Marc_B

I reached out to Frank at Mooney and he informed me: Hello Marc, That 630121-501 & -503 are made from Stainless Steel AMS5510. Go figure! So I guess some are stainless. Not sure which other models this applies to… BTW this PN effectivity applies to M20K SN 25-1000 thru 25-TBA.

There's always been a perennial divide on those who feel that touch and goes in a Mooney are taboo, and those who have practiced them safely. But a comment recently made me think of how we train landings and how we review landings. A significant amount of time with initial pilot training is focused on "pattern work" and skills you learn with sight picture, muscle memory, correlation of pitch/power/speed, etc. But for some, if you throw a curve ball and have a go around, balked landing, or something that "breaks the flow" it has the potential for short circuiting the "pattern" and results in mistakes...i.e. gear up. But then I think of my typical cross country IFR landing and it's almost never a "standard traffic pattern" unless I'm coming into an uncontrolled field and traffic flow suggests I have a standard pattern entry flow. In fact, when training IFR I pretty much never flew standard patterns, and my IFR flow is different than standard pattern work flow. Basically leaves me with the impression that while pattern work is valuable and is jam-packed with several valuable lessons...it's not "good enough" to encapsulate the variety of situations that a traveling pilot will face. Crosswinds, short approaches, I'll call your base way out in BFE, cleared straight in, go arounds and balked landings...these flows take more time and can't be repeated as quickly...but are invaluable to work on all the same. Just thinking out loud and wondering how frequently your standard traveling Mooney pilot feels that a standard traffic pattern is actually exactly what they arrive with?

I wonder if past a certain year Mooney made this area stainless steel? Mine is non-magnetic but not sure how to see if it’s stainless or aluminum otherwise.

For those with dual GTNs, is there a setting to get your messages to sync? i.e. I'll get a Message flashing in GTN750 and I can pull it up and says "airspace entry in 10 minutes" for example and then the GTN650 is still flashing message and doesn't extinguish until I open that one too. For some reason I thought there was a setting to sync or crossfill or something so that I open the message in on unit and it extinguishes in both units?

Looks like a 3.5” center to center wire pull cabinet handle on the M20K Encore. Berenson looks similar. Jado looks the same but that PN was 96mm (~3.75”) looks like.

Follow-up. The channel is 3/8” H x 1/2” wide. A 2.5” L piece of 1/2” x 1/2” neoprene foam fits well and stands a little proud of the edge after you let it expand completely after application. Inexpensive and looks like it came that way. The handle also sits correctly so the key locks easily without pulling out the handle a bit.

@shawnd lives up there. He may have a rec as he’s had some good and bad experiences up there.

@MikeOH I think the gist is that a magneto spark on start up with an impulse coupler isn't the same as a full spark, every spark, same spark every time. It's not a hiding issues type of thing, but a magneto not optimum spark kinda thing. If that makes sense.

According to SureFly FAQ: Compared to a magneto, the SIM provides a more accurately retarded spark and a more consistent, higher energy spark at low engine RPM. Hot-starts are greatly aided by the installation of a SIM, but keep in mind SureFly can’t remedy fuel system shortcomings! So it's probably a bit of spark and a bit of fuel system. But start improvement has been routinely described by those who've added a SIM, so I think there IS some merit. But nothing is failure free, so of course it makes sense for an aircraft owner to review what they feel makes the most sense for their aircraft and the way they fly. On one hand I have timing drift, corrosion, high altitude missfire...on the other hand I have battery dependent, no drift, no corrosion. I think the overlap complements each other and work well for me. @Will.iam I'm glad that SureFly took care of you and would be interested to see what they find (although doesn't sound like they shared much detail). I think the biggest question for me has always been how long solid state electronics last in an engine compartment and will it routinely make it to 2400 hours/TBO?

I always thought this was an immediate electric spark vs impulse coupler difference? But I’m not sure I’ve read a good description why. But regarding reporting failures I’d suspect that most/every Surefly failures would be reported if it happened to a MS member, but only the interesting or quirky mag failures would. At least small Slick pressurized mags are known to fail due to corrosion from moisture in the upper deck pressure line.

For me, current pressurized Slick mags are prone to failure and mine had issues around 400 hrs. You need to do 500 hr IRANs religiously. So a Surefly that didn't require pressurization/moisture/corrosion, and had a 2400 hr TBO, with no typical timing drift that occurs with mags seems like good pros that offset any cons. Of course with all new equipment, time will tell if the 2400 hr TBO is problem free for most or not. That being said, I feel that so far it's been an overall plus, quick starts (wasn't an issue before), deeper LOP smoothly, and mag checks seem similar to previous (my revision is past the boot up lag issues). (edit: but to qualify the above...I like the idea of one mag and one Surefly...seems best of both worlds...I don't think I'd be ready to have a dual Surefly install.)

