TangoTango

I'm going to revive this thread instead of starting a new one, as I'm currently ordering parts to build a hangar setup and I'm a little confused by the transfill kits for sale. Since I'm NA, I use a portable Aerox bottle with a CGA-540 fitting, and I recently leased a 300cuft tank of oxygen with a GCA-540 fitting on it. It seems like I should be able to just buy a clean hose with CGA-540 fittings on each end, attach the two bottles, and modulate the flow with the supply bottle's valve to keep things from getting too hot until the two tanks have equalized. However, I notice the aviation oxygen equipment suppliers (Aerox, MHoxygen, etc) sell FBO transfilling kits with bleed valves, pressure gauges, and even regulators. Is any of this necessary? A bleed valve seems like it would be useful, but an additional pressure gauge seems redundant when the small tank already has one, and I don't understand what would necessitate a regulator on the transfill line since all we are doing is equalizing two tanks, and the speed with which this happens can be regulated with the valve. Can somebody more experienced enlighten me on what is really necessary for those of us that are filling tanks for personal use?

It makes me sad to see a Mooney parted out... but I personally would never take on a project like that. Maybe someday there will be enough value to rebuild Mooneys from a dataplate and a logbook like the tube and fabric guys do. I've seen them bring pre-war basket cases to like-new condition. Unfortunately for Mooneys, the fleet needs parts bad enough that the salvage value threshold is pretty high. Of course things could always be better than they appear like Pinecone says... but I wouldn't want to bet on that without a very close preexisting relationship with a local A&P/IA.

I don't think you would want to hold any back pressure past the flare. We use back pressure on the rollout to put extra weight on the main wheels for improved braking; I don't want that extra weight grinding the belly ribs into the asphalt during a gear up

Tempest URHM38S, and they now have a couple hundred hours on them. At the time they were brand new. #4 is my coolest cylinder by quite a bit, so it was hovering around the 300dF mark when I was targeting 350 on the hot cylinder. The fouling was never a problem (it always burned off with a high power runup for a minute or two) but failing a before takeoff mag check will make an impression on the passengers. I haven't failed one since increasing my target CHT. As far as moving, my summers aren't too much warmer than yours. I know there are several AZ based members here; I flew out to KCHD this May, and that was hot. That trip was the only time I couldn't maintain under 380CHT in a protracted Vy climb.

This is basically what I do, however I now target closer to 380CHT on the hottest cylinder in cruise. I ran around 350 CHT for the first 100 hours I had my J model, and I fouled the #4 bottom plug several times (brand new fine wires). After cleaning a surprising amount of lead out of the plugs, rotating them, and changing my target to 380 CHT, I haven't fouled it once in the subsequent 100 hours. I always lean to roughness for ground ops, so I doubt that was the culprit.

I'm always a fan of new places to track airport fees! The AOPA data is submitted by the FBO so it is frequently incomplete. However, I'm getting an error when I try to visit:

If just the clock drains your battery, that's the plane's way of telling you it needs flown more

My J has a glass barrel fuse in the tailcone just inside the access panel. The previous owner pulled the fuse to prevent the battery from running down - the overhead interior lights bypass the master switch, so it's easy for them to be left on unnoticed. I would assume a Bravo has a similar fuse in the same place By the way, on mine the panel clock operates off the same fuse. Is your clock also inop?

I just did 860nm and burned 46 gallons in 5.8 hours. I was at 11,500 most of the way with a decent tailwind, sucking on o2, leaned to peak and 2500rpm. I find a lot of joy in beating the airline schedule to my destination and making it nonstop is the best way to do that. I find that strategically managing liquid input and having some snacks handy makes long legs much more tolerable. The travel john is mainly on board for moral support On a related note - how many of you run one tank completely dry? Or is @201Steve's method of leaving a few gallons the preferred method? I've always been too nervous to run one dry, but I do like the idea of knowing all my fuel is in one tank for landing.

Notably the Pipstrel Panthera: It has performance very similar to a Mooney with a Lycoming IO-540, trailing-link gear, chute, and mogas. They've made a few as Experimentals and apparently they've been working on certifying it in the US. These new super LSA rules almost seem designed around it.

I wonder how much testing would be required for a paper STC to reduce max gross on the 2900# birds back down to 2740#? Ultimately though, I don't expect I would be interested in such an STC even if it were available. Since I've already held a third class, I could always just downgrade to Basic Med. Basic Med is so easy to get signed off on, I'm not sure I would ever accept the Sport Pilot restrictions in order to fly on a driver's license only. Maybe it would be useful to a new pilot who wants to start without ever having to get a third class medical? Learn to fly on a Sport Pilot + Driver's License, buy a 2740# Mooney when you're ready. That wouldn't be the worst idea for the right kind of person. I could see it increasing the popularity of Sport Pilot licenses.

