A64Pilot

I have seen more than one R-1340 that will stick exh valves unless MMO is added to the fuel. Having said that I don’t run any additives in my airplane. Unless things have changed MMO is not approved, but it’s been widely used for decades, probably before I was born. Who formulated it and what it was formulated for is an interesting story. https://marvelmysteryoil.com/pages/our-story I have heard but do not know that’s it has changed ownership and they changed the formulation, I don’t know if any of that is true. It does keep my air tools clean and I think lubricated.

I guess the guy in the video crashed and died right, must have There are limits to everything, I never land beyond the first 1/3 of the runway, usually much less, so I have thousands of feet left. Add power if it’s not smooth and accelerating you’re going to land anyway, if you stall and crash it wasn’t the prop or engine, it was you. Not much can happen to an engine and prop to make the flight controls inoperative. Of course I hope to never land gear up, but concede it could happen to anyone that’s been studied and proven decades ago. However if I almost do and by instinct pull up and add power and she’s accelerating, I’m likely not to chop to idle and let it settle onto the runway. I like to think I’d drop gear and land in the last 1/3, but who knows maybe I would go around Face it, that wasn’t planned, nobody thinks that fast, instinct got him away from the runway and yes he made the decision to continue. I think it likely that he was one in a hundred anyway, I think it’s very unlikely for my reactions to be so fast that I could pull that off, I bet 99 out of 100 people are sliding down the runway prop stopped wondering what happened

I disagree for many reasons, but it all depends on condition and price and we can’t tell any of that on the internet, sure worth a look I think 1. Compression is no big deal, worst case it needs cylinders, my bet is it won’t, but use it as a bargaining point on price, can even be a good thing, because you might get a good deal and odds are they will be fine with some flying, a borescope will tell the tale. 2. Low hours flown, usually low time airplanes sell for more, but the add for me is always hangared, many airplanes aren’t and I believe sitting outside in the Wx is a killer. 3. Prop strike is another not a big deal, actually I think it’s a value add, because he now has an engine that has been overhauled, but prop strike inspections often add years and hundreds of hours to the life of an engine due to all the wear parts that are replaced. Old Avionics? From 98? For most of us that’s not old, but the potential buyer has said he wants to pick his Avionics anyway so no big deal Finally how many 98 Model Mooney’s are for sale? Depending on condition and price this could be a heck of a buy, the interior and paint for instance if truly always hangared ought to be pretty close to pristine. I’d take nearly pristine factory paint myself over even a new paint job because paint stripper is hard on the airframe.

You have had some good answers already. I’ll tell you what I do on most Annuals now, but of course this is what I do, I’m not saying it’s what should be done by others, but I believe each aircraft and the conditions and frequency it’s operated and stored in should be taken into consideration. Realize my Annuals I do are for older Retired guys with Champs, Cubs and the like, not fire breathing twin turbo complex aircraft that fly in the flight levels and fly hundreds of hours a year, none fly 100. They also almost never spend a night outside or in the rain. The problem as I see it is there is an attempt to cover every aircraft flown in every environment under every condition with one yearly inspection, then add in the most conservative response is to do it and we see why wheels are pulled on aircraft that fly less than 50 hours a year and have never been rained on. The FAA relies and gives mechanics the ability to use their experience to adjust the scope of an inspection, but not the frequency. I jack up the wheel, check for radial and axial play, spin it, check for noise and smoothness, in my opinion I have inspected the bearings. Fuel injectors, comply with the AD of course, check for condition and security, leaks and if operation is normal I don’t remove them. I do clean, inspect and repack bearings if the wheels are removed like for example tire replacements. If aircraft wheels were sealed as well as automobiles are then we could not bother but they aren’t, if water ever gets to the axle for example, they need to be repacked. I do check engine oil filters / screens and we usually change the oil, but if it was changed last month and 5 hours ago I recommend we don’t. Compression test, borescope, check / adjust timing. Rarely bead blast plugs, I’m of the dig the carbon / lead out and don’t blast myself. I do check resistance. Condition and security of everything else. I do require checking of all flight and engine control ends as in every bell crank pulley etc, run a Cossosion-X soaked rag over every inch of control cables looking for meat hooks, pulleys for wear / play etc. Gascolators are just too easy not to do, and occasionally I find evidence of deteriorating fuel lines, looks like black granular bits. I think that’s often what clogs injectors (opinion) Owner does all of the manual work, cleaning, and usually if we have to pull mags etc they do so under my supervision, now not all are at the level I’m comfortable with, for those I do the technical stuff myself. For that I charge $300 and I approach Annuals as a teaching event for the owner. Not that I want or expect them to do more than they should unsupervised but I think it helps understand how things work if you took it apart and put it back together yourself. Those that own and fly twin Comanche’s, Bonanza’s and the like there are local Professional shops that usually specialize in a Type that I recommend for them.

