Marc_B

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/november/15/checking-the-dipstick Engines are certified to be operational with half the oil capacity. There is a sweet spot where your engine isn’t spitting out oil on the belly and your oil “consumption” actually reflects the oil consumed rather than oil ejected on the belly. The time that I actually keep higher than that is on long cross country trip where I utilize the heat capacity of an extra quart of oil for cooling. Regarding drop in oil readings after shut down from preflight…there is so much oil slung around the inside of the engine, throughout the hoses, oil cooler…more accurate reading is taken at preflight. I find my oil consumption most stable between 5.5-6.5 qts. So I typically aim for 6. Long cross country I’ll up to 7 qts. (Conti TSIO360SB2, sump 8 qts)

@donkaye I've had the same curiosity as to when I'll be up for replacing them...at failure or prophylactically? I guess you know it's time when it's time! I had to do a double take as 5 years from 2019 was this year. But the SB was 5 years from the date of the bulletin (5/4/2023). Five years in service on a set of servos in the affected range sounds like a good run. I think that a lot of pilots may be playing the same game of waiting until failure to replace vs just getting them replaced as there is a significant difference in the warranty time pre and post replacement (warranty good thru 5/4/2028 vs good for 6 more months). But it's good to hear feedback on what failed, when and if it was a significant issues with flight! https://support.garmin.com/en-US/aviation/faq/yG9YhFImtt8XiNr8uLLUA6/

Understand high altitude misfire with magnetos...But inside the magneto is different environment than at the cap. I don't think the recommendation was for pressurizing the EIS, but rather the harness cap alone.

I gather the general gist is that flying though clear air at Mooney speeds is unlikely to generate a lot of static. However, flying though snow or dust storm is much more likely to cause issues. Clouds and rain seems like a middle ground. Static wicks might also help in the unlikely event of lightning strike. But they're priced so that if you have them you might go ahead and keep them. But if you don't have them, then you probably aren't going to add them. I have a M20K 25-2008 that has 3 on each control surface. Over time the threaded rod corrodes and when they break it's usually at the rod instead of the wick, so the entire base has to be replaced since it's a problem to try to drill and tap a base to replace the threaded rod...the wicks come with a female end.

I believe they are mostly #6 and #4 screws and some have finishing washers. But they're cheap enough that you could order 50 of each length that you think you might need. Some of the smaller ones around trim are the shorter ones. Some of the overhead are longer ones. If you're just replacing ones with marred heads, it should hopefully be easy to see which ones you need... But caveat...these are the screws that I used for my M20K...I'm not sure if they are the same for the M20C, but figured it's at least a good place to start. What does your IPC show for PN's? Part# 04-03898 39104C FINISHING WASHER Part# 04-03899 WASHER NAS391B6P / 601-6 39106C Part# T4X6 4X3/8-A-TR-PH-SS SHT MET SCREW Part# 04-00166 4X3/8-B-TR-PH-SS TAPPING SCREW Part# O6X8 6X1/2-A-OV-PH-SS OVAL SS SCREW Part# O6X12 6X3/4-A-OV-PH-SS OVAL SS SCREW Part# O6X16 6X1-A-OV-PH-SS OVAL SS SCREW

Recently was talking to fellow turbo Mooney pilots installing Surefly units and evidently there is some discussion of the possibility of a high altitude arcing/misfire in the ignition harness cap... Supposedly there may be cases in Cirrus aircraft with an EIS installed of arcing in the cap. I've not heard of this before and I've only found a single thread here on MS regarding this. In speaking with Surefly, they mentioned using a high-altitude ignition harness, drilling a hole in the cap and attaching to upper deck pressure line from previous mag, or both to help prevent this. I'm curious how frequently this is an issue and at what altitudes it has been documented? I also couldn't find any information documenting Cirrus issues with this, but my understanding is that is where this was first mentioned/seen? Any direct experience with this or a solution looking for a problem?

@kortopates I sent an email to Surefly and their response was a recommendation to pressurize cap... FWIW I've not been aware of any issues at altitude and have flown routinely in the high teens and low FL's since having the Surefly installed in April 2023. Sounds like Jim Barker is a Cirrus mechanic and they were running into some issues with Surefly in turbo Cirrus applications flown routinely in the FLs. hmmm. "Hello Marc, we have found that when an aircraft is operated at higher altitudes with standard harnesses arcing in the cap can occur due to separation in the wire insulation of the leads at those lower atmospheric pressures. We have since been recommending either a high altitude harness or a pressurized cap or both. A high altitude harness can be manufactured for you by Alan Woods at Champion Aerospace. His e-mail is alanwoods@champaero.com 864-843-7801. And a pressurizing kit can be acquired from Jim Barker of Aviation Resources. His contact info is jim@aviationvibes.com 715-822-5787."

