danb35

...and check grounds too. Same thing Lee suggested, measure voltage from the battery negative terminal to each grounding point while the engine is cranking. Small numbers good, big numbers bad.

To the purpose of the thread, I just got an ACK E-04 yesterday, and the shop will be installing it next week. I had the plane wired for it at annual a few years ago (expecting the ACK unit to be released quite a bit before it actually was), so my shop is estimating not more than 3-4 hours for the work. My ELT battery expires this month, so it seemed an opportune time to replace the ELT instead. Yes, I carry a PLB, but any number of conditions could result in my being unable to activate it. The installed ELT isn't guaranteed to work every time either, but it's another independent way of signaling that I'm in trouble, and where I am.

I don't think he calculated anything, or intended to change anything. The form he used has one line for forward and aft CG limits, and he entered the wrong numbers (numbers at MGW for a 2900-lb MGW J). The form itself is defective, though, as the limits depend on the weight, so you can't reasonably enter them all on one line. I know this isn't unique to the Mooney; many (perhaps most) other planes have a W&B envelope with steps and angles. I also don't understand why anyone would bother indicating W&B limits on the sheet--they don't change, so it's extra work and a chance of error for no payoff.

It's probably a little late to ask why you had the plane weighed--it's done now. Looking through the W&B records for '48Q, whenever a new one was done, the old one was marked "Superseded" with the date the new one was done; if yours is this way too, you probably can't really go back to the old W&B record. Like others here, I'm pretty suspicious of an unexplained weight gain of 130 lb. Before deciding that the shop screwed it up, though, go through your old W&B records carefully for errors--I found several in mine, even going back to the factory W&B. Check the weights, and check the math. You may find an error in there that would help explain the discrepancy. Even so, though, your useful load sounds awfully low.

I looked at what you sent me, and it's incorrect, for a couple of reasons. Your correct CG range is set out on page 29 of the TCDS, which is at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/2fb25685d0303ab1852567ed004f59b8/$FILE/2A3.pdf. Looking at that, and at the envelope in your POH, you can see that you don't have a single allowable CG range--there are a number of ranges depending on the weight. So, the first reason the form they gave you is wrong is that it only has a single entry for CG range. Mooney isn't unique in this; plenty of other aircraft have CG envelopes that aren't perfect rectangles. The second reason that form is wrong is that they give the CG range for a max gross weight that your plane doesn't even qualify for. Newer M20Js can get a MGW of 2900 lb, and at that weight, the CG range is 45.0 - 50.1". At 2740 lb, which is your MGW, the range is 43.8 - 50.1". The fact that they indicated this on your W&B worksheet doesn't mean that they've changed your CG envelope; it just means that the numbers they included for informational purposes are wrong. Only the FAA can approve a change to the CG envelope, by either amending the TCDS, issuing an STC, or giving a field approval on a 337 for the change. Your CG envelope is unchanged. If you talk with the shop, I'd hope they'd do up a new sheet with correct CG range information on it, but they'll never be completely correct with that form that they're using.

No, weighing the aircraft will not change the envelope at all. It's possible, I guess, that you're mis-reading the new W&B sheet; if not, it's in error. The envelope is part of the aircraft certification, and the only way to change it is by STC or field-approved major alteration.

I'm partial to the manual gear as well. OTOH, I can't imagine that it would be cost-effective to remove the electric gear parts and replace the manual parts--just seems like it would be a lot of money in both parts and labor for the job.

Mooneymechanic, whoever you are: The more you keep throwing accusations and threats around, the worse it makes you look. Just saying...

The built-in audio panel with intercom is, I think, a more recent thing. I would expect one to be in pretty much any Mooney, but that's because I'd expect it to have been retrofit at some point. It can definitely be added later, but it's a fair bit of labor to do so.

OTOH, there's less surface area in the fuselage. And surface area is far from the only factor in determining drag. The plexiglass is probably smoother as well, thus less drag per unit of surface area. And certainly the shape plays a role.

Replacing the fuel gauges with the MVP-50 is definitely possible. I'm not sure if it requires additional hardware, though. I know EI has replacement fuel senders that work on a different principle, and in theory should be much more reliable, but I don't believe they're required.

I now have all the parts except for the boards--still expect another week or two to get them. Then, I'll get to see how well I can do soldering surface-mount components.

If you were running 100 ROP and change to running 20 LOP, your EGTs will be roughly 80 degrees higher than they were before. It's obvious when you think about it, but it sometimes takes a little while to "click" in your mind. I don't have an explanation for the increased spread in EGTs either, but as long as they peak close together (in terms of fuel flow) and the engine runs smoothly, it doesn't really matter. I honestly couldn't tell you if mine do the same thing, as that's simply not something I pay attention to in flight.

In addition to WeepNoMore's 7-year warranty, it includes his traveling to your location to fix the problems--or so he's posted here in the past.

I installed the probe in (almost) the factory location--one of the wing access panels somewhere around the LH MLG. I put it one panel inboard of where the factory probe was due to concerns about not having a long enough wire to reach to the next one. Fishing the wire wasn't that hard for my A&P, who has much smaller hands than I do--took around a half hour, definitely no more than an hour.

There does seem to be a potential problem with the broken ring hypothesis, that being that more than one cylinder is involved. However, it should be easy (and inexpensive) enough to determine with a borescope, as there would likely be scoring of the cylinder walls if that's the case.

I don't have any personal experience with the MVP-50, but I do have personal experience with other EI products (the UBG-16, the FP-5L, and the R-1 tach). The products are good, and their support has been excellent for the few issues I've had. FWIW...

Whether or not he's set up for simultaneous dual transmitting, it's very likely he has two separate comm antennae. I don't think it's likely to be a useful feature very often in a piston single, though.

Looks nice! Usually in the 6-pack I see the T&B/turn coordinator below the ASI, and the VSI below the altimeter--was there a particular reason you arranged them as you did?

I just placed the order for a few sample PCBs today. Once I get them, I'll see how everything works with a more compact package (and make sure I haven't screwed up the circuit in converting from a modular system to individual components). It'll probably be a couple of weeks before I have anything more done.

I agree about preferring to work from the top. However, don't the cowl mods require the 201 windshield too? The 201 w/s definitely looks better, though.

This year, I'll be putting 250-300 hours on the plane between annuals, so there will be a number of oil changes, compliance with the 100-hour Lycoming AD on fuel injection lines, etc. I don't open the cowling just for the fun of it, though.

I've seen positive remarks about them on the Mooney e-mail lists, but I don't have any personal experience.

Your favorite Mooney Service Center would be able to get the gauges for you--LASAR in CA is pretty popular for parts here in the states; I'm not sure who your best option would be locally (or if you'd just have it shipped over from here instead). The gauges themselves are just held in with silicone sealant, so yes, it should be as simple as prying it out with a screwdriver or an icepick. If it takes very much force to move, something's probably wrong.

There's no need to cross-post. As I posted in your other thread, the gauges can be easily and inexpensively replaced without getting into the fuel tank at all.