1980Mooney

Aircraft LED’s use 1/3 to 1/2 the power of an incandescent.

And if pressure does rise at at Fuel distribution Manifold, or spider, then as you say the flow will find its way to the other five cylinders. That means they’ll be running rich and one will be running lean. He will dial back the mixture to achieve optimum ROP or LOP on the remaining five and as a result you will see a reduced overall fuel flow rate which you can measure. if the overall flow rate has dropped as compared to before the condition then it is indeed an obstruction. If the flow rate is the same as before the condition then it’s a leak.

Wait a minute. That is only if fuel pressure rises in the distributor. At a given pressure in the fuel distributor the flow through the other five orifices will remain exactly the same regardless of whether #2 is open or obstructed. Bernoulli!

If an injector is blocked then he should see a reduction in total fuel flow as compared to the same rpm, MP before the condition. If there is a leak at the injector the total fuel flow will be the same but the cylinder with the leak at the injector fitting will be lean.

Have you pulled the cowling and actually looked at the #2 injector? When the #2 injector was replaced the only place that the stainless steel pressure fuel line should’ve been disconnected was at the top of the injector. If debris had entered the line at that point on top of the injector then it should’ve turned up immediately in the injector when the engine was run - not 18 hours later. There would be no reason for the mechanic to disconnect the fuel line at the fuel distributor when installing an injector. If he did disconnect it at the fuel distributor because he thought the line was dirty then he should’ve cleaned all six lines since they’re all fed from the same common fuel distributor. I would look for blue stains around the fuel line fitting or on the fins of the cylinder. If that ball and socket fitting mating the injector to the the stainless steel fuel line wasn’t properly torqued it could’ve backed off from vibration during flight and be spraying fuel on the engine. It happened to me.

The air bag and belt isn’t there to protect you on the days when you land at 40kts....

Your plane is a 1980 M20J. You should have the basic M20J POH that originally covered the 1979-1980 models. Mooney Model Chronology (mooneyevents.com) For the Missile conversion Rocket Engineering makes no changes to the basic POH but adds a 12 page supplement in Section IX - Supplemental Data. That supplement has charts - Figure 6.1 - Center of Gravity Weight Envelope and Figure 6.2 - Center of Gravity -Moment Envelope. There should be an actual current measured W&B in Section VI. In Section IX you will find all the other Supplements related to your specific equipment - long range tanks, autopilot, GPS Nav/Com, etc.

Not sure why we’re talking about a twin here Or why it is even relevant....the thread is “1960 Mooney Design” And the impact of new technology. Last time I looked Mooney is not a twin, never was and never will be. The Diamond DA-50RG is the appropriate comparison. The plane is a pig at nearly 3200 lbs empty. With a 4407 lbs MTOW it needs 44 foot wings to get in the air. Although it is “new technology” it lacks a ballistic recovery chute. They probably left it off because this diesel solution is already overweight - and BRS Would require even beefier landing gear to sustain chute landing and a huge chute - probably added another couple hundred pounds. The “new technology “ Pipistrel Panthera with a MOGAS burning Lycoming and a chute is clearly superior

Of course, because Mooney, for some no good (some would say "insane") reason, limited the IO-550 in the Ovation for most of its production life to 2,500 RPM and 280 HP. Only in recent years has Mooney come to its senses and allowed the Ovation's IO-550G to operate at its fully rated 2,700 RPM just like every other IO-550 installed in competing Cirrus SR22 and Beechcraft Bonanza G36. If you limit your Missile RPM to 2,500 on TO and climb, just like your brother's Ovation set-up, I think you will find the Ovation to be equal to the Missile. Alternatively, get the STC to allow the Ovation to operate at 2,700 RPM and 310 HP and I bet you will change your mind.

