1980Mooney

@Ragsf15e That is good advice - while there is still someone at Mooney that can address this. (and put it in writing from Mooney). Otherwise you may have trouble selling it as a true Encore conversion.

As I mentioned before, I have the Missile 300 J conversion with standard single puck brakes but rated to 3,200 lbs GW. When landing heavy (and maybe a bit too much speed) standing harder on the brakes does not add additional stopping power. Their stopping force plateaus. You can stand harder and harder on the brakes and it still slows at the same constant rate - and you better have enough runway. It is rather unnerving. I have to believe that the Double Puck brake is superior.

Here is the Double Puck brake. You have the lower arrow - Single Puck

When you look at your POH (should be on the W&B) and other documents is your plane rated to 3,200 lbs. (like the first M20M with single puck and like the Rocket 305 and Missile 300 conversions with the existing single puck brake) or is it rated to the full 3,368 lbs like the double puck long bodies (including later M20M)?

That is the traditional single puck brake cylinder.

@Dustoff49 Seriously, whoever did the most recent Annuals and the "Pre-Buy/Annual" is incompetent. You are lucky that you didn't have a gear collapse. At the very least you should report them to the FAA. And it would be helpful to inform unsuspecting Owners here of the identities so they can stay away from those shops. Given the inept prior Annuals, you might want to consider having Sarasota do a complete inspection of your plane.

And this wasn't noticed during the Pre-Buy? I hope that you didn't pay anything for that Pre-Buy. Did they even open up the plane and drop the belly panel?

Rocket Engineering certified both the Rocket 305 and Missile 300 mid-body conversions to 3,200 lbs. GW with the original single puck brakes. Braking is not great when heavy and/or too fast. You can feel them fade - pressing harder doesn't make them stop quicker. I can see why Mooney went to dual puck brakes on long bodies certified to 3,368 lbs. (The first TLS through serial number 27-0107 had single puck brakes but were also rated to only 3,200 lbs. GW)

@Ragsf15e "mike261" posted RETROFIT TSIO-360-SB ENGINE DWG. NO. 940141.pdf here on MS on August 26, 2022 as a download....but both he and the drawing are gone along with his posts. Such is MS.

If you have all new Garmin glass, why do you need a yoke mounted iPad at all? Doesn’t your new Garmin glass panel/Garmin suite give you everything you need allseamlessly integrated? All a mini or full size iPad on the yoke does is block the view of your new Garmin glass panel. Maybe I am missing something but I don’t see the need for Sentry or Foreflight now. And you get a much better data price with Garmin OnePak on your new Garmin suite including Garmin Pilot. I can see keeping an iPad handy as backup in case your panel goes dark and also for uploading or downloading. But your primary and your eyes should be on your new panel.

Sounds like you are speaking from experience....

It sounds like you just need a serviceable hub and spinner plus governor. Do you care if has logs? Reselling used/ potentially prop struck blades sounds like a losing proposition. Have you tried calling any of the larger prop shops to see if they have old hubs/cores?

BTW - we replaced the original miserly Rochester 2GC 2 bbl with the biggest 2 bbl available - a Holley 500 CFM 2 bbl. I never really noticed any material difference for all the work (like many well-intentioned modifications on cars and planes!)

Here is a great composite that shows the Lancair, the first flight school 172 in the pattern that got buzzed twice by the Lancair, the second flight school 172 in the pattern (the collision 172) and the other planes in the pattern (an SR-20 that was in the pattern, a twin taking off, a Caravan taking off, etc.) The first 172 was initially on a collision course with the Lancair when the Lancair made a bizarre 360 entry to enter the pattern while flying directly against aircraft in the pattern at about 160 kts - it put the Lancair on a collision course 100 ft above the first 172. The first 172 was buzzed a second time when the Lancair passed about 200 ft above the 172 while it was touching down - the Lancair was accelerating from 110 to 140 kts. down the centerline. It is inconceivable that Lancair was not aware that there was other traffic in the pattern - especially student traffic doing touch and go's. That is all the more reason to give the students space at an uncontrolled airport.

It sounds much nicer than the 1962 Bel Air Station Wagon that we had with a 283 2-bbl.. I assume yours still had the 2-speed "Powerglide" slush bucket tranny.......

I find it odd that it says "experienced a landing gear issue and made an emergency gear up landing at runway 19R at Buchanan Field Airport (CCR/KCCR), Concord, California." He took off from Byron Airport, (C83) and flew a non-direct route to Buchanan Field Airport (CCR/KCCR) If his gear were stuck down - no biggie - but he would have flown directly to his home drome Buchanan Field Airport (CCR/KCCR) ( where all his flights originate from). If his gear were stuck part way, then he would have also expected him to fly direct and then circled the airport trying to correct the problem In the picture there is no indication of partial deployment His approach to Buchanan Field Airport (CCR/KCCR) appears to be basically straight in. If he experienced a gear failure on Final, I would have expected to see a balked landing and a circling procedure to trouble shoot. But no - just straight in. I listened to LiveATC KCCR Ground/Tower #2 at 03:00 Zulu Feb 21. At about 5:30 minutes Mooney N3490N contacts the Tower and requests RNAV 19R (The owner is not Instrument Rated per FAA Airmen) Winds were calm at the time. Sky clear. 10 mile visibility. 30.13 in Hg. End of Civil Twilight was about 6:20 PM PST and this happened at 7:07 PM PST. The Tower immediately responds that he is cleared to land. There is a lot of commotion at 8:10 min - the radio says "Mooney landed on 19R - It looks like it was wheeled up" The Tower closes the runway and rolls a firetruck. The Pilot of N3490N NEVER ANNOUNCED TO THE TOWER WHILE INBOUND OR ON FINAL THAT HE HAD ANY LANDING GEAR ISSUE The owner of the plane is 70 years old per internet, https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a3e122&lat=38.058&lon=-121.910&zoom=12.2&showTrace=2025-02-21&trackLabels&timestamp=1740106433

Does your friend know if there was any communication of intentions by either plane on the CTAF? And if the AeroGuard (former Embry-Riddle) plane has a moving map showing traffic?

