Jerry 5TJ

I'll vote with the "pull out the ADF and toss it" gang. That's what I did, and I put a second transponder in the space freed up. A second transponder is a whole lot more useful for IFR flying in the USA today than an ADF. Throw out that Loran too, while you are at it. Carry a portable GPS and a battery powered VHF handheld transceiver for backup. Yes, if you want to cross the Atlantic in your Mooney and fly the back NDB approach up that fjord in Iceland just like Ernie Gann in Fate is the Hunter, keep the dang thing.

"An airplane accident is the simultaneous loss of airspeed, altitude and ideas."

I replaced the two elevator bolts and stop nuts today, putting the new ones in place with the heads outboard. There is not much more clearance than before, but a critical extra few millimeters between the bolts and the sheet metal makes a lot of difference. It was much easier to clean and lube all those Heim joints in the tail with the elevator bolts out, I found. Putting them back in place was a bit tricky: I can see why some shade-tree mechanic put them in "the easy way" years before I owned this plane. Sobering that I missed this in two years of pre-flights and two annual inspections. Perhaps my new year's resolution should have been "look closer." Few or none of us are original owners of these vintage Mooneys and who knows what was done to them in the past four + decades. As Felix Dzerzhinsky used to say, "trust, but verify."

I have owned a 64E, a 99S and now have a 65C model. The "S" model had speedbrakes whereas the 60's birds did not. The two short body birds have been fine with slips when they were needed, but I try to make a stabilized approach to landing that does not require a lot of late and low changes. No, I don't always succeed. IF needed, in normal conditions, with normal weights, and at normal G loading a full-rudder slip at 85 mph feels stable with no odd effects. I think a key element that is missing in this whole "can you slip" discussion is dynamic load -- if you load up the airframe to a couple of G and cross control the plane, you have just executed the classic entry procedure for a snap roll, and if performed on short final, well, you get the picture. I sometimes demonstrate to the skeptical that the Mooney is fully controllable at 40 mph IAS -- just do a push-over to 0.5 G and there is full aileron control at that speed. At 1.5 G, not so much.

Good, thanks for the verification. Will turn 'em around before next flight.

While pre-flight inspecting my M20C today I noticed that the elevator push-rod bolts just under the rudder can touch the sheet metal fairing under the elevator when the elevator is at extreme full up deflection. Photos show that the bolt end appears to have "nicked" the paint in this area on the left side, and the clearance is minimal on the right side, too. If I pull the elevator to full "up" and then press the sheet metal in with my finger, the bolt will hang up on the faring and hold the elevator in the full up position. Not good! This is the situation on both sides of the tail. I ASSUME the bolts are in backwards, but don't see any such detail in the M20C maintenance manual. QUESTION: Should the bolt heads be outboard, not inboard as on my plane?

Last November I posted a chart showing voltage regulation (mostly it showed a lack of regulation) for my M20C's radio buss voltage. Since then I replaced the original Delco-Remy mechanical regulator with a Zeftronics electronic generator regulator. It took several months for the test equipment and weather to all align properly. Today I took the "after" data -- the voltage regulation with the Zeftronics solid-state generator controller installed. Attached are the two graphs overlaid. In both cases I took about a 45-minute flight and recorded the radio buss voltage 120 times per minute with a DVM porting to a laptop. The lower, noisy trace are the "before" data taken with the Delco-Remy mechanical regulator. The upper, smooth trace is today's information, with the Zeftronics electronic generator regulator. The electronic regulator is working far better than the Delco-Remy mechanical regulator. Nothing else has changed, the same 50 Amp generator and the same radios are installed in the plane. The difference is marked. In both test flights I switched on and off various loads -- radios, the 20A landing light, pitot heat -- while the DVM patiently took data readings twice per second. In both flights you can see the run-up, followed by a period at idle RPM, then the take-off and flight, then the taxi in. Back when the Delco-Remy mechanical regulator was the latest thing, tube-type radios were king. Those radios did not much care about a regulated voltage buss. That is not true today; poor regulation of the supply can affect some equipment. Poor regulation can also shorten battery life.