Condensed from the other topic on converting J to Missile: Converted my J to a Missile 20 years ago. It is a 1980 model so it required wing tips per mod. Added one piece belly for speed and convenience. Twin Aspens, 530W/430W stack, WX500, GDL88, Flightstream 210, Century 41. Added Monroy long-range tanks due to thirst. As said by others the Missile is tightly cowled without cowl flaps. On hot Texas or NM summer days, esp. if at large/busy towered airport, have a long taxi or extended hold for IFR release I might experience high oil temp on ground and high cylinder temps on take off. I used to fret about it while holding but there isn't a lot you can do other than aggressive leaning on the ground. I simply expedite TO as much as quickly as possible and once airborne I just lower the nose a bit, gain speed and sometimes reduce power a tad to get oil and cylinder temps under control. In 20 years I have replaced one cylinder due to a valve and one due to compression/oil consumption. The IO550A is simple, rugged and thirsty. I like the Altitude Compensating Fuel Pump (some here don't). As long as temperatures are in line I take off and climb wide open firewall forward Throttle/Prop/Mixture all the way to assigned altitude (KISS -Keep It Simple Stupid "Set and Forget"). At altitude I typically cruise at 2,400 RPM and then lean 75 degrees ROP. The standard Cont. injectors are well balanced w/ temps even. The starter adapter on the IO550 can be a problem but that is a Continental problem (not Missile specific). As I said previously I haven't found the need for speed brakes on the Missile. I can dirty up the Missile quickly, chopping power, pitching up, dropping gear and partial flaps. The gear mechanism is stout and for over 2 decades has always been reliable for the task. The IO550 is just fine if I pull throttle quickly.- Twenty years is a pretty good indicator although i am sure some here will disagree. You will not want to land on grass, gravel or dirt. The prop clearance is a weak point. The 3 blade Hartzell Scimitar is 75 inches vs the stock McCauley at 74 inches. You may think one (1) inch is immaterial but with the added weight of the IO550 and prop hanging farther out on the same 3 Lord Discs you get greater oscillation on rough surfaces or a poor landing. If you are on soft ground the nose gear will sink in due to the additional weight of the 550 and 3 blade prop. I can tell you from experience that one person cannot move the plane if that happens. There are several threads on MS of Missile owners refusing to park on grass or wrecking a prop on dirt/grass-Seth, Aug '19 destroyed prop in mud at OSK, FloridaMan, Apr '19 refused to park in grass at Sun n Fun. The full feathering Hartzell PHC-C3YF-2UF is great but rare. If you need parts, Hartzell may need to manufacture. This year I needed the lower half of the spinner (essentially a glorified aluminum salad bowl with a hole in the middle). It cost $2,000 and I had to wait 6 weeks for it to be manufactured. The full spinner 2 piece cone with brackets is $4,000 (none were available nationwide either at the time). The Rocket Eng exhaust is a weak point. It suffers from corrosion. I know one owner from Houston who lost the tail pipe in flight. My A&P found one shop that can repair/fab the exhaust and the product is better than Rocket. The greater weight and flex can lead to more fuel tank leakage. I fight that issue from time to time.

But you may need an extended bladder too.....