After reading and rereading the final rule, I think only the 59KCAS clean stall speed applies to a pilot exercising sport pilot privileges (ie a PPL holder operating with a driver's license as a medical). This is part of the new 14 CFR 61.316, which describes aircraft a sport pilot can operate, and only mentions the 59KCAS Vs1. This would allow Hank's C model, but it puts my 2900# J over the limit. The more permissive 61KCAS dirty stall speed only appears in the new 14 CFR 22.100, which describes the criteria for certifying new airplanes as LSA. As we've already determined, we cannot convert our normal category airworthiness certificates to light sport airworthiness certificates, even though a new airplane built after the regulation could be exactly the same and get certified this way. Since these new aircraft cannot be operated by sport pilots unless they also meet 14 CFR 61.316, I guess this rule just helps manufacturers by reducing regulatory overhead? It should also make the repairman certificate more valuable if manufacturers start producing these "big LSA". ... I wish they would've just picked one light sport standard. Having two makes the term more confusing than it needs to be.

The lack of clarifying information released with this rule change is a bit frustrating. Page 136 may turn out to be the fly in the ointment. If I'm reading section 9 on that page correctly, only newly produced aircraft count? I'm not sure if that provision is only in reference to repairman certificates, or if it also applies to whether they can be operated under LSA rules.

I'm still trying to digest this monster of a document (MOSAIC Final Rule Issuance), but on pages 23-24 it appears there are two separate speeds. For light sport category aircraft, the limit is 61KCAS Vs0, and for light sport category pilots, the limit is 59KCAS Vs1. Assuming you hold a PPL, I think any Mooney with a dirty clean stall speed up to 61 59KCAS can be flow as a LSA, meaning no medical required. That would certainly not include my J model. EDIT: I had the two definitions confused. See lower in the thread

When I bought my Mooney, the previous owner had the sticker on the panel next to the ELT switch. I liked it so much that when I updated the ELT registration I put the new sticker in the same place

According to the FEMA Flood Map,165 Al Mooney Rd appears to be outside the mapped flood plain. The map at the link drops the address pin in the wrong place; Mooney's buildings are the white roofs just west of the runway 3 threshold.

Isn't oil pressure affected by RPM, and to a lesser extent temperature? Throttle back to me sounds like @FredG is leaving the blue knob at the cruise setting. With my IO-360A3B6D, I do notice a reduction in oil pressure down to about 60psi when I pull the RPM back (either with the blue knob or by dropping MP so much the prop falls out of governing range), but I do not notice a difference by changing MP alone. By the way, the oil pressure is easily adjustable: 60297-12[1].pdf (Page 109 - Oil Pressure Relief Valve)

Mine was also removed with the same message as @Nico1. Flightaware still has my ownership data shown, but not everywhere. The main page says "Unknown Owner" but the flight history page still shows my name. I assume it takes some time for the FAA change to propagate out.

I bought my Mooney shortly after getting my PPL. Insurance was expensive, but I've been told my options would've been much more limited had I still been a student. While mine also has right side brakes, I think renting until I got my PPL was the right choice. That's the first big bend point in insurance cost, and the transition to a complex takes a while. It would've set back my training at least a couple dozen hours, and I was happy to get the early hard landings out of the way in a fixed gear with oleo struts. Everybody's risk tolerance is different, but I think waiting hundreds of hours post-PPL before transitioning to a complex Mooney is excessively conservative. After all, the FAA thinks you can fly around paying passengers with a commercial rating at 250 hours. Personally, if the intersection of your risk tolerance and mission profile meets somewhere you can afford, I like the mantra of "buy your second plane first". Transaction costs in airplanes are high.

Seconded! The A&P that looks over my bird actually worked with Coy back in the original Mod Squad in St. Louis. I'm always learning Mooney lore from him; I would love to email this over to him once you get it scanned @jeremyc209

I also find that 2500 rpm just feels right. Above about 2600 it gets vibey and noisy, lower than 2500 it gets a lower kind of vibration, almost like it's lugging. I'm sure it's fine, but it doesn't feel smooth like 2500 rpm does. I'm not usually fuel limited (and at 2500 I can always run as far LOP as I care to), but if one were trying to stretch the range wouldn't lower rpm allow you to run further LOP? Something about giving a slower leaner flame front adequate time to expand at a slower piston speed?

The brochure appears very promising, but Service Letter 250 section C part 4 makes me nervous. What does Lycoming consider "catastrophic internal damage"? Is a spalled crankshaft "catastrophic", or does Lycoming take a more conservative approach?

Pretty sure the green gas is the old high lead stuff, as opposed to the "new" low lead 100ll. Pre 1970s stuff, no idea if it's still sold anywhere today...

I've been following this on the other forum, glad to see you posted an easy to follow guide here. I just submitted mine, I got an "estimated review date" of 4/15/25. Curious to see what action the FAA takes at that time, as 49 USC §44114 reads to me as not requiring a procedure for compliance until 5/16/26 (two years from the enactment of this Act). Has anyone completed this and actually seen their personally identifiable information removed yet?

I was taught the same process by my transition instructor and have found it works well. I don't prime unless the engine has cooled to ambient. 1,000 rpm seems to be the sweet spot - on a cold start, the throttle position from the last shutdown may need to be pushed forward just a hair to hit the target 1,000 rpm. If I do get hamfisted with the mixture control and push it too quickly on a warm start, the flooded start procedure always bails me out