PT20J

Here's a description from McCauley: Static Run-Up - What is Normal? There has been some confusion in the field concerning propeller low blade angle setting, the governor setting and how it relates to static run-up and take-off RPM. As a general rule, engine redline RPM cannot be reached during a full power static run-up. Contrary to popular belief, the governor is not controlling the propeller at this time, the propeller is against its low pitch stop. Attempting to increase propeller static run-up RPM by adjusting the governor high RPM screw will have no effect and will probably result in a propeller overspeed during the take-off roll. On a single engine aircraft several considerations determine both the low and high blade angle settings. Normally 25 to 100 RPM below rated take-off RPM is desirable and acceptable during a static run-up. McCauley's practice is to set the low blade angle so that rated take-off RPM is not reached until the aircraft has reached some significant groundspeed during roll out. At this time, and only this time, the propeller is controlled by the governor. There are two advantages to this practice. First, the maximum static RPM can be used as a check on developed horsepower as with a fixed pitch propeller. Any loss of maximum power over time is readily apparent during a preflight check. Second, if the propeller remains in a flat pitch after take-off due to some malfunction, the higher angle low pitch setting will permit more thrust to be developed to fly the aircraft without overspeeding the engine.

Did you mean 2675 static?

Sorry, I hit Submit too soon. I meant that you might need to call them if you just looked on the website. The factory is shipping parts and perhaps they can order it from the factory. They just got me a couple of placards for the baggage compartment. Skip

LASAR

Here is what has worked well for me: 1. Choose a shop with a good reputation and experience with the work you need done. Write out for them exactly what you want done and get a written estimate. Do not start the work until you and the shop agree in writing to the scope and cost. 2. Do not seek out a shop with a significantly lower price than others. They will cut corners in the installation that will cause problems later. Expect to pay a fair price. 3. Make sure that the shop is a dealer for the avionics you are having installed and buy the avionics from them. This will be beneficial if there are any warranty issues. Also, the markup on avionics is part of their profit and if they don't get that, they have to make it up somewhere else. Edit: A couple of additional ideas: 4. Keep in physical contact with the shop during the work. Most technicians do not want to work with you looking over their shoulder. BUT, I've found that dropping in for a few minutes once a day to see how things are going and to have a friendly chat with the technician can work well. Inevitably, questions arise, and the technician likes getting input (I can do this or I can do that, which would you prefer?). It also gives the technician an opportunity to point out issues he or she may be having (the last shop didn't leave enough extra cable and I had to spend a couple of hours fixing that). At the same time, it gives you an opportunity to make sure everything is going as you expect. Just don't wear out your welcome -- the technician gets paid by the hour! 5. Make sure you get configuration settings and wiring diagrams for any work done. It makes maintenance a lot easier later. Skip

I have messed with my factory-installed Floscan 201B connected to a Shadin Miniflo-L on my '94 J more than makes sense. Here is all I know: 1. The original transducer was intermittent when I purchased the airplane. I tried soaking it in Hoppes No. 9 and this fixed it -- for about a month -- after which I replaced it. 2. The K-factor marked on the original 201B was 29.0. The new one (purchased directly from JPI that now owns Floscan) came with a calibration tag marked 28.989. The Shadin K-factor was set at 33.06. I'm pretty sure this is the way the Mooney factory set it because it was metal stamped on the foil label on the unit. I set it to 28.99 and the fuel flow was way off. I confirmed that the Shadin was good by swapping with a borrowed unit. The results were identical. 3. With the new transducer and the Shadin K-factor set to 33.06, I get fuel burns that vary from correct (compared to the pump meter) to 3.5% low over many tanks of gas. I'm going to adjust the K-factor to center the error, but it's a pain on the Shadin because it cannot be done entirely from the front panel -- it requires removing the unit to set a dip switch. 4. Mooney's installation violates Floscan recommendations: It is mounted upside down and it has an elbow directly attached to the transducer inlet. I corrected both of these issues by making a new mounting bracket in the same location as the original. None of these changes made any difference in the fuel burn variability. So, even though these transducers are specified as being accurate to half a percent on the flow bench at 16.0 gph, I cannot get mine to read accurately at my typical 8.5-9.5 gph unless I adjust the K-factor to be much different than the transducer K-factor and then the variation is within +/- 2% which may be within the measurement error of topping off the tanks. Attached are some Floscan docs of interest. It would appear that a 201A would be a better match for my fuel flow, but I ordered a 201B because that's what Mooney originally used. Skip FloScan Instrument Co. Inc_.pdf Series_200_FlowTransducer_Installation_Comments_201_052_00E.pdf

Is that GAMI tag loose enough to cause vibration damage or slide around on the line? The is an AD on the lines for recurrent inspection.

North American Aviation is long gone. Probably no one at Cal Pacific Airmotive was alive when the last P-51 rolled off the assembly line. Yet Cal Pacific owns the P-51 type certificate and has parts production approval and can pretty much build one from a data plate. I'm pretty sure that the P-51 was about as labor intensive to build as a Mooney. (If you are ever in Salinas, CA, stop by and ask Lori Atkinson to show you around -- it's a fascinating operation).