Thanks Paul. That was my first thought as well. Avoiding needing to pressurize the mag for a turbo Mooney is one of the great selling points for EIS in my book!

Reviving this thread to see if there's been any updates? I installed a Surefly with a Maggie harness a year ago at annual and have been up to FL's from time to time and have not experienced any misfires. My shop didn't offer to pressurize the cap and just removed the upper deck pressure line and the T that went to the previous mag it replaced. But I was talking to a fellow M20K pilot the other day who mentioned about drilling a hole in the cap for the pressure line...I don't recall coming across the idea of pressurizing the cap previously when I was learning about installing a Surefly. @kortopates did you pressurize your cap and do you or Savvy typically recommend this?

I believe 670105 is a riveted V-band clamp and 653337 is a spot welded that has been superceded. My suspicion is that you could use either, but I gather that the push was to move away from spot welded clamps towards riveted. Both have a limit of some type be it number of times torqued (rivet) vs 500 hrs in service (spot weld). But the best person to ask may be the IA who does your annuals. I suspect that it's an either/or discussion with individual preferences. But I'm not an A&P or IA.

@Jason Fountain There are a couple of different options depending if you want white or red lettering (usually the PN ending in R is red and ending in W is white). There are also differences between the warning message and the bars for the for tow limits. You can order these from your MSC or Lasar. Lasar has some of the decals shown on their website to help find which one you want. https://lasar.com/placards-decals Another option is to reach out to AeroGraphics...they can print whatever you need and should already have those decals on file. https://www.aerographics.com/exterior.php

That's an interesting argument...how dangerous is a go around? We're taught that we should be able to safely go around if things don't look right, too fast, runway contaminated, don't break out of IMC at DA/MDA, per controller instruction, etc. I think in this case it was a squeeze play, so when the aircraft behind was told to go around, it was probably still on final and perhaps even 0.5 mile out? Also surely I would expect that the go around pilot should have been able to see that an aircraft is on the runway and be hearing the controller so they should ALREADY be prepped to go around. The go around should have been a non-issue, I think. There may be times when a go around is unable, but it seems that for most traffic that it should be a non issue, especially in a tower controlled environment where you have someone sequencing and giving instructions. EDIT: to be fair though...from my perspective the break in flow from a go around makes me paranoid of gear up so I probably quadruple check my gear when I've gone around...the break in flow certainly has the risk of missing a check list item.

I think that @thomas1142 may be the most recent Hawk paint job on MS. @Parker_Woodruff also had an aircraft with a Hawk paint job I believe. Seems like Hawk has the most feedback on here, and by and large good reviews. Although they went from 18,500 in 2021 when I first reached out, up to 27,500 this year. I gather that they were an amazing value back when they were well under-priced for the work they do. Fast forward to post covid pricing and some price normalization, and they seem about on par with other shops I got estimates from. But my thought with paint is that the primary goal is protection and preservation; do they prep the surface in a way to protect your surfaces from corrosion and do they use a material that is durable? As corrosion is one of the main killers of Mooneys, it seems like cosmetics should be good for the money you spend, but are the secondary goal. I think that AOPA or Aviation Consumer had a list of recommended paint shops, but can't seem to find it...but I think it mirrored the list from Scheme Designers below: https://schemedesigners.com/paint-shop-referral-list/

My thought is giving a phone number to have a discussion with cool heads and education for both the controller and the pilot is probably a good thing. Doesn't need to go any farther than that. ATC typically has plenty of room so this wasn't a "safety" issue, just a squeeze play that didn't work out. But for a touch and go to be frustrated with a go around??? That's just silly. Go arounds are probably what that pilot definitely needed more training on...probably most of us don't do that near as often as we should. But I hope that I'm never recorded sounding spiteful or making rude comments. It makes it harder for everyone on the freq to actually pay attention to what they're doing when these situations escalate. Probably more likely for mistakes or omissions to be made in more than just the aircraft involved. It's always like when you're having a conversation and there is a TV on in the room and the person you're talking too seems glued to it and you're sure they aren't "really" listening to you!

That's interesting. I've reached out to Garmin, made sure my equipment is registered, and I don't think I ever have.