Converted my J to a Missile 20 years ago. It is a 1980 model so it required wing tips per mod. Added one piece belly for speed and convenience. Twin Aspens, 530W/430W stack, WX500, GDL88, Flightstream 210, Century 41. Added Monroy long-range tanks due to thirst. Never needed speed brakes. Missile vs. J: The mod (with long range tanks) gives great range and load. I usually fly max 3200 lb. GW on long trips. Fully loaded feels a bit mushy on takeoff compared to lightweight J (more noticeable in high DA airport) but power provides confident climb. In cruise no noticeable difference in feel/handling. CG is farther forward but OK. I don't need any weight in back when flying alone (maybe because I still have a standby vac in the tail). I typically fly trips between Houston area and Albuquerque nonstop. The Missile mod cut one hour off typical trips - real world trips are now usually about 4 hours either direction (oddly). I find the sweet spot for long trips is 10-12 K. I typically get 170-175 kts at 13+ gph. If I stay closer to 12 K and it is colder in winter i can get 12+. As said by others the Missile is tightly cowled without cowl flaps. On hot Texas or NM summer days, esp. if at large/busy towered airport, have a long taxi or extended hold for IFR release I might experience high oil temp on ground and high cylinder temps on take off. I used to fret about it while holding but there isn't a lot you can do other than aggressive leaning on the ground. I simply expedite TO as much as quickly as possible and once airborne I just lower the nose a bit, gain speed and sometimes reduce power a tad to get oil and cylinder temps under control. In 20 years I have replaced one cylinder due to a valve and one due to compression/oil consumption. The IO550A is simple, rugged and thirsty. I like the Altitude Compensating Fuel Pump (some here don't). As long as temperatures are in line I take off and climb wide open firewall forward Throttle/Prop/Mixture all the way to assigned altitude (KISS -Keep It Simple Stupid "Set and Forget"). At altitude I typically cruise at 2,400 RPM and then lean 75 degrees ROP. The standard Cont. injectors are well balanced w/ temps even. The starter adapter on the IO550 can be a problem but that is a Continental problem (not Missile specific). As I said previously I haven't found the need for speed brakes on the Missile although I am often in Bravo and Charlie. I can dirty up the Missile quickly, chopping power, pitching up, dropping gear and partial flaps. The gear mechanism is stout and for over 2 decades has always been reliable for the task. The IO550 is just fine if I pull throttle quickly.- Twenty years is a pretty good indicator although i am sure some here will disagree. You will not want to land on grass, gravel or dirt. The prop clearance is a weak point. The 3 blade Hartzell Scimitar is 75 inches vs the stock McCauley at 74 inches. You may think one (1) inch is immaterial but with the added weight of the IO550 and prop hanging farther out on the same 3 Lord Discs you get greater oscillation on rough surfaces or a poor landing. If you are on soft ground the nose gear will sink in due to the additional weight of the 550 and 3 blade prop. I can tell you from experience that one person cannot move the plane if that happens. There are several threads on MS of Missile owners refusing to park on grass or wrecking a prop on dirt/grass-Seth, Aug '19 destroyed prop in mud at OSK, FloridaMan, Apr '19 refused to park in grass at Sun n Fun. The full feathering Hartzell PHC-C3YF-2UF is great but rare. If you need parts, Hartzell may need to manufacture. This year I needed the lower half of the spinner (essentially a glorified aluminum salad bowl with a hole in the middle). It cost $2,000 and I had to wait 6 weeks for it to be manufactured. The full spinner 2 piece cone with brackets is $4,000 (none were available nationwide either at the time). The Rocket Eng exhaust is a weak point. It suffers from corrosion. I know one owner from Houston who lost the tail pipe in flight. My A&P found one shop that can repair/fab the exhaust and the product is better than Rocket. The greater weight and flex can lead to more fuel tank leakage. I fight that issue from time to time. Missile vs Ovation (R) I have no facts but looking at profiles it appears to me that Mooney changed the nose gear geometry on the TLS, Bravo, Ovation, Eagle and Acclaim to provide more prop clearance with the heavy big bores. Those planes, while sitting on their gear, look like they are at a greater angle of attack vs the J/K. Maybe someone can refute or confirm. Of course the Ovation has more space behind the back seats. -------------------------------------------------------------- All things considered I am happy with the Missile and am keeping as long as I can fly. I did the Missile conversion as a stepwise investment. Back in 1999-2000 I could not afford (or maybe more appropriately should say "could not justify") a 5-6 year old (1994) Ovation. If I were buying today I think I would buy a pre-2004 Ovation rather than a Missile - Long body supported by factory, more refined, better, CG, more space and I think better prop clearance and maybe air conditioning!! - and without the expensive disaster of the G1000 post 2004 (which may get fixed some day soon most likely for lots of $$$).

Appropriate screen name! Without flying a tight level box and averaging all 4 GPS speeds I take all performance claims with a healthy dose of of skepticism.

