Austintatious

If you have a 252, IIRC, you have inner and outer gear doors which completely enclose the main gear, you lucky dog! I am not sure if you would even have the under wing fairings... but If you did, you would see them on the underside of the wing right behind the gear well. Nonetheless, Id love to see your numbers and hear more about how your airplane is configured... Do you have a blade style nav antenna? Do you have the step still installed? any go fast mods? I swear I can hear the rumbling turbulence in my gear wells... It HAS to be costing me speed... I now have a new set of fairings I am going to take molds off of and make some CF replacements for both of our aircraft. I will then be selling the original Mooney fairings

I went and flew and it took about 22-24 / 22 to hold 105 KIAS with gear down flaps up.

Some good info here and I see similar numbers but I more typically climb at 130 KIAS and try to stay at 380 CHT or less. I am confused about the bold however. I don't think the higher TIT at higher altitudes is because of the increased IAT but rather because the wastegate progressively closes sending more and more exhaust gas to the turbine side of the turbocharger. As I understand it, the IAT indication is a remnant from before the rocket mod. The temp is taken before the inter-coolers (which did not exist prior to rocket mod) and is a useless indication because of the inter-coolers.

Does your gear have the hubcaps? Do you have the under wing fairings for the main gear? I am about to head to the field to do some work, will probably fly afterwords... I'll report what MP I need to be at 105 with gear down flaps up.

Is your mechanic truly wise in the way of Mooney? IDK about an F... but my 2 M20K's have blind rivets holding the wingtips on... no way to put them on otherwise from what I could tell... The holes are filled and painted over.... Furthermore, every single one of my inspection plates on the underside of the wing is held on with blind rivets. Here is a pic of another wingtip, not mine Edit, found a photo of the F wingtip and it has solid rivets... Guess it is time to open the wing or get and authorization.

Thanks all And EricJ for the input. I have ordered a slew of things and have spoken with a home base located avionics shop. I will be sending the airplane in to have to ASI looked at and have a replacement in hand that I will probably have put in anyway since there is a cosmetic issue with the one that is currently in the airplane and reading 20 knots fast... The crummy thing is that this necessitates a re-testing of the pitot system, pretty much the same thing they do for the instrument cert. So unless I am able to make a case that the ASI was damaged in the first round I will be paying twice for this.

What do you mean pushed past what it normally sees in flight? Why would they have passed the aircraft on the Pitot static test it was 20 knots off during the test that stressed it? It seems to me like they probably did the test and it passed, then they yanked off the pitot connection before the pressure was down.

Sorry, I necroed the thread, IDK how I even got to it. I need to check the dates I suppose.

I am aware, I just didnt want any controversy.

This is not the first thread I have made venting about my maintenance experiences being terrible... This one has pushed me over the line and I am certain I will be selling both my Mooneys soon as I can... which will unfortunately be another 4 years unless I want to go without an aircraft ( which I do not). I will be buying an experimental and doing all maintenance myself and for the yearly safety inspection watching/monitoring whatever A&P I have do the inspection. Here's the story.... Aircraft due for annual... Schedule the aircraft for said annual at a shop, which I have used before and in fact used on the last annual. I stated that I had some squawks I wanted addressed and disclosed them... Mostly small items, a broken zerk fitting, 3 instruments with no backlighting, HSI not receiving ILS signal (arinc 429 bus I think) and the only sort of big item was that my number 5 cylinder runs hot... Now by hot I mean that if I get slow in the climb, the temp might hit 380-385 degrees. In cruise it will hold at 370-375. I also noticed that the number 1 cylinder head reads exceptionally cool... around 310 in cruise. Since I have been round and round with Gami getting the gami spread down below .5 GPH, I wanted the number 1 and 5 CHT sensors swapped to see if it was a sensor issue. I had recently changed the oil so that was not necessary. The last item on the list was a pitot static check. So I drop the airplane off and for the most part, the annual and sensor swap went as expected, but I was told that none of my other squawks were addressed because they just did not have enough time for the annual and those items (they told me it would all take a week). My partner test flew the aircraft and now the number 5 cylinder was busting through 395 degrees in the climb and he was not able to get it below 385 in cruise. AND the airspeed indicator was now reading 20 knots too fast, verified by GPS groundspeed and the G5 airspeed indicator which is still reading properly. We decided this was unacceptable so the plane went back to the shop and we wanted this investigated/addressed... Both me and my partner went out of our way to leave the aircraft with the shop for another whole week so they could figure out what was going on with the airspeed indicator and investigate the hot cylinder. Well, the end of the week comes and my partner (who lives by the shop) calls me and tells me that the shop swapped the CHT sensors for 1 and 5 back to where they were, but otherwise did no work on the aircraft. After another test flight, the airspeed is still 20 knots too high and the number 5 cylinder is still running way hotter than it was previously. So.... I had an aircraft that was operating quite well... and since the FAA insist on ripping apart the fuel injection system and hooking pressurizing equipment up to my Pitot static system my aircraft is now in worse shape than when I took it in.... and I got to pay for the privilege. I am so frustrated and I dont know what to do... I have a lot of flying I need to do soon and the shop is not at my home field... I am tempted to take the plane to a local avionics shop to have the airspeed issue investigated and send the bill to the shop that handed me back a plane with a fresh cert and an ASI that is 20 knots off. I could take it back to the shop But at this point why would I take it back to them if they let the airplane sit a whole week without touching it? I am not going to name the shop... they are nice people and are clearly overwhelmed by demand. I am more upset that the FAA will not budge on the rules for these older aircraft.... I cant touch the fuel system on my mooney, but If I buy a Lancair 4, I can do anything.... It makes no sense... but if that is the game, that is what I will be doing.

