Greg Ellis

I am not exactly sure but I can find out for you. Not sure if they are working on July 4th. They usually work on Saturday but not sure about this Saturday.

An update on my hot cylinder #3. The mechanic working on this issue stuck with it. He checked everything. Baffling, timing, borescope, plugs, etc, etc....if you read my previous posts it gives you an idea of what we were going through. I took all advice from the forum to him as well and nothing was making a difference. JPI has been closed due to coronavirus. But my mechanic was able to get a hold of the tech that he usually works with. Turns out on some Lycoming cylinders there is an issue with the way the CHT probe fits in the cylinder. I do not know the exact issue but it has something to do with spot for the probe being bored too deep and the probe does not sit in the right spot. It has happened enough times that JPI has a fix for it. They put in a special sleeve and a spacer. Viola...the CHT on #3 was in line with the others and never went above 370 on take off. It was going up to 470 before the fix. I had emailed back and forth twice with JPI and told them my issue and they never once mentioned this. They said to me that no way it could be the monitor or the probe. Too bad. Could have saved hours and hours of labor. So while I do not know the specifics on what happened, I put this out there just in case anyone else has the same issue. But I am very happy now. Plane is running cool and it is happy as well. Thanks to everyone who offered help with this.

I think first difficulty would be finding one. Take this for what its worth, there are 15 registered with the FAA, not sure about Canada, and of those only 2 of them have shown up on Flightaware.com as to having been flown recently. One on 6/28/20 and one on 6/4/20. All the others have not flown since 2018 and older. The same gentleman that flew on 6/28/20 actually owns 2 M22's according to the FAA but the second one has not flown in a few years, probably used for parts.

Paul did analyze this data through Savvy. They pressurized the induction system and found no leaks anywhere. But I will revisit that as well with them. Thanks.

I did not do any of the work. It was done by a shop here at my airport. The cylinder was overhauled, not new. In previous posts I mentioned that it has been borescoped and everything looked fine. After continued flying they then removed the cylinder and visually inspected it and the piston and the rings and anything else they could see and all looked great including the cylinder and walls. No signs of any damage, scoring or anything.

The engine mount alignment seems to be correct. It is a new engine mount and the engine seems to be positioned correctly. At least 2 different mechanics have looked at it.

Thanks. Well, you know how sometimes things are so obvious you look right past them.... This was my most recent flight for about an hour. https://apps.savvyaviation.com/flights/4066117/a8683e95-5833-400c-8064-551631c2e329

Thanks for the responses. I will get some photos of the baffling when I go back out to the airport later this week. The cylinder has about 28 hours or so on the break in. When this first started happening I thought it was because it was new and during the break in it would run hot but I was told by multiple mechanics that 470 is too hot even for the break in. JPI basically says that the EDM 900 is functioning properly so the problem is somewhere else. Savvy aviation has analyzed multiple flights and I get differing ideas from them. I appreciate the responses though and I am looking into all of their suggestions. They have been very quick to respond to my inquiries and well worth the subscription to their analysis program. What is the easiest way to post the data form the JPI on this forum?

Thanks Harley. We have been over the baffling multiple times and can't find anything with it. All holes are filled and it seems like it was put together correctly. But I will take another look at it.

Thanks Eric. I think this is where I am right now. It was good to hear that when they pulled the cylinder all looked good. So I am going to keep flying it and see what happens; famous last words. I have posted this here and also sent an e-mail to JPI amongst others just to see if I am missing something, anything.

Thanks Don. It is possible that it needs more time. I thought on average chrome cylinders broke in faster. But when they pulled the cylinder again recently, the cylinder overhaul guy said that there were no issues with the cylinder but it looked like it was not completely broken in. I just got this information from a phone call a few minutes ago. I was not sure if you could tell the break in status by visual inspection. I know that oil usage, etc...is a way to help tell how the break in is going but I was not sure you can tell by visual inspection.

They did say the timing was correct. I will talk to them about the clearance and the pushrods. Thanks very much.

Well, they did pressurize the intake system and found no leaks. Not sure about the carb heat. Interesting about the lean cylinder. Looking at the EDM 900 data from the last flight, the #1 and #3 EGT's were 100 degrees warmer than the #2 and #4. As you know the #1 and #3 are on the same side of the engine. When I did the lean find from ROP on the EDM 900, the #1 cylinder was first to peak. I wonder if there is something that would cause the 2 cylinders on the same side to run 100 degrees warmer on the EGT's or if that is even an issue. Just thinking out loud.

I just checked with the mechanic. They are not chrome rings. The gaps were fine as well.

