Lood

OK, I got it. Thanks to all.

Unfortunately, weighing is required here in South Africa, as mentioned earlier. Every five years or everytime the airplane is re-painted, have received a new interior and so on. That's my only reason for wanting to have it re-weighed in the next couple of months. I don't want to wait 5 years just to find out that the last weight was actually incorrect for some or other reason. I fly with my whole family and bags quite often and I want to utilize all the available usefull load. To do that and to fly my airplane at MAUW from higher airfields and DA's with peace of mind, I need to be 100% sure about its empty weight.

Don't know whether I'm stupid or what, but I can't find anything on the EDM711 on the JPI website. It is listed with Spruce, but not even documentation on it with JPI?

Quote: M20F For ZA I don't think you are going to get a good answer on this forum you might want to try with AOPA ZA.

In my specific case, my Mooney was indeed re-painted in 2007, but it was only weighed after being painted. My concern now is not whether my Mooney can still pick up a usefull load of 1040lbs. No matter how it is configured between fuel, people and bags, I KNOW it can because I flew it like that for the last four years, with ease. However, the new weighing sheet says it now has a useful load of only 967lbs and the only reason I have to adhere to that is because of insurance issues. Should anything happen during any flight, and even though it might not have anything to do with the weight carried, the insurance companies will have a ball when it comes to light that the weight stipulated on the weight & balance sheet was exceeded. The report will sinply say that the fact that "the airplane was also overloaded" was a contributing factor. I did schedule another weighing session though where I will be present to see for myself. If my Mooney does indeed weigh in at the latest 1773lbs empty, that will really be a rather sad day for me, because then we as a family have reached the point where we're going to outgrow the Mooney within the next year.

I've tried JPI support a couple of times, but unfortunately I don't have much luck in determining which of their engine analyzers are approved as primary indicator and what the price would be when I trade my EDM700 in on such a primary instrument. So, I though someone here might know. I basically want to know whether any of the JPI range, except the EDM900/930, are approved as primary instrument to indicate oil pressure, oil temperature, fuel quantity, amps/volts and CHT. I want to replace the cluster gauge in my Mooney with digital. I already have an EDM700 with FF, so I basically only need the approved head, together with the few probes that I don't have currently installed.

That's my point. I've flown my Mooney according to the empty weight, 1700lbs, as determined during its 2007 weighing session. I've actually flown it at gross weight quite a few times and it performed very well. Since 2007, I've had a number of items removed, so I know that my Mooney now weighs less than when I purchased it in 2008 and this is a fact. However, although I know that it can pick up more, I now fly it as if it has indeed gained the said 73lbs. This leaves me with a rather poor usefull load of only 967lbs compared to the healthy 1040lbs that I used to fly at. That really sucks.

Anything in the green arc is fine and even one needle width below red line is probably between 200 - 220 deg.

Quote: tlandrum I figure there has got to be a lot of random wires back there after 40 years of life & swaping one thing or another. But, just to make sure I hear you right.... Gained 76, or gained 76 or useful load??? Because I have been told that planes do just gainweight over the years even without changing anything!

I replaced my old, heavy KX175's with a KX155 and KY197 and I also removed the ADF and DME as I don't fly IFR. I had all obsolete wiring removed that was left in the airplane over the years. Finally, I replaced the original starter with a light weight model. Man, was I surprized when my airplane gained 73lbs after all the above?

You might have to trim down a bit from your normal take off trim setting, or just be cautious when rotating. The nose will be lighter than usual.

The vent on my F works very well. In fact, I don't think I have ever opened it more than 1/4. As soon as I turn the knob, the airflow is there immediately and to my opinion, the worst part in the system are the round, plastic disks on the inside. Apparently, these are supposed to direct airflow in different directions when turned, but just looking at the way they are formed, it seems that they might actually restrict the airflow instead. Mine are really flimsy and I just dont like them. I wouldn't close the vent. It helps a lot in summer - even on the ground.

FWIW, landed in South Africa, I paid as follows: Crank case - $4750 Cam shaft kit - $1900 Crankshaft kit - $7140

Most fuel specific containers, funnels, etc is made of non-static material and if grounded as an extra precaution, together with some good old common sense, there shouldn't be any problems.