I’ve said that so many times here for many to decry that I don’t know what I’m talking about etc that I’ve stopped. An Annual is not a maintenance activity or servicing, it’s an Inspection activity, it’s in the name. Sure there can be excellent pre-buys, however there is no definition of a pre-buy, as far as the FAA is concerned there is no such thing. There is no list of things that must be inspected. A Pre-buy can be a pre-flight or a nearly complete tear down, if you insist on a Pre-buy for God’s sake have a written contract where every inspection you want performed is listed and signed off with results noted. I won’t perform a Pre-buy myself without the purchaser participating, but I’m Retired and not having to make a living turning wrenches. However the Annual is defined, it has a min performance requirement etc. Any IA that’s not a fool treats an Annual seriously as their Professional License is on the line, pre-buy they may have the new kid do because they are busy and the purchaser wants it done now, who knows? Any decent mechanic if conducting a pre buy can tell you on day one if you ought to give this airplane a pass or it’s most probably a good one. If they say it’s most likely a good one, then in my opinion you turn that pre-buy into an Annual, which of course takes an IA. If they tell you they keep running into sloppy maintenance and unairworthy items, then let it pass. Ideally you want the person who you intend to care for the airplane to conduct the pre-buy / Annual. That way they have skin in the game. There have been many posts in this forum that I have read that talk about the serious issues found on the first Annual, that were missed on the pre-buy. Most mechanics take an Annual more seriously, because it’s legally defined and has a list of items that must be inspected. They can get into trouble with an Annual, but not a pre-buy. I’m not sure why but apparently an annual for many people has turned into a major maintenance activity where there is a lot of services performed, instead of the inspection activity it’s supposed to be, maybe it’s to increase revenue, or more likely it’s because the owner wants to get all that over with at one time, rather than performing such servicing themselves as preventative maintenance. Most pilots I guess will not even change oil, some shouldn’t.

This, So far as worrying about pulling jugs, it’s been done frequently for way over 60 years, a qualified knowledgeable mechanic won’t screw up, plus you have new jugs, so it’s pull one, replace it. Sure someone who isn’t can cause problems, so use a good engine shop or be darn sure the A&P is good, don’t go to someone your not sure about. The problem comes when the jugs are off, without the studs being retorqued and the aircraft sits for quite awhile while the jugs are being overhauled etc and someone moves the prop. Or possibly an unknowing mechanic rotates the engine with cylinders off to position it to remove pistons on the other cylinders. Simply relaxing the torque and retorqueing without turning the prop won’t cause any issues, the bearings won’t move unless the crank is turned. I would however have a good engine shop rework the valves and possibly guides though, maybe even port and polish them. I’d call Gann Aviation and ask if he would. Conti was notorious for sloppy valve guides as in very poor finish, don’t know if that’s old news or not, maybe they fixed that long ago. So far as treating just the offending cylinder, it works for some, but also some end up spending way more money in the long run and buying lots more down time having the airplane in the shop to replace the next jug that goes bad, the one after that etc. Sure sometimes a jug goes bad and the other 5 are pristine, but more often I think one goes bad and the rest are not too far behind, if you flew infrequently and not that many hours per year, maybe one at a time is the way, but if you fly a lot and don’t want to eat down time, I think removing cylinders as a problem for several years may be a better bet.

It wouldn’t fly if it did. You didn’t read my post apparently, it’s not so much save the insurance company, it’s save the airplane. That engine stopped running when the prop quit turning.

I’d go around just like he did. What am I saving? Very likely the aircraft, odds are very good the insured value, if even fully insured of a 1963 Mooney could well be less than the cost to repair. Gear it up and I think it’s going to the scrap yard and one less Mooney in the world. Remember if your insured for say 100K, they won’t pay 100K to fix it, they will pay 100 minus the salvage value, which I’m unsure what that is but have heard 20%, but that’s hear say so it may be not even close. I think it unlikely a 63 model would be insured that high but don’t have any idea what the average 63 sells for. If it wasn’t fully insured, I could fix that aircraft for the cost of a used serviceable prop, and whatever the gear on the back of the crank cost, I think that’s the one anyway. I bet there are some around from people “upgrading” to a three blade. I’ve inspected several engines after a prop strike, yet to condemn one and can’t really imagine if still running that it won’t stay that way. Is there a risk? Sure, but I’d take it as I think it pretty small.

