Immelman

Nice work, I wish you many years of enjoyable flying without that kind of trouble ever again!

I am 6'3" 34" length pants and fit well in my E. I would take a look at the seat rails in the airplanes you are looking at.... apparently Mooney produced some with more seat travel than others. With that said the extra room of an F would be nice.

It could be a rainy day computer project to recreate the card in the correct dimensions in a word processor or power point.

Yup. Depends on the airplane. And the reasons for using partial flaps in the Airbus are much the same as in the Mooney: Heavy, gusty winds, windshear, high crosswind, and runway to spare. Also saves a bit of fuel, and some operators have advocated for that in the past when every drop or kerosene was being carefully counted. It is another tool in the toolbox. With that said, its maybe 1 landing in 10 done that way.

My parts manual calls that an "arm and shaft assembly" (26) and contains a valve. Looks like it controls another duct (27) that enters/exits that plenum on the top of it. I replaced the ducting in my 66E and cannot remember that part, or a duct on top. Can look later. Unfortunately I'm having issues marking up a PDF of the parts diagram. The "top" duct in the manual goes to a radio cooling thing (28) which resembles a small radiator or air discharge vent located forward of the radio stack. My plane has that cooling thing, but I don't recall if its still connected to fresh air because of prior avionics work that included a cooling fan back there. Perhaps this was optionally opened or closed depending on how the aircraft was originally equipped??

Have you had a look at AC 43-13, in the electrical section? It is... a bit time consuming to understand all the graphs, but I think worthwhile to select the correct conductor. Factors include... ...current ...maximum altitude ...length ...# of wires in the bundle

I would do the MEI as it is an easy add-on, and then self-study, or hire a CFI (well, one that isn't threatened by competition) to get you back up to speed on the rest. Apparently the FAA has this newfangled "ACS" to pay attention to now-a-days. With that said I do not have first-hand knowledge of a reinstatement, I've kept mine alive with a FIRC.

AOA was cheaper last time I looked (and they still are, $10 cheaper, postage included with the sample kit). But they don't write you a nice little story, only boring numbers and historical graphs to see trends. Boo hoo.

I carry patches for my bike inner tubes. They work! Even at higher pressures, 70psi, 120psi road bike... Then I bought a newer mountain bike, things have moved on, now its tubeless with some goop inside that seals punctures. Too bad aviation doesn't move on easily.

- Stay out of airline work on leave through the summer, so we can - Fly to Oshkosh (After we get our shots) - Take the kid airplane camping more (shots or not). - Install a new engine monitor certified as primary and get rid of the old stuff - Have a job and company to return to - Have my domicile to return to

FYI - I was told (and surprised to learn) that some vintage (short body, specifically E models) had more seat holes and thus travel than others. Mine has more than 3 holes. So the limited seat movement the OP experienced might have been particularly acute in the airplane he tried. It would be worth looking into whether the longer bodies had similar variations.

As someone who just recently had their governor ovehauled.... It could also be the high RPM set-screw on the governor that limits control cable travel. That one's pretty easy to investigate. +1 to get a second instrument (my IA loaned an optical tach) to verify how close the ship's tachometer is to reality.

Looking forward to your pirep takair... This annual (a month ago): Re-installing MLG wheel dust cap after after wheel R&R: Whooooooosh. That was from a nice Michelin leak guard tube. Stem cracked at the base. At least it had a decent service life. I wish had had the forethought you had to investigate alternatives as you are now.

The straight stem on the mains also seems wrong to me. The last couple flats I've had have been the stem getting torqued and failing where the stem meets the tube. And the tires were not underinflated!! I am very interested in what you figure out takair.

