201Steve

@MikeOH yeah, your right about the in between ears thing! The other, hard to say for certain

Well, I do have a hangar. It’s got rolling doors, not the best seal. Lots of volume. 2,000 sf. Seems like you could do more efficient work isolating your critical area. I don’t know how well a dehumidifier would work in an area that big, without great sealing. I could probably do a lot to seal it up better, but how far must you go for success?

There are a bunch of folks here that are knowledgeable about this topic so I wanted to throw it out to the group for feedback. As we all know, there are many devices designed to push dry air into our engines (Black Max, Engine Saver, etc.) to reduce a corrosion fertile environment. I was thinking about this model, but for the airframe. What are the chances you would help the bones of an airplane by taking an inline dehumidifier (one you can attach ducts to) and let’s just say, you put the intake and the exhaust ducts and run them through the pilot window. Create some type of plug, where it’s pulling air from the cabin, dehumidifying the air at the unit (outside the airplane) and then pushing dry air back into the cabin. You could take that same concept and attach those fixtures to say, run inside the wing. Maybe use an inspection panel, and retrofit it to accept the ducts from the dehumidifier. And then, theoretically, you could go with say the tail section, and maybe even have 3 locations simultaneiously (cabin, wings, tail) where it’s conditioning the air (dehumidifying). Yes I know the wings, the cabin, and certainly the tail section are not air tight. But if you were forcing air into the confined area with enough volume, you just have some leakage, but it’s still being overwhelmed with much drier air. Thoughts?

There’s a reason new airplanes aren’t built with vacuum AI’s. I prefer to have the best option available. It seems to me the industry has spoken.

@PT20J I talked to Trek as well. No help. I had the unit exchanged under that SB and even the new one they sent me still was defective. It makes no sense, bc the only think commanding the unit to use it’s own battery, ought to be the internal unit itself. Any wire connections going into it should have nothing to do with that but alas here I am. and to clarify, I haven’t done it enough times to say without margin of error that pulling circuit breakers helps. I always walk away from the plane assuming I’ll be flying it in the next couple days but you know how idle time goes. You don’t necessarily plan it. I need to just pull them every time to really test the theory. in theory, pull BOTH units (top and bottom) CB, AND the gad 29. Apparently the gad29 should have its own circuit breaker but mine does not and I’m not exactly sure which breaker it lives on. In my anecdotal trials, I’ve pulled everything nav related. It seemed to work but hard to say without a few good long weeks with the right CBs pulled.

Once the battery is fully depleted, it kills itself. Cannot recharge it. At least not through the G5’s software. Once it detects zero it won’t even try to charge it. I’ve gone through 3 units and 5 batteries. Some I paid for and some were covered. Mine in particular I now believe is an installation error bc it’s the only common among all the replacement units. Garmin cannot explain it but I think if I were to have it re wired my problem would go away. I have 2 G5’s only the attitude location is affected. my problem has been if you leave it idle for too long, there is an internal draw on the backup battery, it kills the battery, and then there’s nothing you can do except change the battery. I have learned to deal with it, for now. It takes about a month to totally die. I have to pull circuit breakers if it’s going to sit longer than a month. yrmv

The earliest J came with an A1B6D engine. It changed somewhere around 1978 to an A3B6D. They are clocked differently.

Correct

Here’s the gami test flight from Feb 2023. https://apps.savvyaviation.com/flights/shared/flight/6617815/4f0ac0bb-2ef8-4f45-bcc5-8d01fa7c4686 also maybe hard to read but the savvy report also.

Could be. Always the potential it’s two events happening simultaneously but I didn’t want to muck it up by making that rare assumption yet. It’ll run smooth deep into each regime. I basically lean to achieve desired CHT. Goal being 100+ degrees ROP, and best acceptable power output vs CHT in LOP. Not yet. But it’s on my list of things to try at some point. I do a LOP mag check every now and then. Never noted anything dramatic by feel. I also did a Gami lean test, about a year and a half ago. I’ll see if I can find the flight.

I did not capture actual peak in this sitting so the reference numbers to peak are not accurate per se.

Hey yall, my number2 cylinder is an EGT and CHT outlier. running LOP, it’s the lowest EGT and lowest CHT. Makes sense: farthest from peak, and thus the coolest running. running ROP, it’s the highest EGT and lowest CHT. Doesn’t make sense: closest to peak- it should be the hottest. these conditions were tested at 8,000 feet while running WOT so it should rule out intake leak. Savvy said clean the injector, I have twice. No change. thinking about it more, WOT removes air from the equation. EGT behavior says it’s the leanest cylinder in both mixture regimes, but the CHT doesn’t trend accurately to support the theory that its fuel related. it leaves one other variable: ignition. Does the data presented point to it not getting the same energy spark as the other cylinders? seems like a weaker spark would certainly track with it being the coolest CHT no matter the mixture condition. I know that while ROP, a weak spark should rise EGT’s. Would a weak spark lower EGT’s while LOP??? Am I tracking all of this correctly? Thoughts?

