based on facts or averages. The average sized male pilot will have an inseam of 32" or longer. To reach the pedals comfortably, that dictates a seat position that leaves less than 4" behind the front seat. These are all facts. (And, sad to say, the average female pilot isn't really a consideration; how many folks coming here asking about a short- vs. mid-body Mooney are female pilots? Female pilots represent just 7% of the licensed pilots in the U.S. For the purpose of a general discussion, looking at where the bell curve sits, for the vast majority of average pilots, the short body is not a 4-place airplane.) "Of course w&b is more likely a limiting factor trying to fly 4 above average adults in any Mooney. With 350 pounds of fuel Mooneys, even long bodies, have only 550-750 pounds for passengers and luggage." I have 1045 usable, and fuel at tabs is 300 lbs. That leaves 745 for passengers and luggage. That's four "FAA standard" adult males, or more likely, two guys and two gals, or two parents and two teenagers. Easily.
  7. (1) Your single anecdote doesn't change the realities of nationwide averages. (2) The mean or median height being 5'9" is really irrelevant here, you have to look at the statistically significant grouping (which is a wider range). (3) Height doesn't mean much by itself, inseam is what really matters, as that's what will determine how far back the seat(s) are set, for rudder control (etc). (4) Saying "there's a lot of BS" without doing anything to meaningfully refute the numbers, and other experiences, isn't really a debate technique. I have first hand experience, with a 32" inseam (a very common inseam measurement), flying a B, a C, an E, and multiple Fs and Js. The rear seat is usable behind me and my average inseam legs in the mid-body. It simply is not, by a non-outlier adult with legs and feet, in the short-body planes.
  8. There's a 200 hour inspection that applies to at least some Js (24-0001 THRU 24-0083, 24-0085 THRU 24-0377): https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4147179/technical_documents/service_instructions/sim20-112_Rev_A.pdf
  9. Again, I think it's much lower than that, on average. According to eBay (which moves a lot of clothing), a 32" inseam is normal for men 5 ft. 5 in. to 5 ft. 8 in. With my 32" inseam (I have an awkwardly long torso, so much so that I have to get dress shirts custom made or they won't stay tucked in), there was a 3-4" gap between the front seat back and the front edge of the rear seat. There was no usable space for anyone with feet and legs longer than ~12" or so to sit behind me. Most men in the U.S. are between 5'5" and 6'1". For the vast majority of the Mooney market, the M20/A/B/C/D/E rear seat is unusable for adults. https://www.ebay.com/gds/How-to-Measure-Your-Inseam-/10000000178626635/g.html https://www.themodestman.com/clothing-industry-sizes/
  10. There's the 100 hour greasing (which I don't believe the manual gear has?), and the 200 hour tear-down and inspection of the worm drive. There's also the time spent checking the manual extension mechanism at annual, and servicing that (I've heard of the "string" breaking and needing to be replaced). Flaps, I don't think there's any additional expense; indeed, as you note (and I experienced), there's "no hydraulic lines to replace or bleed; no orings to go bad" on the electric flaps.
  11. I disagree. It seems like not much, but it really does make the difference between it being a 2+2 coupe vs. an actual 4-seat airplane. I'm tallish (6'2") but it's all torso; my inseam is 32 (my jeans are 33/32), which is very very standard for an American male. There was no way you could have fit an adult foot into the space between my front seat and the rear seat of the E. Tyrion Lannister could have ridden back there comfortably, but not many other adults. I've had 3 170-200+ lbs guys in my F and we all fit quite comfortably; the other day I flew in the back seat of a 201 from Van Nuys to Lakeport (LASAR) and it was tight but doable. There's no way it would have been possible with 5" less legroom.
  12. How often do you fly? The 100 and 200 hour ADs on the electric gear start to get old, and expensive, if you're doing more than 100 hours a year (i.e., those things occur outside of annual). I do kinda miss the J-bar gear. Not a lot. But if I'd had the option of two otherwise identical "3RM"s, one with manual gear (but electric flaps) and the push-pull power controls ...