I had a similar problem a while ago and I feel your pain. In my case, the case had cracked and I bought e new one. However, after the engine was opened up, all sorts of things popped up and the cam as well as the crankshaft had to be replaced. Now there was no turning back and to top it all, I had no core to return. So, I had to have the engine overhauled completely, replacing all that needed replacing with new parts. I now have a brand new engine that runs beautifully, but it was extremely expensive. Converting our money to yours, the crank case, crankshaft kit and camshaft kit alone, cost me $14k and in total, the engine cost me $31k. I'm sure it will be much cheaper over in the US, but if I knew then what I know now, I would not open an engine that was not operated by myself from day one. Despite the fact that my old engine only had 700 hours SMOH, had a hairline crack in the case and ran like a clock, it was about 2 hours away from seizing - according to the engine shop. If i could afford it, I would opt for something from the factory.

Mine was 5.4 hours a couple of weeks ago in my Mooney. What is interesting though is how my flight time per flight has decreased since I started flying. Looking through my logbook, I started out with a C172 - lots of 3 hour plus flights. I sold the C172 and bought a Robin HR100-210. The average flight time decreased to below 3 hours and with the Mooney, even more. Compared to the US, South Africa is rather small and I live almost in the middle. At Mooney speeds, I can reach any point in anything from 3 - 4 hours. Couple that with the legendary Mooney economy, I can almost return home without refuelling:)

What's the source of the metal you found?

Our local flight folio has columns for, among others, fuel and oil and it is compulsory for these to be logged.

The LASAR combination didn't fit my '67F, unfotunately. They were too thin and can be pulled out by hand. I haven't gone to the trouble to determine the actual thread on my airplane though.

I'd like to apologise if I offended anybody, stepped on some toes or sounded arrogant with my "skill" statement. English is not my first language and it seems that I have expressed myself incorrectly by my choice of words. Experience and judgement is indeed what counts and the making the actual call to take on any cross wind will be the ultimate proof of that. Personally, I have probably not landed in cross winds exceeding 20 - 25kt. That might not be the limit of my Mooney, but it certainly is my limit. The same goes for runway length. My Mooney can go shorter, but landing on anything shorter than 1600ft becomes a bit of a challenge to myself. The important thing is to know when to back off and if required, to do so in time rather than to push your luck.

If you're proficient and use a good tegnique, there shouldn't be much of a side load, or any other load for that matter, on the landing gear compared to a landing under normal conditions. Some pilots manage to break things in still conditions, so I think it's really a case of skill, to a large extent. You just need to recognise when the situation is above your own ability. When I return home after a there and back flight that took in the region of 5 hours, I don't really have much of a choice in terms of an alternative. I live on a farm with only one runway and that's it.

Extreme cross wind landings are much less of an issue in my Mooney than it was in both my C172 and Robin Hr100-210 and I always use full flaps in the Mooney.

If you have an engine analyzer, the target EGT for take off is normally around 1250 deg. My runway is at 4000' and I seldom need more than 1500' for any take off - even when fully loaded.

Quote: jetdriven I hear many Bonanza pilots say they can throttle back to Mooney speeds and burn the exact same fuel. I have yet to actually see documentation of this. Last year at OSH we sat down to eat a hot dog and the two other men got into a tiff about his Cardinal RG. Conversation about speed and fuel burns comes up, and he throws down that his Cardinal RG burns the same fuel and goes the same speed as a Mooney. 8 GPH and 150 knots. Now, he has the same -A3B6D engine, but ~4.4 SQFT of equivalent flat plate area. I'm no rocket scientist, but I am sitting next to one. I choked on the hot dog. If I didnt have 200 hours in a '71 Cardinal RG perhaps I woudnt have known better. But the filter between my brain and mouth is rather weak, small and porous.

I was under the impression that the main benefits of VG's are that they lower the stall speed and provide more effective control at lower airspeeds, instead. Theoretically, you should be able to rotate at a lower airspeed which might cut a bit off the take off run. However, one of the things that Mooney wings don't like, is flying at low speed.