Thank you for that information and it was not covered previously so I appreciate it. I know they confirmed the gaps and checked the rings when they removed the cylinder but I heard nothing about what type rings they were. I will check on that today. Thanks.

I would like to post an update on this issue and see if anyone has any input (please see original post for initial history). So the #3 cylinder continues to show a very high temperature on the EDM 900. It hits about 470 at about 1000 feet on take off. It will cool off in cruise but stays above 400 degrees when all other 3 cylinders are in the mid 300's. A lot has been done to trouble shoot this since I first posted about it but to no avail. The probes were swapped, no change. A new probe was put in. No change. The wires were checked for shorts and grounding issues, none were found. They took the #1 and the #3 probes and put them in boiling water and they registered the correct temp on the EDM 900. They have checked the baffling and it looks tight. They removed the cylinder again and had 2 engine builders and the cylinder overhaul guy look at it and all said it looked fine with no issues. And by the way it is a chrome cylinder not steel like I had thought. They pressurized the intake and found no leaks. Spark plugs all check fine. The only thing different is that it is a chrome cylinder and not steel like the other 3. I have 27 hours on the break in and the cylinder guy says the cylinder looks good. So, they are at a loss as to what may be happening. I consulted with JPI and they said to check the grounding which they did and check for shorts which they did. If you do a full power run up on the ground the cylinder stays well below 400 degrees. But on take off it hits 470 when about 800-1000 feet in the air and stays above 400 throughout the flight. We have run out of ideas. So I am grasping at straws here because the shop at my airport that did this work have kind of given up. They haven't a clue what to do next. I thought maybe putting a steel cylinder back on to see if that corrects it. Maybe there is something with the cylinder that just can't be seen. But I am not sure what to do next. Please feel free to ask any questions needed. I will answer them as best as I can. Thanks.

He said he looked at LASAR and they had one but not the other.

Where is your niece stationed? My niece flies helicopters for the USCG at Corpus Christi, Texas.

The speaker in the webinar says, for the models in certification process now, should be done by the end of the third quarter of this year. I am not holding my breath or even getting in line right now. If it goes much the way these certification processes go then it may still be a while. I am just passing along information passed along to me.

I just finished a Garmin webinar. One of the slides said that the C, D, And E models are currently in certification process. The website contradicts this by saying they won’t begin for the next 12 months, that only the F, and G are currently in the certification process. I asked the speaker. She said that the website is way behind and has not been updated. The pre J Mooneys currently in certification process are C, D, E, F, G. That was great news. I though they were still 12 months away from even starting but turns out they are currently in certification process!!!

@glafaille I see you are located in Tyler, Texas. That is just a stone's throw from Longview where an excellent Mooney mechanic hangs out. I would definitely send this to Don Maxwell in Longview and get his opinion on this. He does not visit this forum so he won't see your post but he could offer some insight into this as well. If the plane is located in Texas, there is a slight chance that he may have worked on it at one time or another. Although you have received some excellent advice from this forum as usual.

Looking at the battery powered grease guns that are available, other than saving physical energy are they really needed? And by this question I mean, they say they pump out up to 10,000 psi. Some of the hand operated guns say up to 7000 psi? If I didn't want to spend hundreds of dollars on a battery operated grease gun (after buying the batteries it looks like they are close to $300) will 7000 psi be enough? I know that I may get tired doing it by hand but it is roughly $50-$70 for a hand operated 7000 psi gun compared to a couple of hundred dollars for the battery operated one.

Great video and fantastic selection in music!!!

I am 6'2 and weigh 260 lbs. I have no problems in my 63 C model. I quick glance around the forums and the internet reveals that that cabin width of a C model Mooney is about the same as an A36 Bonanza. The difference is the height. The Mooney cabin is shorter than the Bonanza but in the Bonanza you sit higher and more upright and in the Mooney you are more reclined so to speak so the cabin can be shorter but it is also what makes it feel smaller. Mac McClellan mentioned in his article in Airfacts Journal how the Mooney seat is very close to the floor of the Mooney. There is not much room between the bottom of the seat and the floor. You just sit lower. I have actually had a friend of mine who is 6'4 and weighs about the same as me sit in the back seat of my Mooney and he said he was fairly comfortable. He probably would not want to go on a 4 hour cross country but he did fit with no issues. I have been in the back of his former A model with no issues as well. Like was mentioned, let us know where you are located and I am sure there is someone that will let you sit in a Mooney or go for a ride even.

It looks like the same aircraft but it also looks like, from the photos in the advertisement, that the panel went through another upgrade since the photos posted here in 2018.