27 inches to indicate 105 sounds way off... WAY off... At 19 inches with my gear down I cant even stay on GS without flaps or speed brakes without blowing past gear speed. It will be 2 weeks before I fly again, but when I do I will see what it takes for me to hold 105 with gear down in level flight and report back. That being said, I do not have a list to give you, but I can tell you what I do... I climb at FULL POWER to cruise, then set 29/22 burning 17.5 an hour indicating about 143 knots. I leave that power setting all through the descent until it is time to slow down to land. The only exception is if I am really stretching fuel as I don't have ER tanks. In that case, I do a 700 FPM descent and reduce power down to 18-19 inches and about 10 GPH. I do not worry too much about timing my power reductions IE: 1 inch per min.... I am convinced shock cooling is not an issue for this engine if you are not being crazy. One of my rockets has a JPI which will alert for too rapid cooling and I never see it even if I pull 3 inches or even more at a time. I am more concerned with smoothly reducing power as I do so. So I approach the pattern at 18-19 inches. I used the boards to slow and get the gear out first, then get the flaps out when I can. Dont be afraid to slip if you need to kill speed. I then typically make small adjustments on the power, never going below 16 inches. Mind you I have not touched the prop or the mixture since I set cruise power... The only exception being preparing for a possible go around for some reason like reported windshear (this saved my booty once!) from 30 feet down to the ground I smoothly and very slowly reduce the power to idle while trimming up... boards in or out makes little difference with a slight advantage to a nice landing being with boards out... after touchdown I typically suck up my flaps immediately so that the airplane settles and sticks to the ground and I can use the brakes if I need or want.

Ive had enough vacuum instruments fail on me and try to kill me in IMC, id smash every last one of them with a hammer if I could.

Sorry everyone, I cant agree with the analysis you are putting forth on the E mags. Let me address some of the concerns. [Quote]That part that creeps me out is that I don't know how long the battery(or batteries) are REALLY going to last once that alternator dies. I've had a "fully charged battery" die after maybe 30 minutes flying in the day with one radio and transponder running. [/quote] Sure, but in the event you have an alternator failure, the prudent thing to do is to get to the ground And to shed all unnecessary power draws. And yes, batteries can go bad and have good voltage but not have their rated capacity. This is why on a duel install, you have TWO batteries, the likelihood of this happening to both is very low. [quote]But there is the risk of a dual failure if electric power fails, or something as stupid as a wire breaks, or breaker fails, or one of the coils inside the Surefly fails. By keeping one properly maintained conventional magneto, you retain backup no matter what. [/quote] We are talking a dual system on which both sims are redundant to one another... You would need 2 wires to break, Two coils to fail. They are not on breakers so I dont know how a breaker would result in a failed engine. You seem to give a lot of confidence to the conventional mag, when those can fail mechanically and catastrophically. If you are gong to come up with doomsday, multiple unrelated failures scenarios where you loose all ignition, you have to also apply that to the conventional mag. Since in a dual sim vs single sim / conventional mag setup, in both installations the two ignition sources are 100 percent independent from one another. POINT to a common point of failure for a 2 sim installation. [quote]It's been mentioned before, that if we had only had electronic ignitions and somebody invented a shiny-new ignition system that was self-powered and only had a few simple components, people would be paying up to get rid of those complex things that need electric backups and get the new simple system.[/quote] I doubt it... you would have to convince someone that a component with a 600 hour life, way more moving parts and a catastrophic failure mode is a better option that the one with fewer moving parts and a 2000+ hour service life. well, I guess you have a point... If your charger is failed you will need to get that fixed... Whereas if you have conventional mags you can go fly with a dark cockpit. I don't see myself doing the latter.

