Marc_B

The aspect of G100UL that gives me the most pause is how Mr. Braly regards Mooney construction. In his CA disclosure and comments here and on BT he paints the construction of Mooney wet wings, the patching of wet wings, and the age of wet wings all as striking and notable "defects" or "inadequacies." It paints the picture that he expects wet wings, and Mooneys in particular, to have increased frequency of issues with use of G100UL. We all know wet wings need maintenance and wet wings were never meant to be leak free for the entire lifetime of an airframe...but previously we were seeing anywhere from 20-30+ years routinely before major repair required. Mr. Braly also tries to paint a picture of "high toluene" 100LL has a similar aromatic package as G100UL and that's clearly not accurate as the aromatics are what leads to elastomer swell and G100UL leads to significant increase in elastomer swell compared to pump 100LL. As of now, he's never answered my question of the aromatic content of California G100UL, although I'm sure he has the DHA and could easily share that information if he chose to. Mr. Luvara's testing confirmed what was shown in California rollout and at least GAMI finally admits that G100UL causes paint damage with slow/unrecognized leaks. Paint isn't just cosmetic and I'm not sure this won't be an airworthiness issue if this is proven to be more widespread. Still a lot of questions for the fleet in general. I'm surprised that as an intermediate step the FAA didn't just decide that aircraft that can safely run Mogas (or 94UL) would be required to, and those that can't (due to compression ratio, turbocharging, need for higher octane) would be able to continue to use 100LL. This would have easily been feasible for the past several years on into 2030+. I guess the FAA thought that it would be better use of funds for high octane unleaded fuel research and development rather than funding ability to have widespread dual fuel (i.e. 100LL + 94UL/mogas) capability. Does anyone have data on what it would cost to outfit airports in US with Dual Fuel capability? Astronomical or even remotely feasible? Perhaps this could be similar to VOR Minimal Operational Network (MON), with some airports getting waivers to sell 100LL as sole source for a period of time (i.e. low volume fuel sales or remote facilities). Of course the above is an academic discussion as it's already been decided at a high level that 100LL IS going away.

When the T6 took off with sudden slow mo my first thought was engine cut out! ha ha Amazing to see how dainty some landing gear are, especially the tailwheel... Formation done well is so fun to watch and so hard for those who haven't done it to realize how much skill and training it takes to really make it look good!

Atmospheric pressure (PSI) decreases as altitude increases, with a drop of roughly 0.5 PSI for every 1,000 feet of elevation gain. wonder how that translates… 2 PSI at sea level then becomes 12 PSI at FL200? I suspect it’s not that cut and dry as it’s much colder too, so I suspect that somewhat blunts the change as well. Never thought of the change in tire pressure but I guess that would be similar?

For comparison if I’m looking at this right? 200 mmHg = 3.87 PSI. So I suspect the pressures generated by an inflatable seal are likely in the 1-3 PSI range.

https://www.line2ems.com/collections/new-diagnostics/products/blood-pressure-cuff-kit-5-replacement-gauge How easy would it be to put something like this on an inflatable seal? Looks like it would just be a simple change of the bulb maybe?

I think this is Guy’s point about the difference between doors made for a pressurized seal and those that aren’t. Pressurized aircraft have metal clamps around the frame to take the increased pressure. It’s not the concern that the seal will have issues but that the increased expansion creates forces on structures that may not have been designed for it. I’m not saying that Fields seal are likely to generate excessive forces or not. I’ve also not seen anyone who has said an inflatable seal has damaged their Mooney. So I suspect this is likely overblown (pun intended). But it would still be interesting to see how the pressure varies in use, at altitude when inflated at sea level, and from aircraft to aircraft. With the door closed I’d imagine you’d be hard pressed to rupture a seal. However this is why you have to deflate before opening your door. Unconstrained the pressure drastically changes the size of the seal.

No more than a BP cuff (sphygmomanometer) controls the pressure of the cuff...i.e. when a person is hypertensive that cuff gets TIGHT and lots of people complain that it's hurting (i.e. when BP 212 systolic). That bulb can easily crank up the pressure. I think what happens is the pressure equilibrates inside the seal...so as you increase the pressure, the seal expands in places that have a large gap and the places with a smaller gap stays the same... BUT...if the seal isn't properly applied, then the pressure required to get the seal in that area to the size needed to "fill the gap" may be higher than the pressure needed otherwise. I think that over-inflation starts to put more pressure on the hinge, top latch and pin. So the bigger the gap on the bottom means the higher the pressure needed to fill that void. Would be interesting to have a gauge on all the Fields door seals and see how variable (or not) that minimum pressure to make a good seal is.

