Lood

Hi guys, I tried searching, but can't find it quick enough. I need the following info, wrt the fuel sender units on a '67 F, please: Part numbers for both inner and outer senders Ohm range for these senders Thanks in advance.

Same here. Probably not a big deal but I found it extremely annoying.

I just stumbled upon this thread again and as a result of the lack of any help from JPI, I found my own solution to this particular issue: I got hold of a spare AN fitting and filled it up with epoxy. After the epoxy had dried, I put it in my lathe and drilled a 1.5mm hole through it. I then re-fitted it and took my F for a flight. The fluctuation was still very much present, but definitely less - about half an inch. So, I took the original AN fitting which I removed, filled it with epoxy once again, but this time, I took a 0.5mm steel wire, dipped it in oil and pushed it through the epoxy filled AN fitting. After the epoxy had set, I pulled the steel wire out (the oil kept the epoxy from sticking to it) and a very nice 0.5mm hole was the result. I then re-fitted this AN fitting and voila!! - my MP indication on the EDM900 is rock solid ever since.

I was also taught to check carb heat at the run up (on a C172), but NEVER EVER on a dirt or grass surface! I'm not sure how an M20C's carb heat plumbing goes, but on a C172, you suck in unfiltered air when applying carb heat. Doing this on the ground on any unpaved surface is really bad for the engine.

I bought the black leather one from LASAR, IIRC and it did indeed cause some problems. When retracting the gear, it would jam at the bottom of the Johnson bar, making it impossible to get the bar to lock into place. My solution was to pull the boot upwards as far as possible, with the Jonson bar locked upright of course, and then I fastened the boor around the bar with a cable tie. This way, it will not slide down and jam when retracting the gear. I'm sure a thinner type of leather is the answer and the leather does look way better than the OEM material.

RV10 surely is a fantastic and very capable airplane, but they're simply too expensive. You can buy a very good A36 or C210 for less than half the price of the RV, which leaves you with quite a bit of spare cash to spend on maintenance.

Personally, I don't care much for a parachute and I would much rather sacrifice a few knots for better weight carrying ability... No use in being able to fly at 240 odd kts, but being stuck with a good two seat airplane, when you've filled the tanks. Then, on the other hand, the Acclaim is so fast, that you can put in only 60 gal of fuel, carry a reasonable load and still do a 600nm trip. No matter which way one looks at it, Mooney's are extremely efficient!!

Hi Bob, although I'm not aware of CG issues on the 36 Bonanza, my idea is to remove seats 5 & 6 in anyway, and use it as a proper 4 seat airplane with the ability to load just about anything in the back. A friend of mine flies a C210T and they did the same. Probably bit of a waste, but the rearmost two seats in a C210 is just an afterthought in anyway. Regardless, the airplane is now a really comfy 4 seater, with more space and weight carrying ability than one would ever need - almost.

Hi gents, Sorry for my absence, been away for a sporting event with my kids and didn't have access. To answer the tach question, I'm sure it is not a failing tacho. My reason for being quite sure is that I have the digital readout on the JPI EDM900 and I have the OEM cable driven one. Both correspond rather closely and after the EDM900 installation, I was actually quite amazed at how accurate my old, stock gauge was. Both these can't lie equally at the same time and like I said, the lack of power during take off and initial climb out on those reduced power days, is very very noticeable. In fact, when my AME came to fetch my Mooney, his partner, also a qualified AME, remarked that he could actually hear that the engine was not getting full rpm when it ran past as during take off. Please enlighten me: can I fit a McCauley on my engine, to drive the Hartzell prop? I got quotes on both the PCU5000 and Hartzell and it's probably not a big deal if you live in the US, but in our money, landed here it is going to set me back just shy of R30k!!!!! Then it still has to be installed...