At that age of aircraft it’s likely most will have some issues, most anything can be fixed so of course the consideration is cost. Corrosion is the exception, there are I’m sure several aircraft that have enough corrosion to make them uneconomical to repair, that should I think be your major concern. You really, really want the pedal extensions. I’m 5’10” and installed the 3” to get my knees from hitting the nose gear enclosure, and I think it put me right where I want to be yoke position wise. I’d suspect with the seat full forward and a cushion behind your back it might be difficult to get the yoke full back for landing etc. My original rollers were Phenolic, I believe they wear the aluminum as evidenced by the surface was covered by aluminum oxide, plus as they wear down the steel part of the seat frame scrapes the rails and wears them. It’s my opinion that the softer nylon won’t cause as much wear, but they may not last as long as the phenolic. Something has to wear, I’d rather that be the rollers than the rails myself. I think maybe keeping them clean and free of sand etc might also help.

Probably any of the above would help. I think it’s more likely corrosion than current discharge causing the problem. DC-4 I think, it’s clean and doesn’t make a mess like some do, it’s called light bulb grease because many put it on trailer tail light bulbs to prevent corrosion when backing the trailer into water, especially salt water. Helicopters build so much static because the rotor system speed is in the hundreds of kts even with the machine at a hover. I have never seen static issues in small GA aircraft, but then I only have a few thousand hours myself. I suspect Mooney put them on for marketing as much as anything, lots of things are done primarily for appearance reasons and not performance

I watched the video, they are obviously building an Experimental aircraft. That doesn’t do anything towards a Cert aircraft, nor Certification. What is that engine? I applaud their work, I’d love a Helio Courier myself, looked hard at one before buying the Maule, but the engine and I believe a wing AD sealed the deal. There are a very few Turbine ones out there, the Helio Stallion. It uses Thrush Exhaust, an owner in South Carolina owes me a ride for repairing his exhaust. I should have flown up there for the ride. Stallion was a bigger aircraft, think of it as a better looking Pilatus Porter.

I didn’t watch the video, but without a Production Certificate you can’t produce an airplane and sell it to the general public. I’m nearly certain that you can’t produce anything, even parts. A PMA would give you parts, but you would be unable to assemble them into an airplane. A PC would be enormously expensive to obtain and I’m sure take years to get. As far as I know Cirrus is the only one to do it in recent past. There may be others that I’m unaware of. However you can buy a PC along with the factory and start producing airplanes tomorrow if you have the required people, QC, DMIR’s etc. The PC is the only real value in Mooney, TC’s especially if they don’t have all the tooling etc don’t have much value. Assumption is all the drawings are kept by the TC holder, without drawings you really don’t have anything, just something you can frame and hang on the wall. If you own the TC, you have the “right” to do anything, having the right and the ability to pay for Certification are two completely different things.

Your not going to hurt the engine, I don’t know about you, but if I’m letting down from altitude at 500’ a min at cruise (23 squared) cowl flaps closed, LOP I have a hard time keeping the Cyl head temp in the green, in Florida in Summer. I often enrichen to add some warmth. When your near the bottom of the green temp wise shock cooling isn’t an issue But I’m a J model, not a Bravo. I depends on what you consider important I guess, to me I’m going to baby the gear. In truth I try to Baby the whole airplane, I’m just not one to run the guts out of it. Some are and that’s fine, I get the “I didn’t buy a Mooney to go slow” You don’t have to slow all the way to flap speed, but I can assure you as an old time A&P that if you don’t treat Maximum permissible gear speed as the normal gear speed pretty much everything in the gear will last longer. Surely none of us run the cyl head temp to redline in every climb do we? Why not, your allowed. I’ve watched time and again people hold that gear switch waiting for the instant they slow to max to drop the gear, many, heck I bet most do, I think they were taught that way.

In my opinion I don’t think anyone is going to worry about whether a non critical interior part came from Mooney, is otherwise approved or not. Think the Kool air scoop that goes in my ice window is STC’d or otherwise approved? I would hope not. Yes I know Rosen STC’d their visors, but surely that was some kind of marketing ploy?