Actually you are both right....and your details are not mixed up. Rocket Engineering has done a couple other less successful turbine conversions. https://rocketengineering.com/rocket-engineering/ They did the TurbineAir - a 500shp PT-6 conversion on a Bonanza B36TC platform ( 6 place unpressurized !) http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=f01ce269-c074-4115-b533-71add7da2841 And the Royal Turbine- 2 PT-6s conversion on a Duke (pressurized 6 place!) https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/301-knots/ http://flycasey.com/royal-turbine-duke/

There is a lot of focus on the weight of the actual light bulb module in the tip of the rudder but I assume that you removed the old Whelen strobe power supply when you upgraded to LED. Doesn't that weigh about 2 lbs and is located somewhere in the tail at 150-180 inches of arm? If so that seems like a material change to your W&B which needs to be modified and signed by an A&P or avionics shop.

I am curious - what did you install that added 112.4 lbs? You said you repainted and added (upgraded ?) avionics above. Repainting should not add much if any weight since it is stripped first. Over the first 32 years of its life, your K-model had 2 avionics modifications that added 6.6 lbs. to the original weight from the Mooney factory. Most avionics modifications/retrofits/replacements today are lighter than the avionics they replace, even 20 year old equipment, and owners generally gain Useful Load. You have lost 112.4 lbs. of Useful Load leaving your plane with only 690 lbs. To add insult to injury you have now added another 19 lbs. of lead in the tail dropping your Useful Load to 671 lbs. With full 75 gallon tanks this is basically a single person plane with luggage. Maybe a 3 hour IFR flight with 2 adults (depending on size). If I did the W&B right the these numbers logged above mean that the average arm or location of this 112 lb. of installation(s) is at 25.2 in. arm. I think the datum line is the firewall just below the windshield so this "average" weight is centered roughly about in your lap. You mention in one response that you have a 3 blade prop and dual alternators. Were they just installed also? The prop would be a 15-20 lb penalty and the alternator about 25 lbs. That still leaves about 65-70 lbs of avionics net of what was ripped out. That seems like a lot. Is it possible that your A&P measured your weight wrong or has defective equipment? Did you really add 65-112 lbs. of new avionics net of the old equipment that was removed? If so did your avionics shop anticipate this issue and suggest remotely mounting some of the equipment in the tail next to the autopilot?

Also be careful on the rear MLG bracket/bearing if you have a J with serial number 763 and below. The early models also used a drive-in/press-in #3019 zerk fitting there. Newer models were screw-in. You can put enough pressure to blow them out. At that point you will be stuck having to use a grease gun needle with rubber tip.

Did you partially retract the gear while up on jacks? Just jacking up and releasing the vertical force does not always unload the joint especially if the clearances are really tight on that particular joint. I like to unload the overcenter springs and be able to wiggle the gear a bit if it is not taking grease.

Why would any owner deliver a plane and logs to a buyer-friendly A&P at a distant airport for pre-buy "annual"? A PPI makes obvious sense - it's only an inspection and an "opinion".... You can take it or leave it. You can fly your plane back to your home base. But you have "Buyers" here saying the pre-buy annual turned up 10-25 Airworthiness Issues in some cases. Let's say the Buyer's A&P claims an "non-airworthiness" corrosion issue. It may not be black and white - the extent or seriousness may be subject to debate by reputable A&P's. And the technique, extent and cost of the claimed "required repair" by the Buyer may also may be subject to debate by informed and reasonable parties. But you are not there to put your eyes and hands on it and neither is your A&P. If you disagree with the diagnosis, prognosis and/or demanded cost to repair then the deal is likely off. The buyer-friendly A&P buttons the plane up per the terms suggested by some above. And as required the A&P writes up your logs with the "annual" noting that the plane has non-airworthiness issues that were not repaired. Now you have a plane that is Not Airworthy at a distant airport. Your insurance is void and you will need a ferry permit to get it back. Brilliant negotiating position. I am sure it worked out well for the "Buyers" as noted above. Even if you do cave and agree to repairs you have no control over cost. If I were selling, the Buyer could conduct an "annual" on "his plane" once he owns it. If he wants to save money and combine the PPI with the Annual then the Buyer needs to agree to terms, buy and transfer title while the plane is apart with his "buyer-friendly" A&P. The Buyer can then pay for any repairs that he really thinks make economic sense.