  13. I think you might be forgetting the stock M20D...
  14. Interesting. I've never seen that before. Good to know!
  15. Electric gear was optional starting in 1965. Electric flaps were never (AFAIK) an option; electric gear Mooneys still had hydraulic flaps, until the standard equipment changed. Which was 1969. http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm (and my owner's manual, which doesn't discuss hydraulic flaps at all - cf. the 1966 M20E owner's manual that described both the manual, and optional electric, landing gear).
  16. Data point, my all-stock (windshield, cowling, etc) 1966 M20E with a ~400 hour engine and ~200 hour 2 blade non-scimitar prop was a 152 ktas machine around 9,500'. The Js I've flown / been in have been 157-160 ktas machines at about the same altitude. Modify the E with the 201 cowling, windshield, single-piece belly, etc., and it's conceivable it could be a 160 ktas airplane. I don't know about beating a J "handily," but I suspect there are Es that could edge most stock Js - same basic powerplant (200HP IO-360), lighter and smaller airframe. Bump the E with better breathing, electronic ignition, and maybe a Powerflow (don't know how much of a boost the PF exhaust gives the IO-360 as installed by Mooney, but I've seen some decent gains on O-320s - like, 15% HP bump at 2700 rpm, dyno measured)... But you're pouring a lot of money into a less capable airframe (smaller tanks, non-usable for adult humans back seat, lower usable load) to get roughly comparable speeds. Would be a blast to fly, though!
  17. Mooney discontinued manual flaps after the M20B model (1962). Hydraulic flaps survived until 1968. The 1969 models on are electric. (I have serial number 690039, built in March of 1969, and it's electric.)
  18. Compared to an electric motor, yes, they're more complicated. Any time you're pumping hydraulic fluid around and have o-rings that simply dry out over time, etc., you have a relatively complicated system that can (and in my experience will) fail. Electric flap systems can of course fail, too, but I'd bet dollars to donuts it's less frequent / likely. Consider, Mooney only used the hydraulic flaps on a handful of their earliest models (M20C-M20G), and ditched them entirely in 1969, about 7 years after introducing them. All electric ever since, like most planes (Cirrus, Cessna, Beechcraft...) Also, I'm not dealing with it anymore. My mechanic fixed the system (after the flaps failed - retracting by themselves on short final to a mountaintop runway), and it worked well enough thereafter. But my current Mooney has modern electric flaps, with the higher Vle speed. I helped a friend pick up his '67 M20F from LASAR last weekend, and IIRC LASAR had (during its annual) rebuilt the hydraulic flap system... FWIW.
  19. The F/Js are more flexible, full stop. I have used the back seat of my F for human passengers exactly once, but with the seatbacks pulled out it's a great traveling machine for my two big dogs, for rescue critters in a big collapsible crate I have semi-permanently back there, or for skis / snow boards etc. The 64 gallon fuel capacity is also a godsend, and the F (and some Js) have significantly more usable load. The way I fly the F (11,000'+, often with oxygen), I have 7+ hours of no-reserve range (I've flown LA to Eugene, Oregon against a 45 knot headwind and landed with 13+ gallons; Torrance to St. Louis was a one-stop trip...). The Es are great fun to fly, and I miss that, but the F or especially J is IMHO the better option.
  20. And hydraulic flaps (not manual; manual flaps ended with the M20B). Which I don't like. They're more complicated than they need to be, O-rings are a point of failure, and it's more than a bit anachronistic to be pumping your flaps down IMHO. Also, lower Vfe speed. (On the electric F, Vfe is 125 mph, Vle is 120 mph, and I find I like that arrangement a lot better than 120 Vle / 100 Vfe in the older Fs.) Yokes and instrument panels can be updated relatively easily. Flap system, not so much. To the OP, the Js have a more robust electric landing gear system than the Fs, though many Fs have been converted to the 40:1 ratio system, which helps a lot. (The motor used in the electric gear Fs is on par with the motor Cessnas use for their flaps!) The fuel selector in the J is much more intelligently placed, post I think 1977. The later Fs (1969-end of the model) had the quadrant throttle, which I really don't like. (I flew a '67 M20F the other day and delighted in being able to simply and easily and accurately dial in the prop and mixture settings.) Push-pull for the win (the first year J had the quadrant, also, but then sanity was restored.) Not only is it harder to get the settings just where you want them with the quadrant power controls, they stick out in a pod that, coupled with the unfortunate placement of the fuel selector, makes changing tanks in flight a PITA. I'd have a J if I could have afforded one, TBH. Instead, I got a very nice (fresh P&I, fresh tanks, updated avionics, 1969-standard "T" panel layout, etc) M20F. And now I'm looking at maybe an Encore or an Ovation, with FIKI. But that's a whole 'nother story.
