EricJ

I'm not aware of any Lears that are approved for single pilot. Also, this aircraft was not US-registered, so it may have been operating with different requirements.

+1 that a flush patch should be workable there. Another benefit of owning a Mooney is that the skin around the cabin is not structural, so there is more freedom in repair technique. Since that spot will be seen by anyone getting in/out, and since that area of the skin is all flush riveted, anyway, a flush patch would be a nice way to fix it if practical given the location. I don't think what caused it matters at this point.

Also, Service Bulletins are not required to be followed in the US for Part 91 unless they're part of an Airworthiness Directive.

There are a lot of shops that will service dual mags these days. I keep hearing that Aero Accessories in Van Nuys is good: http://aeroacc-vny.com/ Mine was just service by Air Power Accessories in Camp Verde, AZ: http://www.airpoweraccessories.com/

That totally makes sense. In the mountains or other challenging terrain the risks can go up significantly, so it makes sense to treat those environments differently.

In the US there is generally no difference between the Slick and Bendix or Bendix dual mags for maintenance intervals. Broadly speaking, for Part 91 (our private general aviation use), there are no maintenance intervals other than "on condition". Many/most people observe the 500-hour and overhaul intervals just because they're generally a good idea with magnetos. I don't know of any four-year time interval requirements or even guidance for any magneto.

I just had my dual mag out for 500-hour inspection. Prior to removal I had noticed that I could hear the ignition on my #2 radio when I was monitoring 121.5. After reinstalling the mag after the 500-hour service the ignition noise is gone. I did not replace the condensers (yet, although I ordered two new ones, long story), so it really was just the mag service that cured it. If you get continued problems after getting a fair amount of time on the mag, maybe try a different mag shop. My understanding is that the dual mags are a little tricky to set up compared to individual mags.

BTW, save the cowl seal/gasket (14), as it can be used on the oil cooler between the cooler and the baffle duct. The spacing of the keeper pulls is the same and it will attach to the cooler. On mine the gaskets there were falling apart and I couldn't find a suitable replacement. This works very well.

I seem to recall Blue On Top or somebody similar showing that the legacy flat wingtips were flat because they make less drag that way, which is why Mooney did it that way in the first place. Since speed and fuel efficiency were the main optimizing criteria back then, that made sense to me. The wingtips are hard enough to get around in my hangar as it is, I don't really want the wings longer if there isn't a significant practical benefit to doing so, and looks or control force aren't really an issue for me.

You shouldn't have to disturb anything behind the airbox (1), so items 2, 3, and 4 shouldn't really need to be touched. The delete removes 5, 6, 7, 14 and replaces all of that with the cover plate 5, which is just a piece of aluminum cut and drilled for the rivets. You can use a strap duplicator to drill the holes in the cover plate after cutting it from some sheet aluminum. Beyond that it's just remove the control cable and patch the hole in the cowl. Mooney Service Instruction M20-93 has the instructions to do the delete. The round cover for the hole is pretty easy to fabricate.

I kinda stopped watching his channel when he started the L-39 stuff. He lives at the airpark in Alpine, WY, which I visit occassionally because I know other people who live there, so I get some of the neighbor updates about him that way.

If it was adjusted too coarse it wouldn't make full rpm on takeoff/climbout.

Yes, I probably shouldn't assume people know that airplane.

Look who we parked next to at Sedona yesterday! Didn't see Matt, just his airplane. It was still there when we left mid-afternoon. There was also a very, very nice F-model just across from us.

The prop goes to fine pitch if there is insufficient oil pressure, so it's unlikely to be the prop. If it is at fine pitch on the ground, as evidenced by sufficient rpm at takeoff, then it looks likely that it is going to fine pitch when it is supposed to.

Maybe the line for the parking brake? I'm guessing everything is capped off there? Otherwise you'd have fluid going everywhere and no brakes. The parking brake valves can be problematic and it wouldn't surprise me if somebody capped it off.

