Prior owner

Welcome aboard Mike. It’s always nice to meet another soul who has experienced some of the “adventures” that a career in aviation will often deliver. You’ll find a lot of info here. I’m fairly new to the board and bought a fixer upper M20D that is almost ready to fly. I’m only 6’0, long legged though...and I cannot believe how much leg room there is in my aircraft (provided you are in a front seat). I’m a newbie here, but some of these guys have been flying Mooneys and contributing since before the internet began.

Not sure if they make one ready to order... I’m wondering why they made a new hole for the new unit though...is this a typical installation?

A nice flush patch...

As far as your historical Record of Compliance with AD’s - was your entire AD compliance history contained in list form for the airframe, engine, prop, accessories? If he had to read through individual logbook entries to total up the AD compliance history, that could take some time $$.

Appendix D to Part 43 (i) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the radio group: (1) Radio and electronic equipment - for improper installation and insecure mounting. (2) Wiring and conduits - for improper routing, insecure mounting, and obvious defects. (3) Bonding and shielding - for improper installation and poor condition. (4) Antenna including trailing antenna - for poor condition, insecure mounting, and improper operation. (j) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) each installed miscellaneous item that is not otherwise covered by this listing for improper installation and improper operation. ——————— Maybe we need to define the term “where applicable” in paragraph (j)......? I think that the question that must be answered with a straight face is: “How do you fully meet the requirement to inspect for “improper installation” and “improper operation”, without referring to the manufacturer’s approved data ?” If you don’t refer to it, then you are just drawing from whatever data you can recall from your own memory and experiences. To rely entirely upon your own memory or the basic list in Appendix D to determine the airworthiness of all components in a modified aircraft, seems unwise. I never said that an IA must use a list from Mooney to conduct an annual inspection- I was simply stating that one cannot use a list from Mooney for 100 hour/annual inspections and hope to cover inspections of equipment installed after the aircraft was certified.

The ICA becomes part of the “inspection list” by virtue of the fact that it was stated in the 337 form filed with the FAA- it is part of the FAA approved Supplemental Type Certificate, which is now part of the airplane. You modified your plane to the extent that it doesn’t technically meet the TCDS anymore- hence the need for an STC. Mooney doesn’t have anything to do with these STC’s, and so has no duty to create a new inspection list, and There are too many STC’s out there for the FAA to create different inspection lists under part 43, so you must follow The manufacture’s FAA approved inspection criteria in the STC in order for the equipment installed under the STC to remain airworthy. An ICA is not the same thing as a service bulletin, which may be disregarded if you are under part 91. The fact that many IA’s don’t bother with ICA’s is no indication as to whether or not ICA compliance is required under part 91.... it is indicative of somethIng else. As stated above by another, ICA’s are usually simple to perform and sometimes very necessary, like testing the backup battery in a G5- a perfect example of an ICA that isn’t on any inspection list, but that will be critical to safety of flight if the aircraft is operated IMC.

Gorgeous work- thanks for posting all the pics.

Here’s a link (below) to a discussion regarding ICA compliance at annual for a part 91 operator. It’s an old thread, but Bob Pasch is correct, I believe. It is my understanding that compliance with all ICA’s is necessary at annual inspection, regardless of which part you operate under. That said, I can think of only one reason why an IA would refer you to an avionics shop- because the ICA requires the use of special equipment to comply with it. Read the ICA in its entirety to determine what equipment you would need. As an example- an IA can perform an annual inspection on an altimeter, even though he is not authorized to open it or perform any maintenance on it- Why could he not perform an annual inspection on avionics (provided he has the equipment necessary to complete the ICA)? He performs annual inspections on old Narco and King NavCom radios all the time...whether he realizes it or not! Compliance with ICA’s

Yeah, I took that statement to be a bit ambiguous, as it could mean that it will advance up to 38 degrees if the base timing is 38 degrees...(although I haven't seen a certified engine that has base timing that high). I'm finding it really hard to believe that the feds signed off on an ignition advance 13 degrees over the engine manufacturer's specification. 13 degrees is significant... But It's still nowhere near what a car will advance to. I would expect greater gains in efficiency than are being claimed during cruise, but perhaps that's as good as it gets with a low compression air cooled engine turning at such a low rpm...? Regardless, when it comes time to change my left mag I might go this route. Not sure. At that price, if it had an integral permanent magnet alternator, I would not hesitate.