I was told that if you register your equipment on Garmin website that they’d send you updates and service bulletins I’ve NOT found that to be the case. https://fly.garmin.com/fly-garmin/devices/warranty-registration From time to time I’ll peruse the service alerts (link below) to see if anything is applicable. This is about the best way I’ve found. Relying on my dealer or Garmin to notify me of updates isn’t very effective it seems… https://support.garmin.com/en-US/aviation/faq/6uYPdAQOaS9FzhhL5yaOf5/ I keep a list of my serial numbers and unit IDs on my squawk file on my computer. If I find an update release, I keep my file updated with the software version I have and note the version available. If it’s something needed, helpful or required I have my shop update all the units that need it. Otherwise I’ll just keep a list until it’s a good time to stop by the shop.

Ahh. I guess it’s using the VNAV mode. Too used to an “APR” nomenclature. Ha. I was thinking that was odd.

The odd thing is there isn’t an approach mode. It’s more of a VFR autopilot. Coupled approaches seem to be an important part of an autopilot in my mind. I guess it’s a step above a wing leveler. But I was hoping for a little more direct competition with the GFC500 to help drive improvements in both!

Put some painters tape over the lower cowl inlet behind the spinner. It helps avoid scratching up the cowl and your prop when you remove and replace.

J&R Electronics at KLVK did the first panel revision in my Mooney and I think they also did @donkaye’s panel. I think their work is solid but can’t say costs or lead time as it was before I owned the aircraft.

CSB recommends: "Inspect at next 100-hour or Annual inspection (whichever is applicable based on type of operation or inspection requirements) or next maintenance event when the camshaft gear is made available (whichever comes first). Continue with recurring inspections every 100-hour/Annual inspection until superseded gears are replaced with camshaft gear, P/N 656818 no later than next overhaul." So you inspect until you see failure? I'd be curious to know how many cases of imminent failure or damage have been found prior to critical failure?

From my POH for an M20K Encore: Here's the M20J three view from the POH:

I think this is about the same type of question as asking "what's the recommended OIL for Mooneys?" But it seems like Donaldson air filters are a good way to go and are what I use. Here's a previous thread discussing pros and cons of filters and personal filter choice.

The problem with outsourcing parts or components of parts that are used for manufacture, is that there is typically a minimum order number...especially if it is a custom part that not currently active. i.e. take for example the return springs in the Precise Flight speed brakes. It's a piano wire spring with a set spec and probably easy to turn out. Precise Flight probably orders these several thousand or so at a time and typically has an ongoing shelf stock in the interim. Century Spring can easily set up the equipment for a production run, but they don't sell 2 springs...ever. They sell runs of 1000's. Century Spring also doesn't keep these on the shelf...they make money off a production run and sell it in total. So if Precise Flight needed a spring, they're taking it off the shelf if they have them or they're ordering a 1000 minimum. So for me to order a return spring, I'm either ordering from Precise Flight and they charge me $1000 per speed brake for complete service, or if I order from Century Spring they have a minimum order of 1000 springs. What do you think that would look like if Precise Flight was no longer manufacturing speed brakes and they didn't have springs on the shelf? The "hope" is that Mooney has better success at other parts manufacture that 1) they have a better stock of common parts on the shelf for things that also are used in Mooneys, 2) that they are solvent enough that it's a trivial expense to have 500 rod ends on the shelf and place an order for a 1000 springs when they only need 2 right now, and 3) the factory is actively manufacturing parts so that the personnel overhead is already paid and it's an easy process to pull a mold over for short run of part Mooney "D" when they're producing other companies "parts X, Y and Z" that day. Visiting the factory drives home that the people that made up the Mooney factory were/are VESTED members of the Mooney family. When those people are gone, they can't easily be replaced. Some of the "IP" is contained in those people themselves; and all the drawings, diagrams, molds, etc. with Mooney are unlikely to wind up in your hands unless it's sold off and picked up by companies like McFarlane or another FAA-PMA parts manufacturer. My personal impression is that the IP is more likely going to be held up in defunct corp or legal issues rather than sold off as that's part of the biggest "capital" that Mooney has right now outside of the factory equipment. So personally I'm rooting for Mooney's success and will continue to support them when I can. Under the right circumstances I think there's a way forward, and I'm hoping that Mooney eventually finds it!

https://cpassoc.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=612720&module_id=379021 The Colorado Pilots Association has plenty of information available on Colorado mountain flying. They also host a CPA Mountain Flying Course at least once a year that has an optional flight component. WELL worth it for some direct local knowledge and mountain flying experience!