Jerry 5TJ

The Methyl Chloride stripper took the paint off "right quick." It took more time and effort to get that black plastic remains off. Still, two hours of work and it is all bare and shiny. Now, shall I paint first or just stick on the 3M wingwalk?

The wing walk area on my M20C was looking rather ratty and coming loose at the front edge. So I decided to replace it. I purchased the new 3M material, 24" wide and 5 feet long with a self-adhesive backing. The problem came when I started taking off the old material. It did come off, in about 8,000 small strips and leaving the lamination material intact over much of the area. After about two hours of pulling and scraping with an aluminum scraper, the results are as in the image. Question for the group: Is there a solvent to take off this black stuff? Or, shall I just keep scraping at what is starting to feel like lifetime employment? Second Question: What kind of tape is used to cover the gap between wing and fuselage? There was a silver metallic tape under the trim.

I had a (perhaps) similar problem in a T210 about five years ago. At altitude the MP would drop six or eight inches, but it would be OK again after descending 10,000 or 15,000 feet. Turned out (most likely) to be the rubber hose from the inter-cooler to the intake air body. The hose apparently leaked when the differential pressure was higher at altitude. A new hose and new clamps seemed to fix it, but that was not the only thing we replaced during the investigation. I did not worry that we may have replaced some "OK" parts during the investigation, I changed anything that looked dubious.

My opinion: Buy the best pre-J Mooney your budget allows, and don't worry too much if it is a C, E, F or G. Condition is everything in a half-century old airplane.

I did 5.7 hours in my old M20E nearly two decades ago from SNA to TDW, helped along with a good following breeze. I was ready to get out when I got there. All of our Mooney rides pale compared to THIS flight -- recounted in Bill Gunston's book "Bombers of the West" pp. 151-152: "A B-47E of the 43rd BW took off from Sidi Slimane, Morocco, on 17 November (1954) to return to its base at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. Fairford proved to be under a complete clamp, and the bomber flew all the way back to Morocco. Encountering extremely bad weather over Africa, the crew changed their minds, and learning of a better forecast over the UK, eventually set course again for Fairford. They landed at Fairford on 19 November, having covered 21,163 miles in 47h 35m." I bet those three guys were glad to get out and stroll around some, too.

My 64E and my 65C both had the panel laid out by the guy with the shotgun. I flew 'em about 1200 hours and my eyeballs got used to flitting around in the pretzel scan required. Before I put in a new panel, I first paid good money to overhaul the gyros, and to add a second, electric AI. Your priorities may vary. Sure, the "T" layout is much nicer. A big color LCD across the whole panel and a HUD with synthetic vision and FLIR would be better still. Christmas is coming but I am not holding my breath.

That's interesting, Jesse. Thanks. So, I ran the numbers based on your formula: C C knots IAT OAT K TAS 1.3 0 1 100 1.9 0 1 120 2.6 0 1 140 3.4 0 1 160 4.3 0 1 180 11.9 0 1 300 0.9 0 0.7 100 1.3 0 0.7 120 1.8 0 0.7 140 2.4 0 0.7 160 3.0 0 0.7 180 8.3 0 0.7 300 1.1 0 0.8 100 1.5 0 0.8 120 2.1 0 0.8 140 2.7 0 0.8 160 3.4 0 0.8 180 9.5 0 0.8 300 1.2 0 0.9 100 1.7 0 0.9 120 2.3 0 0.9 140 3.0 0 0.9 160 3.8 0 0.9 180 10.7 0 0.9 300 I used the K factor at 0.9, which Williams says is on the low end of the usual range. So, the take-away is -- if you start picking up ice, just speed up to around 300 knots true and it will all melt right off. Better yet, 450 knots will give nearly 25C rise. I guess that's why 767s don't need boots.

I calibrated the two airplane OAT probes by submerging them in a slury of ice and water, and compared those readings to a third, calibrated, lab thermocouple probe. The new Davtron OAT read 33F, the Scott read about 28F, and the lab probe claimed 32.8 to 33.4F. Engine was off and no sunlight was falling on the plane, which was in the hanger at the time. The lab meter resolution is 0.1F, the Davtron reads to 1F, and the Scott has marks every 2 degrees F. I am still interested to know if the probe is or is not in a "bad" location but the Scott is certainly reading way too low.

Jose, are you suggesting the old Scott OAT on my 65 C was deliberately set to read low because Mooney expected hot air to spill from the cowl? I suspect it just got a weak spring after 45 years.

I put in a Davtron clock-OAT-Voltmeter recently and calibrated it. It was within 1 degree F at 32F. The Scott OAT poking thru the windscreen was reading 5 F too low at that temperature. As the saying advises, "Trust, but verify." Does anyone have advice on how to plug that hole once I remove the old Scott OAT?

I find it odd that my FAA license has pictures of the Wright brothers, but not of me. Would any state issue me a driver's license with Henry Ford's face in place of mine?

I took a 350 pound guy and his 200 pound wife for a ride in my M20S once. They brought us right up to gross weight with 30 gallons aboard, but the wing did not fold under their tread. They loved it; the guy went on and did his private license after that. He was unable to take dual instruction in a 152 for obvious reasons.

