PT20J

Hat rack: cover, cowl plugs, pitot cover, small kneepad (for sumping tanks - saves pants knees). Main: survival gear (I fly over a lot of inhospitable terrain), tie down kit, plastic box containing GATS jar, travel chocks, 2 qts oil, air pressure gauge, tube of waterless hand soap, rags, plastic polish and microfiber cloths, screw driver with interchangeable bits, crescent wrench.

That’s what I would expect. Each one that fails puts Increased load on the rest and the next weakest fails and on it goes. Since the cylinder was still attached it’s hard to see how the failed studs could affect EGT. I’m not saying the two aren’t related, but it’s hard to see how.

Anything that relieves the preload on the studs can cause this. What’s more interesting is how this is related to the EGT drop. Or, perhaps, the two events have unrelated causes. It would be valuable to learn the details.

Good points, and I don’t disagree. Still it defies logic that you can run continuously at max power and get the same life as 65%. Higher speed, temps and pressures.

Reducing rpm to 2600 on a 200 hp IO-360 costs 8 hp according to the Lycoming power charts. 8 hp = 4400 ft-lb/sec = 264,000 ft-lb/min So, if your plane weighed 2640 lbs, the rate of climb would be reduced by 100 fpm.

If it were true that power had no effect on engine life then why would Robinson derate engines in its helicopters and why would Lycoming and all the airframe manufacturers recommend cruising at 75% or lower power? And why would Mike Busch cruise at 65% or below. For a while John Deakin was experimenting with running his turbonormalized Bonanza LOP at 80%+ but I understand that he decided it wasn’t such a good idea. The fact that something isn’t prohibited does not mean it’s a good idea.

That’s actually a good question. If the engine has no time limit on operating at maximum continuous power, it won’t cause any immediate damage. However, engine life is a function of power and the best way to get past TBO is to run at lower cruise powers. So, does using higher climb power in a normally aspirated engine shorten its life? Probably not. The available WOT manifold pressure (and thus power) drops about an inch every thousand feet as you climb anyway. So, you really aren’t running at high power for a significant portion of the engine’s life. But, if you do reduce climb power, reduce it all the way back to about 75%. Fuel systems are usually set up to provide an overly rich mixture at high power settings for cooling and increased detonation margin. The mixture enrichment system is mechanically linked to the throttle and only works at WOT or nearly so. So if you pull the manifold pressure back just a little, you may defeat the enrichment feature.

I’d try contacting Mooney support.

I would just search for thin stainless flat washers and see if you can find one with the proper dimensions.

I seriously doubt that Mike ever intended to have his prepurchase clients access data from his other clients (free or paid) without permission. Apparently there are holes in the firewall between services. Paul @kortopates has been made aware of it and I trust it will get resolved.

A lot of light single engine airplane flight manuals call for climb at approximately 75% power. There may a reason for it (cooling, noise, ??) or it may be a carryover from higher powered engines that had time limits for takeoff power (common with radials). If it’s not listed as a limitation, you don’t have to observe it. If a CFI insists, I’d do it his/her way and discuss it on the ground. Learning works both ways. Students have taught me lots of useful things.

Remember that any MSC can order parts from Mooney, but they all set their own markups. LASAR seems to have raised its prices lately and doesn’t stock nearly as much as it used to, so it may not always be the best choice.

@Gee Bee Aeroproducts Guy makes silicone gaskets with a reinforcing layer sandwiched in between that stabilizes the silicone so that it doesn’t squish around so much when tightened. They have worked great on my IO-360.

@kortopates can you delete all your data and if so is it really gone from the database (or at least deidentified)?

Another thing to note when doing the capacity test is that the time remaining is highly sensitive to the backlight setting. So, if you want to compare readings from one test to another be sure to use the same backlight setting.

Interestingly, mine is now back to showing 95% and I didn’t change anything. I have SW v8.20.

LASAR doesn’t have any. If you click Add to Cart it shows out of stock.

I did the same with mine when I replaced the engine. I don’t think they seal perfectly - mine didn’t — and mine idles fine. I’d cap the sniffle drain tube and see if that makes a difference. If not, the leak is elsewhere. You could pressurize the intake system with a clean shop vac and spray soapy water around all the joints and look for bubbles.

Are the 40:1 gears a Dukes part or something Mooney designed and manufactured for retrofit.

I had an Aspen and liked it, but I would not buy one now. I'm not sure of Aspen's staying power in the market, especially since they haven't introduced anything new for a long time except for the Max Evolution refresh which I believe has had some issues. A pair of GI 275 is interesting because that works with the existing autopilot and still gives you a path to go with a GFC 500 in the future if needed or desired. Still, a big screen PFD with integrated map and engine instruments is nice... As far as the IFD compatibility, don't look to Garmin. Garmin won't include it in its STCs because they would have to bear the expense of testing every new version of Avidyne software for continued compatibility, and really, why would they want to since Avidyne is a competitor. I'd look at what Avidyne says it will work with and talk to shops with experience combining Garmin and Avidyne boxes. It's often compelling to think of doing the upgrades incrementally over time. But, a large part of the cost (somewhere between a third and half) is the labor and the cumulative labor costs are higher doing it incrementally. Also, the wiring tends to get messier with each successive dive behind the panel. It's better to bite the bullet, figure out what you want and tear the whole panel apart once and be done.

The LASAR one is the Mooney part number and it is out of stock. Are you sure it is source of the leak? You can check by plugging the hose temporarily. It's possible for the seals on the intake tubes to leak, also.

New-to-you used airplanes can have a lot of unexpected expenses the first year or two. Personally, I would not replace anything that works until I was pretty sure I had all the bugs worked out. Garmin doesn't approve the IFD on it's STC, so it is a discussion with an installer as to whether it violates the Garmin STC to interface it with the IFD. That said, there are a lot of such installations out there and they seem to work fine. The central decision point is the autopilot. If you want a GFC 500 you must have a Garmin primary PFD (G3X, GI 275, G5) because unlike legacy autopilots that had a separate computer, the GFC places most of the software in the PFD. If you want to keep the current autopilot, you have more options. So many owners have been replacing the KAP/KFC autopilots with GFC 500s that used parts are available and there are two or three good shops that still know how to service them. So, you can probably keep one running for another ten years. Maybe. But the GFC is a great autopilot. Skip

The sniffle valve on the M20J is a custom Mooney part in order to clear the stock muffler. I don't know if the Powerflow will allow a different sniffle. The Mooney part is made by inserting a plastic ball in a right angle AN fitting held in with a small pin. None of them seem to seal perfectly but the leak is so small that it doesn't cause a problem at any power setting above idle. If you have a small induction leak, it usually affects the idle. If it is causing a problem, you can remove it and clean it in solvent. I might try setting the mixture rich and the throttle open and running the boost pump with the engine shut down which will cause gasoline to drain through it (which is it's purpose) and that might be enough to unstick it. Gasoline is a pretty good solvent.

THIS^^^^

That’s true for all airplanes with a conventional tail because aft CG reduces the tail down force which reduces induced drag of the stabilizer and wing (because the wing has to support the aircraft weight AND the tail down force). So the aft CG limit should be the lowest drag.