There is a push, most likely substantiated by statics to rely more heavily on automation, automation when it works is often safer than a person. The stats for instance have been showing that automation is safer, for instance Tesla Full Self Driving is five times less likely to have an accident than hand driving and a Tesla due to the other automation is half as likely to have an accident than the average US car. https://www.torquenews.com/14335/tesla-fsd-releases-safety-data-5x-safer-normal-driving Having said that I still think it’s important to be competent driving myself and while I haven’t tracked ours yet, I’d like to just to find it’s and my limits, because whike I use FSD extensively, I don’t trust it. I don’t know anything about a Cirrus, never flown one, perhaps their Autopilot system is so well integrated and new, modern etc that it has an extreme reliability, but it’s my experience that systems in our older aircraft aren’t, very often it’s installation or other issues not directly related to the Autopilot hardware, I do know that broken or unreliable Autopilots are pretty common. Most don’t trust Vacuum pumps, I don’t although I’ve yet to have one let me down. I had a Pesco pump on the Maule and an electric standby attitude indicator. Maybe if there was a backup for the Autopilot I’d be far more likely to trust one, but so far as I know there isn’t.

IF there is oil in the intake, she will smoke on engine start, look for that.

I hear people who say “I’d never fly IFR without an Autopilot” and I think what fools, what their plan when it fails? Because one day it will. It’s all proficiency based, I used to fly my Maule without an Autopilot and a Maule isn’t a good IFR platform without issue often to ILS minimums. But I flew real IFR a LOT, now I won’t fly IFR anymore because I’m not going to put the work into it that’s required to gain and maintain proficiency, plus I don’t do the cross country like I used to that demanded IFR. My belief is if you have an Autopilot you need to fly without it often enough that your comfortable hand flying. I fear many can’t they never really trained without one.

People who were taught in and fly “modern” aircraft really have no idea how to use the rudder, because you don’t really need to much, aileron to rudder interconnects are responsible for a lot of that. Worst I’ve ever seen was an F-16 driver trying to fly a crop duster, it ate his lunch. A Maule would have been worse as it has a lot of adverse yaw. Getting some tailwheel training will teach you what your feet are for, is fun and probably not that expensive. I thought having thousands of hours flying a tail wheel helicopter would mean that the transition would be easy, I was wrong.

We tested every wing tank at Thrush after manufacture of course. We used a home made water manometer connected to the vent line and the air pressure line to the fuel inlet. Advantage of homemade water manometer is it was just a clear plastic tube in a U shape filled with colored water and a ruler on one side. If you accidentally applied more pressure than you wanted it would just blow the water out and of course the air would then free flow, you couldn’t bust a tank. Many home builders here use a balloon, idea being too much pressure will blow up the balloon. Balloons are cheap and easy. Not as precise of course. The home made water manometer was so precise that you would see pressure build as the morning warmed up by just a couple of degrees. When we built the Military aircraft with hard points that penetrated the tanks we had more leaks, we switched to testing with helium as helium is a smaller molecule and will leak more than air. Ask NASA how hard it is to keep helium from leaking, Boeing anyway.

A few comments First be extraordinarily careful doing a pressure test, Gulfstream used to have a G-550 I think it was behind a curtain in their completion center, a mechanic made a mistake pressure testing a wing and ruined the wing. The area of a fuel tank is huge, even just a tiny pressure over such a large are is enormous force Second I’m convinced that fuel when warm will hold in suspension quite a lot of water, then this water can come out of suspension at altitude and cause problems, but it wasn’t there on the ground. Military before we could refuel the truck had to do an “Aqua Glo” test, if the water was above the threshold, they had to recirculate the fuel through the filter that was water absorbing, it would absorb water that was dissolved in the fuel until it was below the max acceptance point. I don’t think that’s done in the civilian world? Lastly My C-140’s factory fuel vents are two 1/8 holes in the fuel caps, of course rain will get water in the tanks so you must cover them. Two problems, cover must stay on in the wind and being on top of the wing it’s possible you may forget them. My answer was to buy two cheap red rubber toilet plungers, unscrew the handle and simply place them onto the top of the caps, they are heavy enough the wind won’t blow them off and if you forget them, being rubber they won’t hurt the tail etc when they fall off on takeoff. These things, cheap and easy