BTW, I can "push out" on the bottom of a door and there's enough flex/give in the lower part of the door that you can alter the way the seal mates with the frame. The bottom has the most give and seems to be the most "sensitive" to seal placement.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think the statement above reflects the difficulty with getting a solid seal all the way around a Mooney door. But the comparison in 1) prior to inflation and 2) after inflation is what made me decide NOT to go with the Fields seal. If there is THAT big of a difference in when the seal is inflated and when it isn't...that can't be a "pro." i.e. worried about water ingress in the field tied down on the ramp and forgetting to inflate partially or the seal/valve leaking down, or flying in rain and forgetting to pump up all the way or having inflation decrease at altitude, etc. Would be a better comparison to have head to head comparisons of inflated Fields seals, properly applied GeeBee Seal, properly applied Mooney seal. Herein lies the rub...what would the be? dB comparison of dramatically different aircraft?? I think it'd be difficult to get an accurate objective measure of this. My hypothesis is that the difference between an inflated Fields seal isn't that different from another PROPERLY sealing door seal. (is this true??) I suspect the difficulty is in getting a regular seal properly set to seal completely all the way around. My thought is that inflation just allows more "wiggle room" with suboptimal placement coupled with a variable gap that exists in each Mooney door as no two doors fit the exact same.

Does anyone know the history of Mooney’s choice to not have a pin, catch or latch on the bottom of the door? It always strikes me as the “weak link” of the door. Hinge on forward edge, clasp on top, pin on aft edge but nothing on the bottom. It also strikes me that this is why it’s the most difficult part of the door to get a good seal, plus it has the largest “gap” / space between the frame and the door along the bottom. I’d wager that we people have leaks this is probably maybe 75% or more of the location?!? My impression is that Bob Fields seal is liked by those who use it as it allows “fine tuning” of the size of the seal in problematic locations. The problem is that it doesn’t have a pressure relief valve so you could potentially overinflate trying to accommodate poor seal placement

So I try not plugging in my battery minder to “get with the guidelines” and I left an interior light in and bricked my battery! Geez. Not a fan of the new recommendation. Ha ha ha. Darn it!

Congrats! Next step, get your instrument rating in your Mooney! Great addition to travel and safety. There’s a great Mooney crew in Colorado. Hit us up sometime when you’re in Loveland.

@exM20K Check out your IPC something like 52-30-00. I believe both are clevis pins with washers and a cotter pins. You have to take off the interior panel cover on the door and it’s obvious. I haven’t taken off the frame side before, but I believe it’s similar.

This wasn't my experience and I've reached out to Guy for several things including baffle seals and both doors. But every Mooney door has it's own profile and quirks. There is no "universal" way to place the seal so there is a lot of looking to see how the seal fits properly and a little trial and error. There's also been two iterations of the GeeBee door seal and I think the early one was stiffer and made the door harder to close. Take a look at my pirep and recommendations in the thread I linked. I'm in the camp that no seal is 100% due to the fit of the Mooney door and lack of a bottom pin or latch...but the newer GeeBee profile is much better than my old one and really wasn't bad...just took a couple days. Ideally this is a summer project so that he heat allows the seal to cure quickly.

I installed he GeeBee door seals and when I was done I wasn't sure why I was so intimidated previously. Took elbow grease to remove the old seals and properly clean the area. DON'T use gorilla snot adhesive on silicone seals...use the stuff that GeeBee includes with the seals. It's so much better anyways and it's clear. Comes out looking very professional and easy to apply. Handful of pictures and pireps if you look for them... My recommendations and process here: More information about seals and tidbits here.

Was reading an article about valve lapping and replacing the rotocoils, and it made me wonder if there was a typical replacement interval recommendation for this or if this is just "on condition"? Certainly understand if you have early signs of valve asymmetry or a drop in compression that's repeatable, then it may make sense to lap the valve in place and replace the rotocoil. But if your valves look good and your compressions look good...would there be an hour interval that you'd think a routine replacement of rotocoils would decrease chance of future cylinder/valve issues? If you replace one rotocoil (due to issues) do you typically replace them all? If you have one cylinder that needs replacement, do you also replace the rotocoils on the other cylinders?

