PT20J

At least on the M20J, some were screw in and some were press fit.

He hangs out on BeechTalk FWIW, I’ve been to the Precision Airmotive factory and watched them flow test nozzles. They don’t flow match them. What they do is test each nozzle to make sure the fluid comes out in a steady stream about the size of a #2 pencil lead. If not, they swap inserts and nozzle bodies until it does. When removing and cleaning, you are supposed to keep the nozzle bodies and inserts together and not mix them up.

If you enable auto reconnect on the G3X and GTX Bluetooth, the will connect directly to the iPad without you taking other action if the iPad Bluetooth is on.

I usually just prime and crank. I have tried waiting a bit and haven’t noticed a reproducible difference. I am going to try Rich’s method though. I have used it for hot starts and it seems to avoid the problem of the engine wanting to die when it uses up the gas remaining in the lines. But, I’ve never tried it on a really cold engine.

I’ve had a few rental cars that did that and I was always amazed at how well it worked. I guess software engineers are the best at figuring out how to start internal combustion engines.

Liquid gasoline will not burn. Only gasoline vapor burns. Gasoline will vaporize at any temperature above its flash point which is about -40 deg C, but the higher the temperature the faster the vaporization. Carburetors and fuel injection nozzles atomize the fuel (i.e., break the metered fuel stream into small droplets mixed with air) to facilitate vaporization but atomization and vaporization are not the same thing. So, given these facts, the colder it is (as long as it is above -40 deg C), the more beneficial it may be to wait a bit after priming before cranking because this gives the atomized fuel some time to absorb heat from the metal and vaporize leading to a faster start. But the benefit is probably small. The heat from compression during the compression stroke probably has a much bigger effect.

I've been rethinking this. @N201MKTurbo and @1980Mooney made good arguments about the effect of suction on the upper aileron surfaces. So, I enlisted Ed Kolano (aeronautical engineer and test pilot). He hadn't really thought about it before, so we went back and forth and here is what we concluded: In cruise, with the control wheel neutral, both ailerons tend to drift up and take out the control slack on both sides by putting the push pull tubes in compression. Now suppose we begin to deflect the control wheel to the left. The left aileron will begin to move up immediately because it has no slack. However, the right aileron will not move down until the control wheel moves far enough to take up the slack. So what does the pilot feel? There would be an immediate force on the wheel when the left aileron moves and the force would increase when the right aileron begins to move. This might be noticeable if there was a LOT of slop or if you rapidly reverse the roll direction. But, because the roll will begin immediately with control wheel movement it will not cause a dead zone. Any apparent dead zone would have to be due to looseness in the part of the control system that is common to both ailerons as @N201MKTurbo pointed out. While it is true that the hinge moments are in opposite directions, I neglected the fact that one side will always be in compression and thus one aileron will have no slack and will move immediately when the control wheel is moved. To @0TreeLemur's original concern: The rod ends are captive between the U-shaped ends of their attach points, so they are pretty fail safe. The only way I can see that they could fail and cause a serious control issue is if the bolt came out or the ball froze solid. By the way, I had some slop in one of mine that turned out to be that the bolt through the rod end that attached to the aileron was under torqued and allowed the ball to move on the bolt. I replaced the bolt and torqued it properly and it is much improved.

I have found the trick is to find an IA that is very busy (the good ones usually are). If you can convince them you know what you are doing, it’s easy money for them to do the inspection and log entries if you do the disassembly, assembly, and servicing. My IA charges a flat $750 + hourly rate if he needs to do something extra. Many years ago, Vern Miller at Reid Hillview airport In San Jose CA used to do a lot of owner assisted work. A lot of tech execs found it therapeutic to spend a couple of days out of the rat race wrenching on their airplanes on Vern’s ramp. Some days there would be four or five of us out there working on our planes while Vern had a hangar full of planes he was maintaining. It was a good deal for all involved. Skip

Your empty weight seems about right. i assume the CG shown is empty CG in millimeters. If so, it seems way too far aft. Mine is 1168 for a 2900 lb. M20J. This can happen if the CG calculations are not done correctly. If you have a record of the weights for each wheel when it was weighed, I would recalculate the CG using the exact procedure in the POH.

It is true, that control surfaces tend to float up. But the float is not unbounded until the control reaches the stop. As soon as the surface floats up, the pressure distribution changes creating a counteracting moment and there will be an equilibrium point where the two moments cancel and the surface will stabilize at some angle. Usually designers try to minimize this tendency. It appears that Mooney didn't do a great job at this. The hinge line for the ailerons is not set back far enough to provide good aerodynamic balance to counteract this tendency. Also the hinge moment is a function of the distance from the center of pressure on the surface to the hinge line and the Mooney ailerons, being of relatively short span and thus necessarily greater chord to get the necessary area, will have a greater hinge moment compared to say a Bonanza. Both these factors contribute to the "heaviness" of the Mooney ailerons. So, with zero aileron control deflection, I believe that the float would take most of the "slop" out of the control system. However, as soon as we deflect the ailerons, the forces change. And it is only when maneuvering (and thus deflecting ailerons) that we care about any dead zone. The change in moments with deflection arises because the down aileron has increased upward pressure and the up aileron has increased downward pressure. In fact, one of the reasons for having an aileron deflect up on one wing is to reduce the control force because of the reversal of moment direction. We are not talking about a lot of dead zone (unless the rod ends are dangerously loose) and a pilot might not even notice it because we quickly adapt to minor control system deficiencies. Anyway, an interesting experiment would be to block both ailerons in trail so that they cannot move and measure the amount of rotation of the control wheel permitted by any lost motion in the linkages on the ground. Then this could be repeated in the air in level flight and also during left and right rolls.