Forgot to say earlier, I brought this up because this year I had a new IA (same shop) sign my annual. There were a couple of things he wanted to do that.... I did not think were required. One of them was testing the battery....now a relationship with an IA an owner needs to be a good one, so, time to tread carefully. Now I am all for a professional advising / recommending "you ought to consider x, because of y, or else z will wear out..." and often.... no most of the time I will go along with that. But There is a difference between that and mandating an inspection or procedure that isn't required. It just rubs me the wrong way. I will say that as far as the battery is concerned... there is one area where I will consider being a deviant: If I get stranded I would consider a jump start. 12V system. Battery in aft fuselage, safely accessible away from the prop. Get home day VFR only. One possible risk assessment of many to choose from.

100% agreement with you there! But I stand by findings, at least for the RG-35 concorde in my plane. Its not on their list of TSO batteries. Maybe there is some other list I did not see? As for me, I am on year 6 of concorde RG-35 #2. Going strong. I feel 7 years is a good life for a lead acid battery, so will preemptively replace next year.

I don't see it that way, but perhaps I'm misinformed. Here is what I see: https://concordebattery.com/main_air_tech.php - Our Mooney batteries are not subject to TSO-C173 (https://concordebattery.com/otherpdf/5-0417.pdf) - Current maintenance manual: https://concordebattery.com/otherpdf/5-0171.pdf - In airworthiness limitations: "B. For batteries not covered by TSO-C173/C173A, there are no airworthiness limitations associated with the installation of a Concorde valve-regulated lead-acid battery in an aircraft." - I am a fan of Mr. Busch's writing on the subject: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/september/pilot/savvy-by-the-book Now who wants to be stranded with a dead battery? I don't, but..... I feel with a good environment, frequent flying, taking a look at voltage, seeing how the engine cranks, I am OK with that.

Sooo... Is testing the battery capacity a required part of an annual inspection?

Lots of local flying and some in state travel, but I haven't stayed in a hotel since March. One trip to camp out in Idaho. None of the travel involved close contact with other people. My last flight at work (121) was in early March. Having a 3 year old, out of preschool at home, certainly clips the wings a bit. Were it not for her I'd have made more trips. If I'm still not back to work next summer she'll be big enough to do some more serious cross-country flying.

EDM900 is what you want... certified as primary, allows you to get rid of the old stuff. I am not sure why anyone would go through the time and expense of an 830 at the moment....

Nice work. Can't help you with the foot heater shrouds but I remember connecting the ducting to them was not that easy. I repaired cracking plastic with fiberglass and resin (on the back side). Replaced some with new. Door seal, I was pretty happy with the OEM Mooney part for both baggage and passenger doors. My original ducting was in poor shape and I replaced with SCEET, more $$ but I think it carries the warm air better and was easier to work with than SCAT.

OP, I'm sorry for your bad experience. But it sounds like a combination of things here - some poorly done prior work, but also some new airplane owner learning, curve. Hopefully this is the worst of it and its behind you. For example - if the exhaust gaskets were bad and caused a leak and all that subsequent failure.... that is awful! If you spend time with your bird and have the cowl off periodically to look around, you'll soon learn what exhaust leaks and heat damage look like, and will be better prepared to take corrective action before collateral damage occurs. Are you aware that propeller overhauls might be recommended.... but not required, if you are operating under part 91? Fuel tank leaks come in many sizes and severity. Some are airworthiness items, some are not... they don't tend to get better. But some you can live with, safely, some you cannot. The Mooney service manual discusses these in detail. And so on.... The more time and mental energy you invest into the maintenance side of this, the more educated and efficient your spending and down-time decisions will be. It does take time. Finding a GOOD A&P/IA to consult with along the way is huge. Someone who operates somewhere between the extremes of pencil whipping or bad work, and anal retentive to the point of suggesting or insisting on things that don't need to be done.... or not done yet.

At least 8 that I can think of that I see regularly. Probably more in hangars that I don't see often.

Sounds awfully similar..... the thing was rattling around loose. Not good in an area with parts vibrating to the tune of 4 IO-360 cylinders.

Well that doesn't seem right... I had my combo MP/FP overhauled in 2007 at "Sky West Instruments", in Upland, CA. It was $300. I imagine there are quite a few used versions of that gauge available now with so many people going to electronic primary instruments.