Pretty sure all bulkheads are the same part number across all J models with McCauley, all the way back to 1977. it would widen your search to confirm that instead of looking for one off of a 91 only.

I need an alternator belt for my 99 Chevrolet with 4.8L v8 “Year make and model please(I just told you that). Is it 4 wheel drive? Does it have auto high beams or standard? Did that thing come with a 5 CD changer or just cassette” house boat love that

I have been talking to other type clubs, ones that are far more orphaned than Mooney. I will not name any names since there are rabble rousers among us. Guess what they do to keep their airplanes alive? Suprise! They make group buys for OPP and openly make available the inventory, sources, and supporting documentation. Have they ever been harassed by the FAA? No they haven’t. They also don’t have internal saboteurs writing grievance letters to the FAA like what happened with the down lock blocks, so that’s helpful. But this is so silly, us acting like we have a factory when we in fact really do not, begging them to make the unprofitable parts they will not make now or ever. I can’t tell you how many people on here have “talked to Jonny”. They can’t do anything outside of a very narrow scope, as is evident. Perhaps the only helpful thing they’ve done is run a couple batches of no back springs. One part. Whoopdie doo. Time we just fall in line with the rest of the orphans and follow the orphan instructions outlined by our regulatory body.

Damn I need to increase my insurance value

Too expensive. It’s not a J period. Mark probably paid 75k for that airplane. there will be plenty of options for a J nicely equipped for $150k. Just have to look longer than 5 minutes

Anyone know whether the base plates and hardware will match up between the 7 and the blade? I may buy a couple off of ebay, but none of them come with hardware. I'd have to use my existing, not sure if they are the same or would need to source them separately. @OR75 @jetdriven

Ever feel like you have a good grasp on concepts and then something really obvious catches you by surprise? Well, I was today years old when I made this correlation.

Skip, just be careful making an investment in those switches. Remember an AC is not regulatory, it’s just guidance. If you go further down I always like to ask in these moments of regulatory caution: When a user is acting in good faith, with reasonably sourced material, with some reasonable citation, has the FAA ever gone out of their way to show up to someone’s house with a pocket knife? Or, are we just obsessed with mechanics and operators trying to be armchair lawyers? This is far from installing switches from Autozone and calling it good. Over and over and over, someone always wants to cite a different version of a reg that posits a situation MIGHT be questionable. I think part of the regulatory strangle on 50 year old personal aircraft is partially a self imposed myth that almost never gets enforced on unless you’re just taking egregious liberties eg autozone. it’s an aircraft switch. It’s installed with logical aircraft theory and hardware. Let’s stop furthering our self imposed restrictions with the arm chair rhetoric. * not a personal prosecution of the individual commenter.

It requires someone to care enough to coordinate with consistency. Those candidates are hard to find. Are you volunteering?

I did my panel with “some” budget in mind. Still a pile of money but I didn’t want to go crazy for various reasons. My main objectives were: to be highly functional, save money on the “wow factor” items, install products that would be useful in the future should I elect to go full tilt. It’s not the prettiest panel, but it is fully digital, highly capable, and does the same thing a modern glass panel does, just without several “would be nice” items. We also have a 2023 SR22T with the full Garmin suite. The “would be nice” items are awesome, but 90% of the time are not critical. I have the best function for the money in the Mooney.

Congrats to the OP! Where are you located?

Extinguish fire, throw stick out the pilot window, leave it open for venting?

I’ve not heard this one. Seems feasible if all other things remain equal. However, for other reasons, maybe spark plug gap or maybe fuel injector flow rate, you could do as prescribed and have a cylinder with “leaner EGTs” (which should result in higher EGT temps than the rest if your mixture is on the rich side of peak) that’s the result of some other factor and not have an intake leak. Maybe the leanest cylinder in that test has a slightly smaller injector orifice than the others, showing it to be leaner for that reason. Or if carbureted, the mixture could be slightly different at different pressures due to the routing of the intake tubes. I guess doing a gami spread test could tell you what the fuel is doing per cylinder, and then you could compare against what the air is doing in the above. maybe I’m overthinking it. Is this procedure written up anywhere?