bfreelove

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/jackhack_11-18305.php?clickkey=3013599

Hi Don. As far as I am aware the center attach point is a one off for the M20L (Porsche Mooney). -Ben

So these are Rosen RMY-300 sun visors. It looks like the arm was shortened to adapt to the M20L attach point.

Here are the Rosen visors in my M20L. Stand by for the part number......

That is the original attachment for the sun visors in the M20L, just one of the PFM oddities. As I mentioned above I do have Rosen visors that fit that attach point in my M20L and can get the part number for you in a few days.

I have Rosen visors in my M20L. They do use the original attach point in the middle of the each half of the upper windshield tubing. I'm traveling currently but can look up which Rosen part number they are when I get home next week. I have all the documentation on them from the original owner. -Ben

I would check the shape of your baffles and seals. Any leakage increases the pressure in the lower plenum and the oil cooler is much more sensitive to this than the cylinders. Ben

I have the Hartzell PM2407 starter installed in my M20L with an IO-550N. It's not cheap but cranks harder than any other starter for the 550. It splits the difference in weight between the Energizer starter and the Sky-Tec. I only have about 100 hours on mine so no info on how long it will last, but it looks very well built.

It just has the stock TCM injectors but the spread is only .2 gallons per hour so it runs LOP really nice.

I've done some clean up and mods on mine (multiple antenna removals, step removal, weight reduction, added tail ballast, polished paint etc.), but it's a little faster than the Ovation book speeds. I plan for 180 knots true LOP, fuel flow is anywhere from 12.5 - 10.5 gals an hour depending on altitude (10k - 16k). ROP it's even faster but I always fly LOP so don't have a good sense for those numbers off hand. Flat out and leaned for peak power at sea level it does 197 kts.

Brian knows my airplane well for sure! He did the conversion at Mod Works and all the maintenance for the previous owner. He was super helpful when I bought it and answered a lot of questions I had.

I own N136MP and it's definitely not available... hahaha. I haven't seen another M20L with the Mod Works conversion for sale in awhile. I think there are only 6 that where converted that are still flying. I've taken a lot of weight out of mine so I have 700 lbs useful load. Not great but works for me. It has Monroy tanks so plenty of fuel, and electric speed brakes. Makes a great long range single seater, or medium range two seater. I have the back seats removed, they weigh 33 lbs so not much gained. It also had the single level power removed and standard engine controls installed by the previous owner. I've been looking into the possibility of getting the gross weight increased through a couple different ways. Not a huge priority for me though as I don't really need it. Feel free to PM if you have any other questions about the L as I did a bunch of research before I bought mine. -Ben

N4312R! I easily have over 1,000 hrs in that airplane from my CFI days at the Alameda Aero Club at KOAK. Welcome Troy, and definitely get a Mooney!

From TCM CSB668 "The edges of the ignition harness attachment plate are not required to mount tight (flush with) to the magneto distributor housing: Tests of sample conforming parts show complete ball-cone seat contact made at 12 in-lbs. Additional torque application did not improve contact on any of the brands tested." http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/csb668.pdf

I would recommend the Hartzell Engine Tech PM2407. It’s almost 4 lbs lighter than the Energizer so in between that and the Sky Tec. It’s a permanent magnet design and cranks faster than the other two. At $1150 it’s a bit spendy, but for me it was worth it for the better cranking and piece of mind in regards to the starter adapter and less worry about kick backs.

In my M20L (long body) wiring schematics that part is listed as the 800288-510 Ground Box Assembly. Looks like it's mostly for the panel dimmer. There also a reference to this as the Ground/Dimmer box --L-PB191A. I was troubleshooting this recently in chasing down a problem with my panel lighting.

Contrary to common belief, a conventional tailed aircraft can be stable in pitch with either an upload or a download on the tail. To find out you must calculate all the pitching moments on the aircraft for a given condition. Aerobatic airplanes with symmetrical airfoils would almost always require a lifting force on the tail (I've done a stability analysis on most of the current unlimited level monoplanes, and some aerobatic biplanes). I don't know about the Stearman specifically, but it could require a lifting force on the tail due to low wing loading and long fuselage (fuselage is destabilizing in pitch) depending on how much pitching moment the airfoil has.

I was always curious about that as well.... The long bodies with the 3368 lb. max gross weight are still restricted to a 3200 lb. landing weight due to the gear limitation. Certification allows an increase takeoff weight (assuming non performance limited) with landing weight of 95% of the takeoff weight. 3200/.95 = 3368.

Send me a pm and I can email you a copy. Ben

That's awesome! I'm assuming you flew with Ralph in the S-2B (N50AL) out of Salinas, as that was the original setup. A lot of history there, I was lucky to be there for more than ten years, definitely miss it. Ben

https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/ellsworth-adhesives/7%20CMPD%20150G%20TUBE/11495013?utm_adgroup=Coating%2C Grease%2C Repair&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping_Product_Prototyping%2C Fabrication Products_NEW&utm_term=&utm_content=Coating%2C Grease%2C Repair&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIg9CxqPGA7wIVAR6tBh3sdwOzEAQYAiABEgJTzPD_BwE

I wouldn't worry about it costing any performance. In fact the exposed cowling on top of the spinner may even help performance a tiny bit. Some engineers will oversize the spinner "afterbody" section of the cowling. This is sometimes called a "boundary layer compressor". Basically the boundary layer at the aft portion of the spinner is pretty beat up from the combination of the spinner rotation, and the shank section of the propellor. Having an abrupt change in the cross section at the cowling interface, forces the boundary layer to speed upto make it over the bump (it gives it some gradient to move towards) and can help it attach to the cowling a lot better. There is of course a specified height and radius for this so chances are what you have wouldn't be perfect, but the effect would be hard to measure either way. The Ovation spinners are fairly small and the shank portion of the propeller is mostly exposed. This is the reason the cooling air inlets are moved outward from the base of the propeller. My M20L with the IO-550 conversion has the Ovation cowl and the same alignment issue. At some point it would be interesting to see if the engine alignment matches the factory spec, but my suspition is that the cowling was aligned more with the fuselage than the engine, and the design doesn't fully take into account the down angle on the engine mount. The down angle on the engine will reduce the pitch up with addition of power, which is already a bit of a hand full on the long bodies during a go around. I'd rather have the engine at the correctly designed angle than the worry about the cowling lining up, but it's probably not much difference either way. Ben

Thanks for posting these pictures! Some great history there. You are right that is definitely a 201 and 231. I had assumed they were both 231s, but having one of each makes more sense from a marketing perspective.

Small world! Tell him I said hello. I've always wanted a Mooney and was able to get one a few years ago (finally got my A&P so owning certified was a bit more doable).

Gene said they really enjoyed flying the airplanes, and it was pretty descent for formation work. I'm not sure how many shows they did, may have even just been Oshkosh that year. I'd love to see the video if it exists! It sounded like the factory wanted to show how strong the airplane was. Charlie liked the airplane so much he bought it. I'm sure they put them into experimental exhibition category for the demo and had a good look over before re-certifying. We did something similar with the Columbia 400 in 2006, 2007, had to keep a log with all the G loads and show that it was never flown outside the utility category limits before the certification was restored.