The B3D36C424 was also STC'd for the Piper Arrow. Texas Air Salvage has one that had a minor prop strike - hub is good. McCauley B3D36C424-E Propeller - 3 Blade Constant speed (Damaged See Details). I assume that you have the McCauley Application guide McCauley Application Guide It lists a few different spinners and the governor that you need also.

Given the scarce or non-availability of the bellows on vintage Mooney's that could be very bad.....

Sorry I mis-read your comment. My answer is still the same - "it depends" where the "fire" was. George Braly on Beechtalk has commented that a true engine induction backfire on our flat aircooled engines is exceedingly rare. "It is unlikely to be a real backfire in the induction system. The air in the induction system is A) cold & b) 20% O2. The gas in the exhaust system is A) hot & b) ~ 2-3% O2. If you did, some way, inject a very lean F-A charge into the induction system - - you sort of have created a local microcosm of the environment of every carbureted engine operating with very very very lean mixtures. Too lean to auto ignite. NBD. Really have a hard time doing that - - since the exhaust stroke happens before the next time the intake valve opens. If you inject a very lean F-A charge into the exhaust system, then the conditions for auto-ignition do exist. And then "boom" or whatever." If it is an exhaust backfire then it could loosen/damage couplings/slip joints/heat exchanger & shroud, etc If it is from over-priming with liquid fuel somehow running out puddling inside the cowling, down the cowling/tail pipe/nose gear or puddling on ground before igniting, then damage may be nothing to catastrophic.

The only engine fire that I have witnessed in 60 years was when 2 classmates tried to hand prime a V-8 w/ 4 barrel carb. The rule was to always put the air filter back on before cranking. Well one guy was pouring gasoline from a large paper cup into the carb throats as the other cranked the engine. He poured too much gasoline in to start with, puddling on the closed throttle plates and in the intake runners. He was still holding the cup near the carburetor as the engine cranked, then immediately flooded as the throttle plates opened while still cranking and then a huge flame shot straight up. The first guy, startled backwards, dropped the cup causing a second flare up. Surprisingly he only got minor burns and engine was not visibly too burned. But the hood of the car, which was up at about a 45 degree angle, had all the paint burned off the outside center part.

I am trying to understand where the highest heat was located. Was this: An over-priming event in which liquid fuel somehow running out of the engine intake or exhaust pooled somewhere inside the cowling (or on the ground) and ignited on start? An intake backfire in which liquid fuel/or rich mixture ignited inside your intake system and perhaps externally past the intake filter? An exhaust event in which liquid fuel ignited inside your exhaust system and perhaps out the tailpipe?

If you click on the person’s name or logo related to any posting or response, it will take you to their profile. The profile shows among other things, when they joined, and when they last visited Mooneyspace.

If you look at the ADSBExchange tracks it appears that the Lancair was doing low passes about 200-300 ft over the runway. Baro at the time was 30.12 so there is a 200 ft higher correction to the pressure altitudes. Winds were 7-9 kts out of 110. They were landing on Runway 12. On the first low pass, the Lancair was doing about 100 kts (groundspeed) on short Final and then 120-130 kts over the runway while remaining at about 200-300 ft AGL On the second (fatal) pass he slowed down to about 80 kts (groundspeed) on short Final but accelerated to about 100 kts while reaming 200-300 ft AGL over the runway. However the 172 ahead in the pattern was only 55-60 kts (groundspeed) on short Final and then appears to have done a touch and go During the last low pass, the Lancair was closing on the 172 at 20-25 kts on Final and then closing on the rolling/climbing 172 at about 35-45 kts while over Runway 12. That is when the Lancair collided with the 172. We don't know what was said on UNICOM (if the 172 announced intentions to do a T&G or to get off the runway) but clearly the faster Lancair overran the slower 172 ahead. "See and Avoid" didn't work. We don't know if the Lancair saw the 172 on "Traffic" - it is possible that if he did, he may have thought the 172 was rolling down the runway to exit rather than take off and climb into him. This makes a good case to not do low high speed passes over runways at uncontrolled airports. Side stepping would be safer as long as you are aware of the pattern in use at the time and what traffic is in the pattern. Lancair https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a40ef6&lat=32.418&lon=-111.228&zoom=15.3&showTrace=2025-02-19&trackLabels&timestamp=1739978908 172 https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a5a534&lat=32.418&lon=-111.228&zoom=16.9&showTrace=2025-02-19&trackLabels&timestamp=1739978867

Here is the ASN link for the Cessna N463ER. The ASN link above is to the Lancair 360 MkII N3602M https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/478760 FlightRadar24 lists AeroGuard Flight Training out of Chandler as the Operator https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n463er