A few things... With 2 sims, you will be starting on BOTH sims (provided you have both on) The approved backup batteries have a test you can do.... and if you are really paranoid, you could shut off your master switch during a mag check or just after starting before you turn on your avionics master would work as well. . Also, if you put in an electroair style panel, you could indeed start on only the second sim if you wanted to.

No overhaul, more reliable. (haha, though I have had one malfunction already, replaced it with gen 2), a lot less likely to have a catastrophic failure. Better starts as now you have both mags and thus both plugs firing at TDC on start. SOME installations allow for timing advance, but not all. You do get a more complete burn... in fact when we installed just one we noticed a slightly higher ITT. Cant say however that we noticed any appreciable increase in efficiency though.

You alternator would not have caused you to lose ignition even with dual sims... One of them has to be directly wired to the main ship battery... So it is on all the time even with the master switch off. The second has to be wired to a second battery. What sucks for me is that even though the rocket has 2 batteries, I cannot simply wire each sim to its own batt. The requirement is that the aircraft has to have a factory dual electric system with 2 batteries and the Rocket is not that. This means I will have to purchase another battery that will cost around 1000.00 to connect the second SIM to . This will provide over 4 hours in the event of a complete electrical failure. I dont even carry that much fuel. I do not understand why my two batteries are not sufficient. There is no way that I can think of that I could possibly lose both sims if it was done this way. It is simple and robust... even if one battery were to fry, the other should be fine... Yes they are wired in parallel but so what? I have never seen a battery in parallel cause any harm to other batteries it is paralleled with. True, if the load requires both batteries, then one goes bad, the remaining battery will be carrying 100 percent of the load which can over tax it and obviously drain it faster... but this is just not the case with these low draw SIMs.

Did anyone see https://www.surefly.aero/ SureFly has amended both Engine and Airframe STC's to allow for the installation of two SIM's on an engine. Engine and Airframe installation instructions have been revised to add guidance on how to power the 2nd SIM on an engine.

Hehe we are going to do the same... stupid keys dont belong in airplanes!

oof, She didnt say.

I just got off the phone with them... They will be making the announcement at Oshkosh. You will need a second battery.... So they have some manufacturers that sell certified backup batteries to refer those who dont have a second ship battery. I already have 1 emag on one of my airplanes and a second E mag sitting in the box... there will be nothing to purchase and I can just run a direct wire from the 2nd batt to the second Emag and bee good to go.

As I stated earlier, part of the process I would expect is that the buyer put money in escrow. When you have a purchase agreement, it outlines the reasons the sale can be halted... and only those reasons let the buyer back out. I wouldn't see why a seller would back out and cause the buyer to have to litigate to get his escrow money back, but they buyer would need very specific reasons to back out and not forfeit his escrow money. That is literally the entire point of escrow. It lets the seller know the buyer is serious, thus justifying all of the following actions towards the sale (relocation and PPI)

Wild, when was this? Savvy spent a lot of time on the phone with me talking about logbooks for a few airplanes I considered.

I highly recommend you contact Savvy aviation and buy their purchase assistance program... You will even get a big discount on their management plan for a year so you can try that out. They will save you time and headache and find deal breakers early.

Well, this is an interesting thread.... very interesting and a lot of different takes. I can only speak for myself... but here is how I would expect and aircraft purchase to go. 1. Buyer goes and looks at aircraft and logbooks, decides if they wish to move forward. 2. If on buyers inspection, they still want the aircraft, then a purchase agreement is drafted/signed and earnest money escrow-ed. 3. The aircraft moved (if needed) to a place for a PPI at cost of buyer. 4. Any airworthiness issues fixed BY THE SELLER or, the cost to fix said issue taken off the agreed price in the purchase agreement. (of course there could be deal breakers discovered, at which point the aircraft goes back home at buyers expense. 5. Deal closes and buyer takes possession of aircraft and logbooks. If I was wanting to purchase an aircraft and the seller had a problem with this... then see ya! find another moron. There are of course a lot of considerations to go into the purchase agreement. but this would be the basic process I would expect as a buyer OR seller.