Not really, you think you can but ask anyone who has been through basic training if they have ever been that motivated in the civilian world, for me WOC “Warrant Officer Candidate” training made basic look easy. Air Force and Army “real” Officers it’s a lot more laid back. But the biggest difference I think is in the Military and I assume Commercial world, it’s your Job, the thing that you have to do well in as it brings home the bacon, buys shoes for the Baby etc. Then add in that you get up in the morning thinking flying, majority of the day is consumed by it and nights are spent studying and memorizing everything about it and the aircraft. There is just no way anyone with a real job could possibly put that number of hours per week into training, not and have a job anyway or actually a family really. There is no change the mindset when you get to the airport. The entirety of your life if you will is flying and training. I was Married and had a kid, but did not live with them, I lived in a Military Barracks, at some point I was allowed to go home on the weekends I think as long as training was going well, but I don’t remember when that was.

I was Military trained as well, but we cannot compare Military training to GA civilian training. It’s not so much that the Military pilots are “better” they are most often younger and much more highly motivated and those arguably make them more trainable. It’s their Job, no other distractions, my training was classroom training half the day and the flightline the other half, if we had a weather day, we flew the weekends to make it up. Civilians have a job that’s primary usually, they train and fly when they can, maybe a couple of times a week, plus their instructor is their employee, if they don’t like them they can get another, you take a checkride when you and your instructor feel your ready. Military isn’t like that, you checkride upon reaching the syllabus hours, fail just one and as a min you don’t graduate at the top of your class which means you don’t pick the aircraft you fly as a min. fail a couple and your out, in my case that meant staying a Sgt and back to being a mechanic, not the end of the world, but certainly the end of the dream, part of the motivation. So most civilian it’s a hobby, paid for by that job that they spend a min of 40 hours a week at so they can afford to fly. Military it is their job, so they can spend every day, all day training.

I got my fixed wing transition and Commercial / instrument at Central Tx College in Killeen Tx, as it was a degree producing program it made it easier for me to do while active duty. Anyway the purpose of that school was to produce Airline Pilots not Mooney drivers. According to them most or nearly all Airline type aircraft get approach flaps, not gear first, so therefore they required flaps first, then gear, which means of course you had to slow to 111 kts, put in approach flaps, then get gear. It’s easy to do if you plan it, but you have to plan ahead, you’re not making the approach if you hit glide slope intercept at 130 kts for instance. I have zero experience with the big iron, but bet they are similar I bet they have to start slowing well before the approach. I’m also convinced that at least for the aircraft with lower gear doors that slowing before dropping the gear is easier on the actuator and the mechanism, as is retracting it at as slow an airspeed that is safe to do so.

I think it was me, but her job is not to ask, but to make sure, Verify gear down is I think an important distinction from gear down and I have her verify by looking at the floor, then she gives me a thumbs up, of course I’m checking too, but her doing also makes I think it less likely that both of us forget. Obviously I often fly without her, Wednesday lunch for instance so you can’t rely on the other person. I also installed a daylight white LED in the floor indicator that’s a lot brighter than the incandescent so it’s really easy to see the marks, with the old bulb in daylight it was difficult at best. To continue everything stops when I get the gear, by that I mean I do nothing, checklist stops until I verify they are down, flipping the switch for many satisfies mentally the requirement, but i’ve changed that to verify gear down as opposed to gear down in the checklist. May seem picky but I know the day is coming when I put the switch down and nothing happens

Your one of those guys that thinks their car gets better milage at 80 mph than 55 aren’t you? I’m just teasing but I’ve run into many that believe that. I wish you were correct, but your not, unless your so slow your in the region of reversed command any additional speed of course requires more power which requires more fuel and the fuel required exceeds the speed increase percent wise, so the MPG goes down. Unfortunately you can’t increase fuel flow by say 20% and go more than 20% faster, I just pulled 20 out of the air, use any number. I know what your thinking, that there is an efficiency point where the the fuel required to make horsepower has a peak, that is a point that the engine is operating at its greatest BSFC and your correct, there is, but unfortunately that small increase in efficiency is more than wiped out by the larger increase in drag from going faster. I have no idea at what RPM our motors peak at BSFC wise but suspect due to frictional losses it’s lower than 2500, add in of course prop efficiency and it’s peak is definitely lower than 2500. I don’t have an RPM number but suspect it may be the bottom of the green. Turbines are often different, they are so inefficient at partial power that sometimes going faster will increase range because they are so much more efficient at higher power, but piston engines aren’t that way.