  21. Excellent, thanks, that was the missing piece. "Compliance to this Service Instruction M20-112 revises 200 hour inspection of the gears specified in service Bulletin M20-190B. The inspection interval is now per instructions as outlined in Mooney Service and Maintenance Manual for M20J serial numbers 24-0001 thru 24-0377. (reference MAC M20J service maintenance manual section 5-20-06) actuator gear inspection is now: After 500 hours of operation and then every 200 hours thereafter." Now, when were the gears last inspected... (I'm building a database to track all of this stuff. 500 hours for this, 200 hours for that...)
  22. I'm going by the logbooks and the AD compliance reports (which match)... Thanks! Yeah, "Part II" (which is required every 100 hours) is the greasing of the motor. It's just whether the "Part I" inspection is still required after the change (there's some wear and tear involved in complying with it). Hence, this thread! The last annual wasn't done by a Mooney specialist and while I uploaded PDFs of all the logs and earlier AD compliance reports, I don't know how thorough or experienced he was. ("Any port in a storm," though.) Will probably have LASAR do the next annual. Meanwhile, just doing a sanity check to make sure I haven't missed anything. Only about 170 hours in the last ~11 months (7 of which she was flyable)... But that included a holiday trip to St. Louis (including a dinner run with my mom down to Branson; she's been up with me in rentals, but never in my plane before), a couple of round trips to Tucson I won't be repeating...
  23. Making sure I'm not missing anything... 1969 M20F, electric gear, Lycoming IO-360-A1A, Hartzell HC-C2YR-1BFP/F7497 (AD 2009-22-03 not applicable). I'm at 100 hours since the last annual (July - November last year, smh). I reviewed the AD list maintained by the FAA and the 2015 and 2016 Airworthiness Directive Compliance Reports generated by LASAR and an A&P in Mariposa (respectively). I believe these are the only 100 hour / recurring items due right now: AD 73-21-01 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/AOCADSearch/022EF974FDE32DBA86256A3B006FA1EA?OpenDocument), 100 hour, lubricate all flight control systems and landing gear system rod end bearings with a silicone spray lubricant AD 2015-19-07 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/b39e0b81acb0f30786257ecf005d80c7/$FILE/2015-19-07.pdf), 100 hour re inspection, replacement if necessary, and proper clamping of externally mounted fuel injector fuel lines. AD 75-23-04 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/AOCADSearch/40797B4900228F3786256A3B006FDDCF?OpenDocument), landing gear actuator inspection and service. Part I may have been modified by the 40:1 conversion (not sure if that eliminates the 200 hour inspection, or not: http://donmaxwell.com/dukes-itt-landing-gear-actuator-401-ratio-gears-si-m20-112/ ; Part II (lubrication) still needs to be done every 100 hours. Service Bulletin M20-190 (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qYGZe5DrelwZEdvSuoMkD2dg6J3B6HwC/view?usp=sharing . Top Gun did the conversion, 2/5/2009 at 3491.88 tach: "CW AD 75-23-04 IAW Mooney SI M20-112 by installation of kit SI20-112-001 40:1 gears." (Dukes LG actuator 40-1, P/O: 5886.) Not Yet Due AD 77-17-04 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/AOCADSearch/9D64BD7BF95E495B86256A3B007021F5?OpenDocument), 500 hour control wheel shaft inspection (done 8/21/2015 at tach 3816.85) Does anyone know if the AD 75-23-04 "Part I" gear inspection still needs to be done every 200 hours? I'm still scouring the logbooks and putting everything into a database (times like this, I miss being an active member of a fraternity, with pledges providing slave labor )...
  24. When I calculated my cost-per-hour (at 150 hours/year, including fixed costs and engine reserves, etc), it worked out to about $185/hr, FWIW, 1969 M20F. That includes insurance, database subscription, hangar ($600/month), etc., etc.