I was reading the literature on the Surefly site and the Mooney is listed as a model that is approved for the advanced timing feature. It says that you set the “base timing” from the data plate, but what isn’t very clear is whether the unit advances timing above that value. It clearly does move the timing between TDC and the data plate value. I’m curious about that...

Man, that’s a lot of mods on that plane... very nice

The brown discoloration on mine is just the lubricant that was wiped all over them years ago...I’ll probably just leave it on there, as intended.

Somebody on eBay has about 20 NOS “push to start” Bendix ignition switch repair kits for sale at $30 each. At least they did yesterday.... I just received 2 kits and they appear that be the real deal from Bendix. You get a new base plate and 3 new contacts. Thought this might be helpful to others, as the kits go for just under $200. If you’re interested, search eBay for the kit number 10-357515, which is the correct kit for mine, per the Bendix service bulletin. Sure beats the plate I’ve got in my switch...

For the rest of the folks out there- it's a GE 1813 bulb, and there is an LED replacement for it.

Thank you!

Okay, I’m attacking a host of different things all at once now.. gear bushing change is still in progress. I need some help identifying a bulb! I have this little light under my panel on the pilot side that points to the floor- but there is no bulb in it and so I’m trying to figure out which bulb I need. I stuck a gear warning light in the pic to show the scale- this under panel light is nearly twice the size. any ideas about a bulb? Dave

Was it just takeoff rpm that suffered, or were you not able to attain max rpm in flight?

Not to hijack the thread, but MAN- your yokes look great... who covered the yokes?

Might be time to flush the prop and wipe out the front of the crank- When was the last time your prop was removed? Guessing here, but any engine issues (intermittent or not) should not cause a a sustained rpm loss- the governor would adjust the pitch accordingly and bring the prop speed right back up. What was the MP doing when this happened, and generally how are your MP indications? I'm no authority, just thinking out loud while we wait for the more seasoned guys to chime in... D

I am curious what is being used to lubricate the trim shaft in planes that have the old phenolic bearing blocks... Aeroshell 33?

I just found this older thread on changing out the bushings- nice documentation with videos too....

Working on the main gear this week while I wait for the left tank to cure (access panels are back in and I’ll be painting them on Sunday). I’m going to be installing oversized main gear retract link bushings this weekend, so I just removed the left gear from the wing. Dan at LASAR gave me a tip about a method to remove the retract spring, and it worked (the second time). I picked up a stack of fender washers and with the main gear fully extended, I inserted the washers into the spring coils.. the flower petal arrangement worked best. I then retracted the gear by pushing directly on it , and what do you know- the spring stopped compressing before the gear was fully retracted- I was able to easily remove the bolt holding the spring and then pull the whole gear out. I’ll post pics of the links being reamed and the new bushings going in this weekend.

Yes, I wouldn't expect to get a lot for them, but I would expect to get more than I would for a set that hadn't been overhauled... So he would get something back, as opposed to throwing the overhaul money away. I was confronted with the same choice months ago, but since I already had a couple of EI gauges for fuel flow and temps, upgrading to a full primary gauge replacement system with elec senders didn't really make sense to me. Every owner has a different situation, I think. I'd love to have a new JPI, but it just isn't in the cards right now... I'm too busy fixing $$ the bones in my plane

It would seem that as long as you can confirm that your factory gauges are functioning properly, that overhauling the original senders makes the most sense...until you are ready ($$$$) to upgrade to something like the JPI. Whe the time comes to upgrade, there will no doubt be plenty of people willing to buy your old sending units to help offset the cost f the CIES units. Just my .02

What kills me is that nearly every owner of a plane that has been sitting for years fails to preserve the engine. I know it’s not a magic bullet, but- They’ll pay hangar rent for years to house it, but they won’t spend a couple of hours and a couple hundred bucks to preserve the most valuable component of their asset.- the engine. Years later, potential buyers shy away and the plane’s value invariably suffers and then somebody else has to roll the dice when they buy it. It almost seems passive aggressive... It is neither difficult nor costly to preserve a Lycoming- just do it!