We had an additional parallel taxiway added at our airport a couple years ago, and it's taken me a bit to get used to, especially since I usually fly from the other side of the airport. I got put in ATC taxi timeout once (told to hold short of the runway for "wake turbulence" behind a bunch of landing Archers) after I wound up on the wrong taxiway. This is at my home airport. I was describing this during an organizational check ride with a retired pilot who'd spent a lifetime flying the airlines, including more than a decade in 747s flying globally, and how I thought navigating taxiways was the hardest part of flying. He thought so, too, and just said, "Don't worry about it, *everybody* gets lost." It did make me feel better about it. So, yeah, an understandable and relatable mistake, but still a dangerous one. The little ones can get you the worst. This is not a forgiving process, unfortunately.

That was my suspicion, which suggests that the wartime Packard-Merlin engines were making ~1700 hp mostly with intercooling (aftercooling) with 100/130 fuel and ~60" MAP. The air racers run much higher MAP so maybe this was a modification that enabled that.

Interestingly, this showed up on my FB feed the other day. Back when I was looking at how the Germans got the Daimler DB605 to make 1800 hp on high boost and relatively low-octane fuel, it appeared that combinations of methanol injection and aftercooling (intercooling) were frequently cited for being enabling technologies. This graphic suggests that variations of the same were used on the Packard-Merlin in the P-51. The aftercooler around the centrifugal supercharger at the rear of the Merlin is not new to me, but I'd not seen the ADI injection before. I'm wondering if that wasn't a postwar modification for the air racers.

Paintball marking might work, too. An automated paint ball gun would tag the offending aircraft, serving to not only identify the aircraft, but publically shame it for an extended period of time.

There is for people trying to make a legal argument that serves their own purposes. I don't think it goes beyond that. A job description for maintainers of large airplanes (e.g., airliners, transport aircraft) is "tank diver", because repairs are constantly needed and they're all wet wings. There are many, many small companies that make a living as mobile tank repairers servicing all manner and sizes of turbine aircraft, because there is a constant need for repairs to those aircraft. Houston Tank Specialists do a lot of Mooneys, but their website also says they do Pipers and Twin Cessnas. Fuel tank repair is a common enough thing that we had a whole section on it in A&P school. It wasn't a casual mention, we spent some time on it, and Mooneys weren't even remotely mentioned. These guys are local, and iirc I called them once and they mostly do turbines, and because they mostly do turbines they're pretty expensive; https://aircraftfueltankrepairarizona.com/ It seems evident to me that George is singling out Mooneys because the first two publicized tank failures due to G100UL were Mooneys and some folks here held his feet to the fire a bit when he wasn't very forthcoming with answers. His filing says little to nothing about the numerous other failures to date.

Usually what's referenced is that there must be enough oil capacity to run through full fuel tanks at the maximum oil loss rate. The max loss rate for most Lycomings is around 1.5 hours/quart, and with 8 qts that gets you to 12 hours, which is tank duration plus margin on most Mooneys. The minimum for Lycomings is usually just enough that the sump can draw oil and not air, so on some airplanes, like an Arrow II, the "m,inimum safe quantity" is 2 quarts for the IO-360 in that aircraft. Airframe manufacturers can increase those limits, so for many others with similar engines it is higher for whatever reason the manufacturer determined (e.g., margin for uncoordinate flight, etc.). Lycomings will often blow out oil that is above the drain groove in the bottom of the crank case since it is subject to crankshaft windage there. For the IO-360s (and many other Lycomings) that's about the six quart level.

It appears that throwing the Mooney fleet under the bus and ignoring the other aircraft that have been damaged is considered appropriate for some reason. He cites that Cirrus, Continental, and Lycoming have all blessed G100UL, but we know that they have also formally published that G100UL is not approved in their products, and so have Cessna and Beechcraft. He also states that during the approval process for G100UL he acted as their own DER, which may explain not only the apparent lack of sufficient testing but the opacity of the "results". I'm reminded of how Boeing ultimately got into trouble doing their own approvals. It's also becoming more evident why the OEMs keep citing preferring the collaborative standard processes compared to STC approval.

The HSI should be getting heading from the GMU11 magnetometer. There is a calibration process in the installation manual for the G5 to properly align the GMU11, similar to swinging a compass. Track will be determined from GPS data, either a nav unit or the internal GPS in the G5.

I have to disconnect the nose gear doors, anyway, to get to the screws for the panel just behind the nose wheel well, so I just do everything with the doors loose. That's pretty easy to do.