Does anyone know the history of which baggage door handle was used where? Looks like they are all cabinet door handles from Amerock, Berenson, and Jado. The original 459-26 goes way back with older Mooneys, but I think it was a Berenson that was used on my M20K...but the IPC doesn't list effectivities for serial numbers and just lists them all together. Lasar has a different part number 6032-3SC-B and notes alternate P/N 453-26. Just found it curious that 4 handles are listed and I think that they may not have the same center to center widths (96mm vs 3.75" vs 4"??). I'm also curious what metals each of the handles were made out of as each company offers aluminum, chrome, nickel, etc. Anyone know the background and the difference of the 4 handles shown below? (EDIT: this is proof that there actually IS an aviation aisle at Home Depot and Mooney shops there too!)

I've never noticed any differential noise or noise increase, but haven't been looking for it. Haven't noticed any difference with ground mag check or inflight LOP mag check. About 2 years and a little over 250 hrs on mine; mounted on the right side for the same reasons you did. (revision F, I believe)

I had my tanks resealed. All of the fuel access panels are opened and were previously covered in original paint with original screws. I don’t think that reseal is so damaging as much as you can tell those panels have been opened and touch up paint never looks completely like original. But the paint is only affected on the panel seams and screw heads.

I wonder how a collapsible hose would work to just act as a redirect from the center console vent forward to the area in front of the seat? Something lightweight, collapsible, and something you could store in the seat pocket? As others have noted, my cabin heat goes from cold to fire in one click. One thing I'd double check is making sure you don't have any leaks and make sure you don't have any vent hoses that are disconnected. I previously had an overhead vent that wore out and disconnected so it couldn't be controlled with overhead vent to close. You could put gaffer tape on the tail vent and see if that makes a difference. Still, a leak would effect how cold it is, but wouldn't effect the "heat" of the cabin heat.

@corn_flake My mind read this as you're looking for a portajohn for the hangar! ha ha ha Certainly could hangar your bomber and pee shooter!

@DCarlton This is a good article to read. I think it better clarifies the red box/fin. Simplifies it to use CHTs as the boundaries. High CHTs bad. Under a certain %HP, you'll never be able to get up to high CHTs. https://www.savvyaviation.com/red-box-red-fin/ Ya, I don't think that sounds like current best practice!

My POH for Encore shows 75% as maximum recommended cruise power and suggests you "LEAN TO PEAK, DO NOT EXCEED 1650 deg TIT."

The stoichiometric ratio of air:fuel (ideal ratio that burns all fuel and doesn't leave excess air) actually is a little rich of peak EGT. So at peak EGT you still have some "air left" that you can add more fuel to burn. But in terms of "harmful ways to run your engine," it's been described is the "Red Box" / "Red Fin". i.e. at high HP the area of the curve with potentially harmful ICPs (internal cylinder pressures) and temps goes from "a" degrees lean to "b" degrees rich. Given less fuel is being burned the lower %HP you run, the smaller that "danger area" red box width is, and below a certain %HP (some use 65%) you don't have enough fuel burning to be able to generate a "dangerous" ICP/temps and the "red box" disappears. But at higher and higher %HP, the box starts widening and widening. This is exactly why you run full rich on takeoff...if you ran peak EGT at 100%HP you'd most definitely have dangerous temps and ICPs and would have a very short flight into detonation. That makes 3! These pic are flipped from the way I usually have seen it with ROP to the right and LOP to the left, but gives you an idea of where things fall and rise. https://aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/lean-of-peak-egt/

ABS had a great article about fuel caps and o-ring maintenance. I also found it interesting that there was a comment "On our Baron, the specified force is 12–18 pounds applied perpendicular to the handle. To quote the Baron 55/58 manual, this force is “… applied 0.20 ± 0.03 inches from the edge of the handle at its center.” I don't believe I've ever come across a spec on the opening force of the Shaw fuel cap and I'm curious if this is found in the Mooney Service Manual somewhere?? I have actually had a fuel cap that was super topped off and leaked a slight amount of fuel from the cap in flight. A quick tightening to one more "notch" on the castellated nut and no more leak! ABS May 2017 Article.pdf

