Prior owner

Thanks. Yes, I sealed them myself. I used the [EDIT] 3M SR sealant removal cutters (carefully), then polygon…lots of it. Then MEK wiping. Polygon liquid was about twice as effective as the gel. I left the lower panels on for the first round, and poured polygon in and brushed it everywhere a million times. Lexan scrapers only… that picture was taken before I was finished cleaning out the corners of the tank. Once polygon had digested all that it could, I would vacuum it out with an old wet/dry vac then re-apply more polygon. It was truly horrible. Won’t do one again!

Additionally, per FlameMaster tech rep, let the cs3204 sealant cure for DAYS prior to applying the cs3600 topcoat.

Yeah, me too… weighing the aircraft will hopefully reveal that mistakes were made in W& B calculations. Someone might have used the firewall or the tip of the spinner as station zero- I’ve seen stranger things!

Is there a legal way to install a removable ballast up front?

Ah, sorry for any confusion. I was merely stating that an aircraft need not be in the CG range when nobody is on board. I once had a student panic when he reviewed the aircraft W&B and discovered that the empty weight CG was outside the envelope. He refused to fly it...until we had a long talk about it

Empty weight CG is irrelevant in a Mooney (and also most small aircraft), unless it’s causing your tail to drop when you step on the wing??? CG is only relevant when a seat is occupied in the aircraft. Many aircraft are out of CG with nobody in a seat…. The aircraft isn’t going to fly without a person onboard, so the CG with the cabin empty doesn’t have any relevance. or am I misunderstanding something?

I always have liked this one, it’s easy and looks very classy.. Oh, and go for the smallest letters you can legally do- the vintage planes are now allowed to have 4 (?) inch high letters?

Mooney sells an “upgraded” switch kit with a doubler that goes behind the Leading edge wing skin. The switch and the doubler will require trimming in order to fit in the location of the old switch. Also, flight testing and adjustment of the switch position with the slotted holes until it activates the horn at the appropriate IAS. A skinny arm will definitely be needed to get it out- it’s a long reach to the leading edge from the inspection hole…

FYI, when I bought my plane, it had bungees from an F model installed. They are a different length, and it greatly affected the position of the elevator in different trim positions. I discovered this when I was unable to rig the elevators per the TCDS. Here are the wrong ones I removed:

When the dump valve is open (carb heat is off), the heated ram airflow being directed against the flapper door is reduced, thereby reducing the pressure on the flapper door, thereby decreasing the likelihood of hot air leaking past the flapper door seal (which isn’t the greatest seal design) into the carburetor throat…??? With this design, the heated ram air in the muffler shroud that feeds both the carb heat and the cabin heat, will always have the cabin heat receiving a roughly equal amount of airflow, whether the carb heat is on or off… Perhaps the valve is there to provide the cabin heat a consistent amount of airflow???

Better spin recovery??

A short body with that much up stabilizer trim should have the elevators much further up….with leading edge of stabilizer 3.5 degrees down, the elevators should be 10 degrees up, per the TCDS….(19 degrees if it is a converted D model) The plane in the photo looks to have the stabilizer at at least 2/3 up trim. His elevators look low to me- a bungee adjustment will fix it. This plane probably will not trim at 75-80 mph hands off with full flaps, as it should.

That is also my recollection from flying the TH-55!

Rather than using a thread locking compound that may end up ruining the yoke when it comes times to remove the set screw for the 500 hr AD inspection, are there enough threads showing in the yoke for you to install a threaded plug on top of the set screw to lock it in place? If not, and you elect to use a thread locking compound, I would find the absolute weakest compound available and use it very, very sparingly.

Is it a flash bulb or a simple reflector bulb….a Grimes type beacon with a motor and gears?

That is absolutely correct. However, the RV guys have discovered that a large indentation in the rear wall behind #3 is not optimal, and creating a much smaller “bump” in the wall is optimal for airflow around that portion of the cylinder head where there are no fins. They have seen fairly significant changes in cooling from varying that gap by the thickness of a nickel, I believe…. See below: RV builder’s posts regarding #3 cylinder and baffle building Also, their lower baffling is curved and hugs the cylinder and head, unlike many of our setups.

This is a great thread….I’m becoming less and less concerned about my CHT’s being above 350 in cruise…I don’t have much time in Pipers, but does the O-350 run hot in them as well?

If you want to understand why #3 runs hotter than #4, look at the back wall of the doghouse behind each cylinder- the wall is flat against the rear cooling fins of #4 cylinder so that the airflow is forced to flow through the cooling fins as it travels from the top to the bottom of the cylinder. Look at the wall behind #3- it is not flat against it- it sits a distance away, and has an indentation in it the width of the cylinder that directs the airflow to the bottom of the cylinder- the airflow is not forced through the cooling fins, and instead may flow around the outside of the fins. Just a hypothesis.

High tension lead testing is next, perhaps? Seems like it’s on the high tension side- maybe the magneto cap is bad?

I’m a bit curious about the rear seat back not being “structural”….. I agree that on the planes with the individual rear seat backs that there is nothing structural happening there, but on my 1964 model, the rear seat back is a full metal frame that bolts to the cabin steel cage at the top and bottom of the seat frame on both sides….it definitely provides more structural integrity to the cabin when it is installed. Does it matter though?

I say love the plane for what it is….if you’re feeling slow, then go race a Piper and feel better about your plane. My D/C is faster than my buddy’s fuel injected Piper Arrow. A C (or a D/C) is a sporty little plane. Save the thousands upon thousands of dollars you will spend going 4-5 knots faster and use it on hotels and avgas for some really cool, long journeys in your Mooney. Or hold the money back for the unexpected engine overhaul….which happens. Or take the path of ob$e$$ion for $peed- either way, it’ll be rewarding. Just a different way of spending your money. Also, a good autopilot will get you there a few minutes faster, just like a speed mod.

I changed my carb recently… rather, I replaced the old 10-4164-1 with an overhauled one. Marvel tech said they set it up to flow 19.0 gph on the bench. I generally see FF above 18.3 on takeoff, and have even seen 18.9 a couple of times, if my FF instrument is to be believed with the boost pump on Thus far, it seems too much fuel for me- the engine surges and runs rough after climbing out from a 2600 MSL airport at summer temps. Leaning it immediately after takeoff to achieve smooth running is a chore and a little worrisome regarding the possibility of leaning it too much and losing some cyl head cooling, as the cyl temps don’t immediately change on the instrument- I’ll know I’m running too lean only after having run lean for about half a minute or so… And If I lean it out for takeoff instead, well, that has been a miserable experience for passengers, airport neighbors, and my nerves….I might be sending it back to have the flow reduced if carb performance doesn’t improve during colder temps. A carb that is too rich has you trying to figure out exactly where the mixture should be set for best power + extra fuel for cooling, but not so much fuel that it reduces take off performance. It’s a bit of a guessing game. I miss my old carb!

Whoops, sorry about that- copied the wrong one….

Wiring schematic you won’t be using the “aux” circuit, so it gets jumpered to another terminal, per the schematic.

If it’s a Plane Power alternator kit, then go to the planepower.aero website and click on support, then troubleshooting, then download the troubleshooting guide for an externally regulated alternator- there is a wiring schematic in the guide that lays out how the whole thing is supposed to be wired….which is, strangely, missing from the STC install instructions.