Why?...Shouldn't every pilot be able to properly match pitch and power to the selected landing configuration in order to arrest rate of descent and control speed?...and do it in a stabilized manner without wildly racing the trim wheel up or down? What is so alarming or amazing about this video to a properly trained Mooney pilot?

No one has commented on cost. KLRDMD does no pre-buy inspection on purchased planes. gsxrpilot spends more than a week in the shop on the pre-buy inspection but thinks it's less than 40 hours. 1001001 offered to pay for 25 hours and Doc recommends 25-30 hours. With most A&P shop rates north of $100/hr in most med-large cities that means $2,500 - $4,000 for a thorough pre-buy...maybe more. Now if you are lucky enough to find a plane in your town with multiple local A&Ps that might be the extent of it. But 1001001 mentions a ferry permit to get the potential purchase to a preferred A&P for a pre-buy inspection. Potentially a lot of additional time, energy and cost if the plane is in another part of the country regardless if it has to come to you or you have to make multiple trips to it. Carusoam and 1001001 talk about rolling the pre-buy inspection into an annual while everything is still apart. Ideal if it is on your turf with your long term A&P...you can exercise some oversight and control. But if it's in another distant city with an A&P that knows he will never have your future business then there is the possibility that it will be a more "thorough" and costly pre-buy/annual than you ever imagined....but that might still be a good thing long term.

Well one thing I learned is NEVER give them more information than they request. Read the letters from the FAA very carefully. Answer strictly to the letter. For instance if they ask for: "A current history and clinical examination from your treating physcian... The report should address history and symptoms, diagnosis, treatment plan, etc... Include the results and any current testing deemed appropriate" That means the treating physician can comment on the results of any current testing that he deemed appropriate. That does not mean that you should send the results of those tests. For instance if you had an MRI or CT that does not mean you should send it and it does not mean you should send the radiologists report who read the images. Don't think you will be helpful if you provide more information than requested. If you send them then it will lead to more and more questions and time. If the FAA wants them they will specifically request them or direct your AME to request and review them.

If he winds up going the Special Issuance route, I recommend that he contact the office of the Regional Flight Surgeon. The FAA Medical Branch has panels and committees of AME's that regularly meet by specialty to discuss conditions, thresholds and potential rehabilitation related to disqualification and recertification. Ask the Regional Flight Surgeon if there is an AME on a panel specializing in blood cancers that might be nearby who would be willing to work him either directly or with his local AME on his case. Special Issuances take a lot of work which many local AME's either are not knowledgeable or not willing to make the effort. The Regional Flight Surgeon or an AME on one of the FAA Medical committees can help make your local AME knowledgeable on what it will exactly take for approval thereby streamlining the process for all involved. https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/rfs/aea/ Thirteen years ago I suffered a neurological condition requiring brain surgery. It automatically disqualified my medical. I worked with the Southwest Regional Flight Surgeon and a local Neurosurgeon AME that sits on a FAA Medical Branch committee specializing in my condition. I was able to get a Special Issuance after considerable work. I continue to see my AME annually and have to provide some paperwork to the FAA annually but it is not a burden. I remain Instrument Rated in a high performance and complex single and it has not affected the cost or my ability to obtain insurance (I am now age 65).

You don't mention the what happened to your EGT when you dialed in that fuelflow. I assume that EGT spiked to about 1525 F before the CHT rose to over 400.

When you say you “plugged in” 22”MP/2350RPM/15.7GPH FuelFlow are you saying that you adjusted mixture to achieve that fuel flow rather than adjusting for temperature either LOP or ROP?