Why not team up with McFarlane? They seem keen on increasing their PMA parts business.

Had that problem years ago when everyone copied Dennis Hayes’ smart modem. Every modem we tried to interface with used a different subset of the command set and widely different timing from command to response.

There is also a bolt down there that can be put in backwards.

As others have noted, the lift is not evenly distributed over the wing surface area. Most of the lift is generated near the leading edge. It is common to assume that it is concentrated at the quarter chord line as predicted by thin airfoil theory. The pressure differential between the top and bottom surface of the aileron is relatively small. True, but AOA has a small effect for small angles. I’ve Included the following two pages from the text previously cited. I’ll leave it as an exercise for someone to compute the angle of attack at cruise in a Mooney

What are measured winds?

Same with Garmin. It took a year for Garmin to fix the ADS-B bug I reported where TFRs that last more than a day are dropped after the first day, and they never did notify me. Actually, in my experience in commercial software development, this is common. Once a bug gets logged, engineering has the ball for determining the severity, and when it will get resolved and what release it goes in to. It may be months and it’s just not feasible to keep the user that reported the bug updated.

Mine works fine. No false alarms and passes the g switch test at annual. Haven’t crash tested it, though

The lost motion in the various rod ends will add to create a dead zone when the control wheel is moved. The down deflected aileron has a negative hinge moment and will put the push pull tubes in compression. The up deflected aileron has a positive hinge moment and will put it's tubes in tension. From Perkins and Hage, Airplane Performance, Stability and Control:

This is the kind of thing that gets me in trouble all the time. Being an engineer, I think I understand stuff. The latest manual says it damages the 406 MHz transmitter. Maybe it's because the rubber duckies are tuned for the VHF communications band. Someone who really cares could call ACK and ask them. But this is Mooneyspace, so I expect that there will be several pages of speculation plus a few pages of posts about how this is a terrible design and then a few outraged folks that think they should all be recalled.

This is interesting. The manual (Rev 1.08) I downloaded when I purchased the airplane in 2018 with a recently installed ACK E-04 does not mention this. I just checked the current manual (Rev 1.12) and it states in the antenna installation section and in the periodic maintenance section in red bold type not to connect a non-approved antenna. I guess it is a reminder to keep documentation up to date and read it before performing even simple maintenance.

According to the article, the problem is that the adapter has to turn backwards a full turn to completely release the spring or the spring and/or the shaft will wear. The lightweight starters are gear driven and don’t turn backwards easily, so they wear out the starter adapters. But, I don’t have any first hand experience — I’m a Lycoming guy .

According to this article, it might be the Iskra starter, not the Camguard. https://www.csobeech.com/files/BOB-1015.pdf

There is a whole BeechTalk thread about this. Bottom line, Camguard does not contain any friction modifiers and does not affect starter adapters. Some oils are more prone to causing slippage than others, but only if the starter adapter is worn out. https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=79247&start=0

Full throttle and mixture ICO is the flooded start procedure. So, the problem is too much fuel. Assuming good mags and plugs, starting is all about getting a combustible mixture of fuel and air in the cylinders. It helps to understand what’s going on. I’ve attached the starting description by the manufacturer of the fuel injection system. The reason the procedure @SKI suggested works (usually after about half an hour when most of the fuel has vaporized from the lines) is that the heat in the engine compartment vaporizes some fuel in the line between the servo and the fuel pump. Since this fuel is trapped with no where to go, the pressure in this line increases. Opening the throttle and mixture allows this fuel, driven by the pressure in the lines, to prime the engine a bit. One variable is how tight the mixture valve is in the ICO position. The valve isn’t required to completely shut off the fuel flow and most leak a little in the ICO position. This may allow some fuel to flow through the system driven by the increasing pressure described above affecting the amount of fuel at the cylinders some time after shutdown. This might be why your engine seems to be flooded during warm starts. You can do the test described in the attached excerpt from the RSA troubleshooting manual. The procedure @Shadrach suggested works well for me. Since there is no way of knowing how much fuel remains in the lines, start out by assuming there is enough fuel to start in ICO. If not, then prime a bit. I also find that if it doesn’t start in ICO, it will usually start if I put the mixture full rich and keep cranking. I set my throttle to the point where I hear the gear warning switch click.

The rods are threaded and can be adjusted by loosening a locknut and turning the rod. When you remove the panel and expose them from underneath it will be easy to see how it works. The adjustment is not described in the service manual. Installing 1.5” pedal extensions doesn’t change the pedal angle, but the 3” extensions tip the pedals aft. But, since you mentioned that your master cylinders were replaced it’s likely that they were just not set correctly.