I think this is why many Mooney instructors stick with ROP when teaching. It's easier and safer for the novice. LOP requires more background understanding to do it safely and efficiently; although it is really pretty simple. Also being with ROP, 100 degrees from peak means your temps are typically all fine even if you're not managing cowl flaps or you're flying at higher altitudes with less dense air for cooling. Basic gist for anyone reading this and not understanding...on the lean of peak side, the %HP is controlled by the total amount of fuel available because fuel is the limiting factor. To "cool" temps more you have to add "air" which means increasing throttle while keeping fuel flow the same (aka deeper LOP). VS. on the ROP side you have an excess of fuel so the limiting factor is the amount of oxygen you have available. So if you want to "cool" temps on the ROP side you can add more fuel which remains unburned and absorbs heat. But using fuel flow as your "%HP LOP" only works if you're lean of peak and limited by fuel/excess oxygen. This requires you to have an engine that can run on the LOP side as if you have a wide spread on the fuel flow for each cylinder to peak you potentially could have one cylinder on the LOP side and others on the ROP side, or even worse would be cylinders running at peak with higher %HP which would contribute to cylinders seeing peak internal cylinder pressures that could be harmful. With modern engine monitors, with EGT/CHT probes on each cylinder, it's easier to see exactly what your engine is doing and takes more of the guess work out of it. Of course performing a Lean Test requires an engine monitor with probes on all cylinders. Lots of nuance and detail that pilots should learn about if they want to optimize their engine management! I have. Lean sweep with my TCM injectors typically falls in the 0.3 - 0.5 gph range from sweep to sweep. I've known two other Mooney pilots with stock TCM tuned injectors who considered GAMIjectors and were told that the spread was fine and there wouldn't be benefit. Of course if you did a lean test and had a sweep of 1.1 gph, that'd be a different story... As one last aside...when you're going down the path of lean tests, etc...it's important to make sure that you're actually running at baseline. i.e. I've known one pilot who was trying to run a Lean Test and it turned out that he had a partially clogged injector that was an outlier. But the issue wasn't that his engine had a wide GAMI spread, but that his engine wasn't at baseline. Fuel injector cleared and Lean Spread went from 1.3 gph down to 0.5 gph. Many things are dynamic and constantly in flux. In fact, I also had a transient partially clogged injector once that resulted in EGT 100 deg hotter in that cylinder. After it cleared the temps normalized. Injectors clog, plugs foul, mag timing drifts...it's important to establish a baseline I think so that you can see outliers more easily and help guide ADMs in the field.

@jlunseth Sorry, I didn't see this before. The screen shots above were just calculating numbers based on HP and what the LOP fuel flow would equate to. So it's a fuel flow chart based on pilot being on the LOP side, but doesn't spell out how to get there. In general I like to keep things simple...so I'm usually either 65% LOP which for my aircraft I'm somewhere around 30"/2400 RPM and 10.4 GPH; or I run 75% ROP following my POH power schedule and this is roughly 29"/2400 and 14.5 GPH (varies based on altitude). On the ROP side I actually set throttle/prop and then find peak TIT and add 100 deg rich. On the LOP side I set throttle/RPM and do the "big mixture pull" to set my fuel flow to my target, close cowl flaps and monitor temps to make sure they all look appropriate. As an aside, I have standard TCM tuned injectors and they're around 0.3 to 0.5 gph spread. I added a SureFly and a set of fine wires and found that I can go much deeper LOP than I could before. I find that when I'm 30"/2400/10.4gph I'm smooth, but I can crank up the throttle (and fine tune the mixture to get back to 10.4gph and can get up to around 31" before it starts to get a noticeable hint of roughness. I don't like training myself to normalize engine roughness, although I've always been told its "okay." But I'd still rather have it smooth if everything else is equal and my temps are good.

The area just above the exhaust tip (and to the side of the nose gear door) was originally painted, but was speaking with a paint shop that mentioned they typically leave this bare metal as it's easier to clean? Are there some Mooneys with stainless steel above the exhaust rather than aluminum? Do you typically not paint this?? The part that's labeled "Exhaust cavity" number 64 below...

I think this also depends on how long it's been since your speed brakes have seen some love. If they have dried and crusty old grease on the worm drive and gear, then ideally you should clean them up before applying a THIN layer of Aeroshell 22. It's doable to grease from above with a long brush, but not as easy to clean or apply completely around the worm drive. I've used an acid brush, but I've heard of others using a coffee stirrer.

Interestingly enough, the SB100 series from Precise Flight just have simple maintenance recommendations that anyone could follow every 200 hours and don't spell out any overhaul interval. PreciseFlight_SB100_ICA_amend1996.pdf