I'll try and keep this as short as possible: For quite some time now, I've not seen red line rpm on take off, but rather 2560 rpm. This would happen mostly on the first flight of the day. On consecutive flights, full rpm would be available on take off. I managed this, but I can assure you, when fully loaded, or at hot and high conditions, the lack of power could actually be felt. This reduced rpm would last for about 5 minutes, after which the rpm would slowly increase to reach 2700 rpm. This was not a limit screw issue, but rather an issue with the governor itself. On a flight earlier this year, taking kids back to school, I suddenly lost about 100 rpm, uncommanded. My AME suggested we send the governor in to have it inspected. R2700.00 later, it came back - fixed. Apparently, the relieve valve was stuck. It was installed and worked perfectly well - for about 12 hours. Then it started repeating the reduced rpm on take off issue. On my last two flights, which happened on the same day, the following was observed: First flight:(return flight) Engine oil level was right on 6 on the dipstick. On take off, I got only 2590 rpm and after 5 minutes, 2700 rpm. During this flight, the rpm was fluctuating continuously, between 2430 - 2480 rpm. On the return flight, I got full rpm on take off. I set cruise power as usual, WOT, 2450rpm, 75 deg ROP. After clearing the TMA, I started a short 500' climb - from 6000' to 6500'. During this climb, the rpm started increasing, all by itself, from 2450 to 2550 rpm. I dialed it back to 2450 after which it continuously fluctuated between 2390 to 2470 rpm. On both these flights my oil pressure also fluctuated continuously, between 58 - 66 psi. Second flight, same day:(also a return flight) I added 1 quart of oil. On take off for both there and back, I got 2700 rpm, oil psi was rock steady on 68 psi and rpm was rock steady on 2450 rpm??? I'm not sure if this indicates that my engine doesn't like the oil level to drop below 6? Regardless, there is a problem with the governor. I have already spend almost 25% of a new one's price and I'm certainly not going to have it fixed again, just to have to fix it - again. I always fly my engine until the oil level drops to about 5.5, before I add oil and in the past, this didn't have an effect. During the most recent repair of the governor, the shop did remark the following: "There is evidence, that metal had passed through the governor, at some earlier stage." They didn't find anything, apart from the relieve valve being sticky, but apparently, scratch? I look forward to your replies.

I would also like some pointers on where I can go to for a new RPM control cable. The part # is: 660189-5, but I can seem to find anything in this regard on the web, bar an old SB.

I'm having minor issues with my prop governor and because I am rather skeptic when it comes to overhauled or reconditioned things on my engine, I think I will just replace the governor with a new one. Should I go with PCU or stay with Hartzell? I would appreciate some opinions and advice. Thanks in advance!

I'm looking to upgrade to an early model 36 Bonanza, which is quite a bit lighter than it's newer brethren. It's useful load is 1402lbs. If you really have to use a full 1500lbs useful load, I would go for a twin. Here in SA, some very good twins are now going dirt cheap, but do the maths any way you like, they're substantially more expensive to run, not to mention their maintenance costs. I've compared an E55 Baron to my F, and covering the same 10 000nm, which I do on average in one year, the E55 will more than double the fuel bill. Regardless of the fact that the actual hours flown will be no more than 75% that of the Mooney. In fact, the extra fuel cost of the Baron amounts to more than an annual inspection on my Mooney! Add a twins' maintenance bill and you'll find that flying a twin demands very, very deep pockets...

I've never been able to run my F until the oil level stabilizes. Simple reason, as soon as the oil level drops to between 5 and 6 on the dipstick, my engine tells me that it is not happy. Oil temp and average engine CHT temps will increase, oil pressure will drop to 62/63 psi, instead of the normal rock steady 68 psi and my oil pressure will start to fluctuate somewhat. Looking at the belly, my engine certainly blows oil out, but looking at all the "negative" signs, I'm not willing to keep running it to determine where the oil level will eventually stabilize. When filled up to the 7 mark, it will run approximately 6 - 8 hours to get below 6. What bothers me more, is the fact that my rpm will start playing tricks when the oil level gets low, but I'll make that a thread on it's own.

B&C starter. My Skytec lasted only 3 years...

Once you get to know your airplane, you'll figure out not only what it is really capable of, but more importantly, what your own capabilities are. Your final speed over the fence will depend very much on your actual weight and this will make a huge difference in how the airplane reacts to different speeds. I routinely use a 1200ft dirt strip in my '67 F. It sits at 3000' and although it does have rough over runs to both side, which will be useable should the need arise, I have always managed to land and take off, using only the 1200ft part that is maintained. That said, I never carry more than 24 gal of fuel into this strip and I've carried two pax plus their bags in and one plus bags out. It is of utmost importance that you are able to put the airplane down exactly where you need to, at exactly the correct speed. At the above mentioned weight, I will approach at 75mph and I will touch down right at 70mph. This is probably a rather extreme example, but Mooney's are much more capable than most would appreciate. Below is a GE pic of this strip. The white part is 1200' long and although the rest, towards both end look good in the picture, I can assure you that I will only use either in an emergency. The surface is pretty rough and rocky and it is overgrown with grass and small bushes, about a foot high:

Same here. The first thing I added after I bought my F was the Lasar cowl closure. CHT's were all somewhere around 360 deg in the cruise, going up to 380 during climbs. After I had the engine overhauled and new baffles fitted, #1 and #3 now sits around 280 deg in the cruise and just over 300 deg during climbs, while #2 and #4 will be around 325 deg in cruise and 350 deg during climbs. Before the engine overhaul, I also had to fiddle with the cowl flaps to keep CHT's in check, but now, they're always closed during cruise flight.

