HRM

Two questions: 1) Engine. 2) Did the FM/POH forbid hand-propping?

Maybe that's the minimum requirement for being president of the CBC. On a more serious note, it's an example of poor situational awareness and speaks to a weak sense of personal minimums. An aircraft that includes a starter motor and has to be hand-propped to get it started means that something is wrong, eh? How one proceeds when something is wrong is a path that branches to either success or failure -- the latter can be extreme.

Somebody's been watching Shark Tank. Looks like the business is booming, congrats.

The article said that Apple was looking to offer a low cost (budget) device, which I find hard to believe---Apple does not do that. Frankly, it's a no-go for me if the pencil isn't there.

Just a thought...I was struck by the magnificence of that image. That includes the upturned wings, ethereal.

Now THERE's a cover for MAPAlog if I ever saw one.

Given the number of new, novel, and soul-damning expletives I generated when installing the pilot's side on my E, that is a fantastic offer.

Oh good grief, don't get me started on this topic. That said, can you point to the documentation showing that "the FAA is aware of it"? I am genuinely interested. Especially since I just completed my FR with a 20-something CFI--yay, two more years, two more years, two more....

I am not looking at the dual mag at all--in fact, from all the discussion on it over on MAPAlist, it appears to have been a bad idea. So, my conclusion from all the discussion is that an A1A and B6 are indistinguishable externally, which is what I wanted to confirm. Thanks all.

My question was ill-posed, I frankly have no interest in doing it (B6 ⇔ A1A) as I am more interested in the differences from an academic standpoint. What I am understanding from the discussion is that Lyc put the counterweights in for reduced vibration and better performance near resonance points; as such, a B6 in an E would be an improvement, but most likely not worth the administrative hassle. There could also be W&B issues in either direction given the J is a long-body. What was most important to my questions, and not revealed in them, is the exterior configuration of the engines. Other than the data plate, the two should be identical in exterior appearance and size given the only difference is deep inside on the crankshaft. This would explain the fact that on the Lyc website the same photo is used for each engine on the data pages.

So was there an improvement from the A1A to the B6? I am just trying to understand the what and why because these motors are pretty much identical except for the counterweights. Also, where are they? The counterweights that is. Lastly, could a B6 be put on an E, or an A1A on a J?

So does the J, because of the counterweights, not have the RPM continuous operation restriction band? That would make sense.

I don't think so, at least not from the data on the Lyc site.

Actually, I have no intention of swapping out the A1A in my E for a B6--I just wondered what the difference in the engines was. That said, if all it is is magnetos, then why couldn't an E have a B6 and a J have an A1A? The bigger question is why; i.e., why didn't Mooney just put an A1A in the J? This will take an A&P with deep knowledge to answer.

Fellow Mooniacs, Can anyone here explain the difference between these two engines? On the Lyc site the only thing I could see was that the B6 is for a J and the A1A is for the E. Also the A1A mags are 4370 and 4345 while the B6 is 4370 and 4372.

It's not so much the distraction as it is the mechanical aspect of the thing and the glaring visual of the J-bar position. That said, the data apparently shows no difference between manual and electric gear gear up frequency. Of course, every pilot is different and I guess I am just a tactile sequencer. I also love the 'steam punky' aspect of my E. Levers, dials, gauges, lights, etc. Then again, I fly it solely for my personal pleasure.

I am guessing that all M20K's have electric gear. Frankly, I would proffer that the majority of gear ups happen on electric gear Mooneys. I am wondering if the two gear ups under discussion happened under IFR flight plans. Also, did the accidents happen with a CFI on board? I would also proffer that a disproportionate number of gear ups occur with two pilots in the cockpit (not picking on CFIs, ANY pilot). After 'discovering' a few years ago that at 125 I can use the gear as a speed break, it's part of my slow down procedure on approach. Where things get screwy is with pattern work and another pilot on board--the flow is disrupted. I just had my FR in a Cessna (gottah love slow and simple) and did four landings. No issues with speed or gear. Has the Mooney Safety Foundation analyzed gear up landings?

Looks a bit like a bikini bottom to me

He has already grasped the true meaning of PIC!

Yep, you hit on the best plan (IMNSHO) and yep, I completely understand the orphan metaphor, BT

Good luck!

HAH! That same question came up on another aircraft forum!

Therein lies the rub, literally. I've looked into these sorts of jacks and from what I have seen they state that they are not for lifting, but stabilizing. You could still lift with them, but you may not be able to turn the handle due to friction. Then you have the possibility that lifting with them could cause stresses on the handle and cause it to snap off or something (I'm an EE, not an ME). Could ruin your day.

Their patent is on their system, the lawsuit, IIRC, is on the data transfer protocols (that Garmin allegedly has the patent on).

Thanks, I'll give them a call. I'll be up there this weekend.