@kortopates I certainly understand that conventional oil suspends lead better than synthetic. But I'm always curious if the oil change interval is 25-35 hours, how much saturation would be reached in semi-synthetic scavenging by that time? When I purchased my aircraft I picked up at Top Gun in Stockton and asked Mark Rouch if I should switch to Phillips XC + camguard and he said no. Sounds like I'm another engine that's only been run with Aeroshell after breakin as is @Max Clark above. My guess is if you fly frequently and change your oil every 25 hours, it probably matters much less which oil you use... But if you don't fly frequently and change oil infrequently, then it becomes more and more important to "optimize" every little quirk (i.e. add camguard, only use conventional oil, etc.). It also makes sense that a recommendation to use XC20W50 would come with a recommendation for Camguard as Philips doesn't have the corrosion inhibitor additives like Aeroshell does. I think that was also confirmed by AviationConsumer that Aeroshell 15W50 had much better corrosion prevention testing than Phillips XC20W50. I think Aeroshell was also a better lubricant than Phillips. Probably Phillips + Camguard gets at least similar (or better) corrosion prevention to Aeroshell with more conventional oil and potentially better lead scavenging? I'm curious if Savvy makes a distinction of turbocharged vs NA with that recommendation. I'm also curious if this recommendation against Aeroshell is based on testing vs just a general recommendation against synthetic oil use with leaded fuel? (certainly aware of fully synthetic issues with engine damage/sludging) So my perception is that for aircraft that don't fly frequently Phillips XC20W50 PLUS Camguard may give the "optimized" defense against sludging and corrosion. FWIW, I always change my oil based on hrs flown and fly enough that this is never more than 2-3 months between changes. Typically see a change in color of the oil (progressive darkening around the ~15-20 hour mark.

https://aviationconsumer.com/uncategorized/14-day-oil-shootout/ Things go back and forth. The two seeming truths are change oil frequently and don’t let the aircraft sit idle. FWIW I use aeroshell 15w50.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you could use the aerox mask with the O2D2, but the tubing connections are different. Also some aerox masks have an oxygen reservoir bag and are designed for continuous flow. The pulse demand may not have enough volume to work with the reservoir bag. Has anyone actually done this and can confirm what was required?

@Fix When I bought mine at Osh the recommendation was in general default to Medium. If you have a very large face go up to large. Edit: If you look on Mountain High's website they also have a sizing chart that may help.

I don't think enough training goes into moving from the pilot side to a copilot or pax gracefully. It's NOT an age, but defined by so many other more nuanced decisions. I'd imagine that its usually never easy, so many step aside way too soon or way too late. Just remember that just because you pass the keys, you still have WAY more to give to the aviation community and all the Mooney fellowship you've met along the way! I hope you're still able to get up routinely in the air with friends, family and Mooney brothers & sisters!

You can special order these from Aircraft Spruce but minimum order is 10. By the time you factor in shipping and special order price they come out to just under $70 each.

Mooney PN Dial Face Rochester PN 880024-001 5-1215 5404S01215 880024-003 5-1932 5404S01932 880024-005 5-2105 5404S02105 880024-007 5-02512 5404S02512 880024-009 5-2100 5404S02100

@Will.iam you’ve got to love the tailwinds!! I’ve never used the Inogen, but I do have O2D2 and their masks. For me up at FL230 I was 98% on O2D2 F1 mode (first face mask mode). With the boom cannula at FL180 I’m at 93% on D10 mode (normal cannula mode that turns on above 10k) and 98-99% on F1 mode. For me the cannula pulse regular mode sees a slight drop around 16K but turning it up to face mask mode remedies that. However I’ve flown with a friend and tried a cannula in flight levels and it doesn’t work due to entraining more low partial pressure air in the flight levels even with concentrated effort it’s only 91-92…but I’m sure I’m hyperventilating and my CO2 is much lower with that. The mask does such a great job of acting as a reservoir and keeping out low partial pressure air I’ve never needed to go above F1 mode.

@TheStigThe base you’re looking for is 10-900-85 I believe. Looks like Lasar might have some. https://lasar.com/pitot-static-system/static-wick-base-10-900-85