Like all the advice above and to add something very important to that, STAY CALM AND DON'T RUSH THINGS! Something else I picked up here on Mooneyspace, regarding a really hot start, like within 20 odd minutes after shut down, (always use the 1100 - 1200 rpm throttle setting on shut down): Push both the throttle and mixture controls completely forward, count to ten and watch how your fuel pressure/flow gauge jumps around. After ten seconds, pull the mixture completely closed and start cranking. You will be amazed at how quickly it will start. Still very important, however, is to catch it in time, by adding mixture as soon as the engine starts coughing. Good luck!

Sorry, these numbers are ground speed, measured by the GPS loggers. My F normally indicates between 120kt - 125kt or around 135mph - 140mph. I could definitely feel the take off and climb performance increase after my prop was overhauled. My home field is at 4000' ASL and when I'm alone, I see around 800ft/min, climbing at around 110mph IAS, WOT, 2700rpm, target EGT. Fully loaded, I see 300 - 400ft/min.

My '67F is stock, except for the Lasar cowl closure - which did nothing to increase the speed of my airplane, btw. I scored 4kts with my new engine and overhauled prop and at 6500', WOT, 80 deg ROP, 2500rpm, I see 142kts TAS. I plan all flights at 135kts and I usually beat that by about 4kts. I went through many years' results from our annual Presidents Trophy Air Race, where everybody's single goal is to fly their airplanes as fast as possible. All the pilots take every possible step to polish, loose weight, I mean everything to get the airplanes as smooth as possible and to gain every possible knot. From these results, the flat out speeds of M20F Mooney's, according to the loggers they carry, is 140kts - 148kts. I must add though that I don't know of any local F's that have any speed mods. Most local F models seem to have an average maximum cruise speed of around 144kts.

The choice I have at my AME, for new tires, is limited to either the Good Year Flight Custom III or Good Year Flight Special II. From what I gather on the internet, the Custom III is superior in construction, but also substantially more expensive and about 2lbs heavier, per tire. I'm waiting for a quote on their respective prices, but which would you choose? Thanks in advance.

1967 stock M20F: 2450 rpm, WOT, 75 deg ROP, 9.7GPH,142KTAS

I've been fighting an uphill battle to try and get proper fuel quantity readings on my EDM900 and would like some opinions and advice from the electrical guru's, please. I have removed both outer senders and tested them with a multimeter. Both read about the same and on both, the resistance readings are rock steady. I haven't had time to drain the tanks (once again) to enable me to remove and test the inner senders. What I have noticed, and I'm sure this causes the readout problems on the EDM900, is the following: 1. The resistance readings coming from the senders, when installed n the tanks, are not stable. They will continiously fluctuate, even with the airplane sitting still on the ground, without the engine running. 2. Any average resistance reading will be different when the engine is running, compared to when the engine is shut down and the reading will fluctuate on both occasions. I've even gone as far as to take calibration readings in flight and although I get a little closer, I'm still way off. Another thing that puzzles me is this. Innitially, the EDM was programmed to indicate in USG. After we calibrated it, it gave the full tank readouts, but it would keep indicating full tanks until the fuel levels dropped below half tanks. Then it would start showing the reduced fuel levels and it actually got more accurate, the less fuel there was in the tanks. I then programmed it to read in Liters and since then, the EDM displays two red crosses with full tanks, until the fuel level gets down to about half tanks. Then the red crosses will disappear and the fuel quantity will be displayed quite accurately. So, is the high end resistance readings received from the senders outside the limits which the EDM can read, but why does it indicate full tanks when programmed to read USG, but with Liters it doesn't? Why are the resistance reading stable when the senders are tested outside, but fluctuating when they're installed in the tanks? Could it be that the inner sender units are buggered or may there be some other issue, like electric interference or maybe a poor ground issue? Thanks in advance and I look forward to any opinions and advice. Just for your information, my stock, analogue gauges indicate fairly accurately and NO, I don not want to buy 4 new sender units, because they're rediculously expensive and the exchange rate versus the US $, will leave me paying about 7% of what my airplane is worth, for the sender units alone!

I've flown my F to its annual on one tank, after I've stripped the other one clean for a reseal. So there was no way I could put fuel in it. I did notice a slight imbalance, but it wasn't a problem.

Hi Steve, This was my idea, but unfortunately, I live in Africa (South Africa is not really different anymore) and with our current government, everything is sliding backwards. Over regulation is becoming a serious problem in general aviation and the "user pays" policy is the norm. Regardless of the fact that there is an FAA approved STC on this mod, our CAA requires a mod approval application. They can easily take up to 6 months to either grant or refuse and either way, this application goes together with quite a ridiculous application fee. So, I'm forced to stick with the original indstallation. Even improving the safety of a certified airplane by installing a 406Mhz ELT, for instance, or newer and much improved avionincs, all goes the same route, regardless of whether the have already passed FAA certification and approvement for installation. Another example, we don't have WAAS reception in all of Africa, but we are only allowed to install WAAS models G430's or G530's, etc. No G400, 420, 430, 480, 530, etc are allowed, because they're not WAAS capable! Bloody rediculous!