UPDATE on Voltage Regulation During Flight I posted about the voltage regulation (lack thereof, actually) on my mechanically regulated 50A generator last fall. Recently I did install the Zeftronics solid-state generator controller in place of the mechanical Delco-Remy. That Delco-Remy original contained three relays -- one to shut down the system during overcurrent, the other two to bang on and off for under- and over-voltage control. It was state of the art circa 1930. I opened the Delco-Remy unit up; inside it was pretty clean but a bit rusty on the outside. It still works (as well as it ever did); let me know if you want the thing. The new Zeftronics unit (almost) fit perfectly. I had to grind off a bit of the Zeftronics unit's mounting flange to clear a firewall bushing, and the two heavy gauge wires had to be rerouted. Not hard at all. About three hours total including getting it all signed off properly. The results are good, very good. The generator comes on line at ~ 1300 RPM now, and the buss voltage is a steady 14.2 +/- 0.04 volts above 1800 RPM. That's a vast improvement on the wandering voltage and half-volt of noise seen in the graphs I posted. I'll take the same detailed data on a flight and post them soon for a "before and after" comparison. I am concerned that the Zeftronics unit may overheat, as there is no cooling air available at the upper end of the firewall. Has anyone found heat to be a problem for these units?

Planning to go again, it will be the third time at OSH in a 60's Mooney. It is much more comfortable to stay in a house or hotel...but once again I'll be in the little tent. I pitch the tent under the Mooney's horizontal stab so rainfall during the night doesn't wake me as often, I find. Looking forward to it.

A well-remembered non-stop in my stock 1964 M20E -- from John Wayne SNA to Tradewinds Amarillo TX. Cruised at 12,000', it took 5.4 hours and 44 gallons to cover the 816 nmi at 151 knots average including taxi time. Yes, the winds were blowing towards the east that day. Best groundspeed I ever saw in that plane was 215 knots northbound on V27 just off the CA coast at 6,000 one winter day. I had a student pilot in the right seat taking his first Mooney ride, so I casually pointed at the DME and muttered "a bit slow today...."

Before you sink a lot of money into an electromechanical altimeter, consider putting in an Aspen or Garmin PFD. That may be a path to integrate the autopilot and altitude preselect functions at about the same price as the KEA346 / KAS297 system.

Another approach to Alternator conversion -- When the time came (engine ~ 2150 TT) in my 64 "E" I elected to buy a 0 SMOH engine from Lycoming. I specified the alternator version of the engine, then I only had to buy a new alternator controller, circuit breaker and a few misc. items rather than the whole conversion kit. The generator went back to Lycoming with the old engine core. This approach was lots cheaper than doing a stand-alone alternator conversion. The 70A alternator on the new engine came on-line at about 1200 RPM versus about 1700 RPM for the original 50A generator with its mechanical "regulator."

Here are some more flight data points for my M20C. The figures for 4,500 feet are a good standard comparison point. Those data taken with mixture full rich, 2,500 rpm and 25" manifold pressure. Note for you mathematicians: The quadrant speeds are rounded in this chart, but the average speeds shown carry the proper number of significant bits from the collected data.

Each check was performed with the cowl flaps closed, CHT 50 to 100 degrees rich of peak, overhead air scoop closed, and the plane stabilized on course with no altitude fluctuations, at a flying weight of about 2200 pounds. The speed is GPS ground speed, and in each direction I averaged four to six readings in a 3 to 5 minute run. I have more recent data, and will update this post when I get those data from the notebook to the spreadsheet. This is one airplane's data, taken by one pilot. Your mileage may vary, as the saying goes. I took this format from Paul Smedshammer’s site http://www.coreutilities.com/mooney/Speed.html which lists speed data before and after various modifications on his 1967 M20F. He takes all his readings at 4,500', 2,500 RPM and 25" MP. That's a good basis for plane-to-plane comparison, too.

I have data that I have taken for my 65 "C" in flight -- GPS-derived TAS versus altitude, OAT, MP and RPM. I don't have fuel flow information.

ASIDE -- gee, that's interesting. I thought the FAA examiner was along for the ride, not as required crew, so why does he/she need any controls at all? Of course, the examiner may have personal requirements other than FAA regulations. Or, are you going to be sitting in the right seat as the CFI candidate? In that case, yes, you would want brakes over there.

Back when I lived in Maryland and had an "E" model, I went cross-country flying one fine winter day, CAVU but cold. About an hour into the flight I tried to switch tanks. I found that some slush from my shoe had gotten down into that cup in which the fuel selector sits, and at altitude froze solid. The fuel selector handle was embedded in half an inch of ice, and there was no way to defrost it in the air, and no way to use the 26 gallons of 100LL on one side. So, I landed at a nearby airport, had the plane put in a heated hanger and it was all dried out the next morning. After that I cut a square of carpet and kept it over the selector when the plane was on the ground, so that nothing could fall into that cup.

Another viewpoint: My "C" got harder to start last spring in morning temperatures in the 40s, which is cold here in Northern CA. Six or eight flights in a month, all with the same issue—it was just harder to start the normally quick-firing engine. I attributed it to that spell of cold SF weather. Then one morning the left magneto was totally dead at run-up. Both had 500 TT, so I sent both magnetos out for IRAN. Once back, the plane started as of old, just fine.