Don't feel bad. We've been told for years that high CHTs are bad, the red box will destroy your engine, running deeply LOP is better for your engine, and the engine manufacturers don't know how to operate their products. These engines are expensive and we want to do whatever we can to increase their longevity. Not until recently has anyone told us that too much of a good thing is bad. I took the APS course in Ada a few years ago and I don't remember anything about low CHTs causing valve sticking. Since Mike Busch credited Ed Kollin, I looked on Gamguard's website and found this more length dissertation: Camguard-Parts-1-to-3.pdf

It's colloquially called the "rope trick."

The flow divider is pretty simple and it’s hard to see how it would cause a problem with one cylinder. An injector would affect its cylinder only. At idle, the pressure at the injectors is really low - the gas just dribbles out. I’d try cleaning the injectors before spending money on parts and labor. It may not be the problem, but it can’t hurt. 300 hours is pretty low time for a stuck valve unless the clearances were too tight to begin with which seems unlikely for a new cylinder. Mike Busch has an interesting column in the July AOPA Pilot explaining how running CHTs in the low 300s can cause lead deposits that stick valves especially on Lycomings with sodium cooled valves that run cooler by design. Skip

Lee, do you remember the length? I ordered the same part from Sky Geek but sent them back. I seem to recall that they were 6" long and most of the ones on my 94 J are 4". I ended up buying some from LASAR. Skip

Interesting question. My '78 J did not have them. I recall flying IMC through precip one night and putting my fingers up against the windshield and seeing a St. Elmos discharge outside in the vicinity of each finger tip. Eerie. My '94 J has them. The IPC gives no clue as to when Mooney began using them. Skip

According to the IPC, the M20Js starting with S/N 24-0378 had the inside lever mechanism. So, yours is probably original and more likely someone just replaced some parts. I notice that the color of the cover appears different than the color of the door panel. It could be that the cover is a Plane Plastics part which has to be trimmed and drilled. Skip

If you are arriving from the west, MATHW is an IAF and you won’t have to do the course reversal at the IF/IAF. The differences in minimums will be due to obstacles. Wally would have the details. Skip

I answered your question above, but yes, it can be opened from inside when the door is locked. This appears to be a retrofit and there are a couple of installation errors. First, the placard is upside down. It is meant to be right side up when viewed from inside the baggage compartment with the door closed. Also, the cover screw holes should be notched to the edges so that the cover is easily removed by ripping it off without tools in an emergency. Skip

Trade names are Plexiglas, Lucite and, for the Brits, Perspex.

My mechanic takes them off and tapes them to the control surface with masking tape when he’s working on the plane in the hangar. I swear those things jump out and grab you whenever your back is turned.

I’m not sure when Mooney added it, but the internal latch was on my ‘78 J.

After spending some time examining the baggage door mechanism and discussing it with Bob Kromer, here is what I know. 1. The models with the factory-installed internal lever can be opened from the inside when locked. 2. The mechanism operated by either the inside or outside lever has an overcenter spring and will not come unlatched if both levers are properly latched unless the mechanism is defective. 3. The lock only locks the external lever. It is possible to lock the lock with the lever not fully latched (though in this case it will obviously not be flush with the door). 4. Mooney tested the flight characteristics with the door open and found no adverse handling issues. 5. There are at least two cases of the door separating from the aircraft after opening in flight. Skip

They come with split washers. The newest ones have a hex base to allow them to be tightened more easily so the don’t come loose. Check during preflight that the are all tight. LASAR’s website has a parts catalog and you can order online. They ship same day. But it currently shows no stock of the 4” wicks. https://lasar.com/pitot-static-system/static-wickstatic-discharger-10-900-601 I believe Aviall stocks them, so if your FBO or mechanic has an Aviall account you could have them order for you. Skip

I needed some technical info on a part and got a timely response from the factory yesterday.

From the Instrument Flying Handbook glossary: Sensitive altimeter. A form of multipointer pneumatic altimeter with an adjustable barometric scale that allows the reference pressure to be set to any desired level. Cessna used to use sensitive altimeters with 50’ markings. They were certified IFR. When a shop tells you that you have to change a part because it’s not legal, it’s always a good idea to ask them to show you the reg. Sometimes mechanics are wrong. Sometimes pilots are unaware of a rule change. Either way, everyone learns something. Skip

No, the car does not have a propeller.

I’ve never liked that analogy. I think it’s confusing because it isn’t really accurate. Internal combustion engines develop maximum torque and horsepower at fairly high rpm. Automobiles travel at relatively slow speeds. The engine cannot be be matched to the drivetrain without a gearbox and clutch. Airplane engines run (mostly) at constant high rpm. They work perfectly well with a fixed pitch propeller (no “transmission”). The purpose of the constant speed prop is to broaden the range of airspeeds over which the propeller is most efficient. In cruise, lower rpm and higher MAP tends to be more efficient (and quieter) but in a NA engine, you run out of MAP as you climb and have to increase rpm as you climb if you want to maintain power. ”Lugging” is probably the place where the analogy makes the most sense. Skip