More food for the run-on topic... In the middle of annual inspection, I found the generator bracket was loose. I took the generator out to get at it. Man, it is heavy. But, I found an FAA cert. shop who will rework it for a modest fee. Mind you, it has been working for a long time, the logs are mum on just how long, but while I have it out might as well get it checked, new bearings and new brushes stuck in, I figure. I did the alternator upgrade on my previous Mooney. It did indeed start charging at a much lower RPM. BUT, to add more info to this thread -- on THIS Mooney I replaced the Delco mechanical "regulator" with a Zeftronics unit, and THAT also improved the charging performance. I'd say a generator with the Zeftronics controller is a good half-way step -- it starts charging the battery at about 1400 RPM. The Delco + generator duo would not come on line (and start charging the battery) much below 1800 RPM. The alternator was better yet, it would start charging that battery at 1200 RPM. I also note that the generator is rated to 50A, which is more than I need. The more I upgrade the plane, the less current it pulls. The old landing light sucked 20 amperes, the new LED lamp is a third of that. The old (tube type!) radios pulled 10 amps, the solid-state King and Garmin units about a third of that total. Only the pitot heat current drain is the same as when the bird left Kerrville 45 years ago. So, who needs 70A? (me, in a Meridian, but that's another story)

Thanks for the suggestions. Nice looking baffling, Jose. Will give it a try with pop rivets and washers, if the IA says "OK."

I have decided the old black rubber cowl baffle seal needs to be replaced. This is on 65C with doghouse style sheetmetal. I bought the black silicone rubber 3" wide material from Aircraft Spruce, it looks like a good match. Question -- how best to attach the silicone to the sheet metal? The original attachment is via staples. That does not look like something I can reproduce. Aircraft Spruce sells special screws for the purpose -- they call them baffle fasteners, part number 05-56140. Has anyone used these? Question --suggestions on the best way to replace the 5 or 6 feet of front baffle?

I was looking through the CAFE foundation archives and ran across their study on speed gained by a good wax job. The data are interesting for two reasons: One, they provide a careful study of the impact of smooth wax on a Mooney. Two, the article offers another nice view of the nose of the CAFE highly modified M20E, which will do better than 170 KTAS at 4000 feet at 2600 rpm. See the report "Wax Effects on Drag" at CAFE Reports Page

Re Speed: Roy LoPresti in an article about the development of the 201 said the inner gear doors were necessary to get 200 mph out of the 201 and that without them the plane lost enough speed that the sought-after "1 mph per hp" could not be met. I recall it was claimed to cost 3 or 4 mph total. Mooney would have liked to have left them off but at 200 mph they counted for enough to put up with the complexity. So, at 160 mph (actual "C" cruise speeds rather than full-throttle "J" speed) you might get 2 mph, right? Re Retraction Force: I have run the Johnson bar on a "C" outfitted with the inner gear doors, and the force increase was noticeable. The owner of that plane pulled the gear up at 75 mph because he could not get them up much beyond 90 mph, he said. Maybe they were rigged wrong. Re Cool Factor: They sure look nice.

For information on area rule as applied to drag reduction for trans-sonic flight, have a look at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter5.html

If you make it fast enough, you will want to area rule the fuselage. I don't think there are any standard mod kits for that, yet. More seriously, look at the CAFE Foundation; they spent a lot of careful research work improving the efficiency of a Mooney aircraft and most of that was drag reduction. see www.cafefoundation.org/v2/aboutcafe_cafeboard.php

There are two different landing gear tools for early Mooney aircraft. One is for the main gear legs, the other is for the nose gear. They are used to check the preload on the downlock. The two don't look at all alike. There is a fellow who sells newly-manufactured copies of these on EBAY, search for "Mooney Landing Gear" and you'll find him.

I believe condition is everything in planes more than a few years old -- and our pre-J Mooneys are all 30+ years old. The median pre-J Mooney is probably about 44 years old because Kerrville made so many in the 1960s. By now, after all those annuals, modifications and passage of time, each one is a unique example. Set your price limit and buy the best Mooney you can get for that many AMUs. I'd pick the best pre-J on the market based on maintenance, history and equipment before I'd worry about it being a "C" or an "F" or whatnot.

It just happened to me -- I brought up MooneySpace from my favorites list. I posted a comment and then noticed, hey, that's not me. Logged out and then back in successfully "as myself." Sorry about that, Lahso.

I'm pondering the post-100LL future like the rest of us piston airplane folk. The cost of a conversion is interesting to discuss in the aviation community. While talking with fellow airport types earlier this year I asked "what would you pay to convert your engine to use MOGAS?" Answers ranged from "nothing" to around $15,000. That was an informal poll over beer and hot dogs at the pilot association meeting. I thought those figures were revealing. The O-360 A1A in my "C" currently lists at $41K, and about $36K discounted. See http://www.airpowerinc.com/ for that quote. The core value is $13K, but I assume the core value will go to zero unless the MOGAS future is FADEC, unlikely for a non-injected engine like mine. I figure the Diesel engine will cost at least as much as today's O-360 A1A, plus it will need a prop, engine mount and a new cowl and the STC. We're looking at what, at least $60K? If my poll is at all accurate, virtually none of my fellow pilots will pay for a diesel conversion of their airplane. As an aside, there is a Rolls-Royce turbine engine small enough to fit into a Mooney airframe. There is a 317 hp variant of the RR250 series engine. It is used in the P210 Silver Eagle. Nice little engine, so small it looks like a toy but it reliably cranks out the hp. It is not a paper flight-of-fancy PR speculation, either; RR have built over 30,000 of them. That engine costs about $400K, alas.

How about the magneto switch on the panel? Any chance it is intermittently grounding a magneto even when it is selected to "both?"

You might look at the other end of your headroom problem and get some custom foam seats made. High-density foam with lower loft will drop you an inch or more easily. I'm about your height and, no, there is not a lot of room between head and headliner but with some nice foam rebuild in the pilot seat I have ample room for standard headsets.