I have a different reading of the 2009-22-03 AD than the prior poster. I do not think this AD resets the clock on propellers which have had ECI inspections prior to the effective date of AD 2009-22-03. On page 11 AD 2009-22-03 reads Compliance (h) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. I believe that the last few words of that section are key -- "unless the actions have already been done" -- that the 50 hour clock does not start anew if you have already done ECI. My prop, for example, had an ECI about 15 operating hours ago, and before November 12, and so it still has to be inspected per language on page 12 of AD 2009-22-03: (m) Within every 100 operating hours TIS after the last propeller hub ECI, perform repetitive ECIs of the front cylinder half of the propeller hub for cracks. so I will have to, as was true before, get another ECI performed on the prop after another 85 hours operation. I don't believe the AD requires my prop to be inspected again in 35 hours TIS. Under this new AD, the next inspection is only required after 100 hours service, NOT 100 hours OR 12 months, as it was under the prior AD, so this AD provides some relief to those who fly fewer than 100 hours annually.

Best Mooney tool .... is a checkbook and suitable bank balance. However much you have in your account, that's a good start.

Since the 2006 AD came out, I have done 3 ECI, the first two cost $200 each and this year's was $250. It is a minor nuisance to fly to the shop and have the inspection done on the ramp.

Regarding the lock -- Attached is another image that shows the pin lock better. When the thumb button is pressed the “J” shaped pin moves to the right. The pin moves out of the locking groove on the Johnson bar's handle. That allows the sliding handle to move down, towards the viewer in the image, and the bar can swing towards the floor. The “sliver” to the right in the earlier image is beyond and above the block, It is a piece of the lower panel trim, and is not part of the downlock block assembly. So, in answer to one question -- the pin is the locking mechanism, not the “sliver” thing. Re prices -- I did get a price for the uplock block from LASAR, and it was about $250 for the part (don't have the quote in front of me, so that's an approximate figure). That price is for the machined aluminum block, it does not include the button, slide locking part, or the microswitch assembly. I was told you salvage those parts from the old unit and reuse them. Since the new block will hold the Johnson bar in a different location (albeit slightly) the landing gear preloads may change. At the least, it seems prudent to check them after installing a new downlock block, and before lowering the Mooney back onto its “feet.”

What are the wear limits on the uplock block? Photo is of "C" model with 4000 hours, apparently the original uplock block. Taken in flight, the view is from below and shows how the steel top of the Johnson bar has worn a groove in the aluminum block's ramp. The hole is worn oval, and the end of the locking pin appears worn to a bevel, too. It feels secure when I latch it, and give a big "heave ho" test on the handle as part of the GUMP check. Questions for the forum: (1) Is there a wear limit specified anywhere in Mooney literature? (2) If/when the block is changed, does the gear rigging tension change much? FYI -- the rectangular tab visible in the center of the uplock hole is the gear safe light switch. It toggles a microswitch to light the red and green gear indicator bulbs.

If you really want to save weight, buy a composite tank. They are super in volume-to-weight ratio. But they cost a lot; like a nice bicycle, you pay for the weight you don’t have to carry. Those old, low-tech 3AA series steel tanks are cheap. I have one with a 1960s manufacturing date. It has been hydro tested any number of times, most recently last week. It holds 50 cu feet and cost me $5 at a pilot swap meet plus a hydro test. Yes, it weighs 32 pounds, but it will give 40+ man-hours with an oxymizer at 12K feet. Cost to fill is $40 at the airport -- so that's $1.00 per hour. I go on O2 at 9000’ day and 5000’ at night. Yes, you can get your O2 bottle filled at the scuba or welding shop, but make sure they put in O2 and not air or Nitrox. No, that's not a joke -- I recall an accident report where the NTSB found the O2 bottle contained 21% oxygen, to wit, compressed air. Reference NTSB IAD97FA060.

Maybe the question should be: Why are our airplanes so cheap? If Mooney produced a new M20C today, it would probably sell for at least $300K (in 2009 dollars) , not the $40K (in 2009 dollars) or so it is worth used, but heck, they're over 40 years old. If I were to buy vintage 1960's avionics they would be darn cheap, too (even in 2009 dollars they're worthless). My point is the obvious one -- we're putting new avionics into our antique airframes, and we should not compare a new-in-2009 radio with the used price of the old airframe. Elsewhere on this forum are some original Mooney factory invoices from the 1960s. It is interesting to see how much the optional avionics added -- more than 15% was not uncommon for a "full panel" with VOR, ADF and Brittain autopilot. At today's hypothetical M20C $300K base (in 2009 dollars) that woud be over $45K (in 2009 dollars) -- just about the price of a nice panel upgrade today.