Stefanovm

I cannot remember exactly, 1970. My logbook was stolen, so I can not recreate. It was about 6. However, it took 45 to PPL in a Piper Cherokee 140. I was the first student of a new instructor. This had a few pluses and a lot of minuses.

I wanted one too. I just could not figure out how to afford one. I appreciate my E, that I could afford versus the Js I was looking at. If money was no object a Rocket would be in my hanger. I still want one and have never flown one. I would probably hock everything I have if I did fly one and it came near to being the same as it looks on paper to me. However, I can still let my current less than 100 mile trip missions keep me from looking too hard, making a flight less likely. I am probably safe until I retire. The retirement work I am planning an for which I am currently training may make a Rocket possible and mission necessary.

By the way, mine also flys hands off now very well. This is flaps up or down. I leave my PC off except when I want to turn my attention to things other than wings level and can fly pretty much hands off. Mine has an on/off button conversion versus the temporary wheel mounted method. My untrained, but critical eye just mistrusts the aileron 2 degree maximum down that looks like more than 2 degrees down at static conditions. I may very well be wrong. This would definitely affect the speed and other things, but so would the up several degrees on one side and down on the other side for the ailerons in level flight, which has been corrected using an IAW MM procedure. My current IA agrees.

The adjustments were only a few turns for the outboard flap adjustment a maybe a turn for the inboard. I will be doing a more accurate job at the annual. However, it is much better with the little that I did. I do not see how the rigging of the ailerons can affect the roll. With my C152 there was a wing incidence setting that was much harder than the Mooney flap adjustment. Both the Cessna and the Mooney procedures are listed in maintenance manuals. I had an IA mess with my aileron turnbuckles in the C152 which NEVER helped the roll. It was just as bad as my Mooney’s when I bought it. When I finally read the manual and took the C152 to another IA, it was fixed in two adjustments of the wing trailing edge by the book. This seems very similar to a flap adjustment, the adjuster is still mid adjust area, and it is now flying faster.

Quote: Piloto Disconnect the PC leveler by taping the yoke push button. Trim the plane to level flight and check the T&B ball to be centered. If the ball is centered but the plane still rolls to the left hands off you need to rig the roll axis. With hands off check aileron position to be the same on both wings and that the yoke is in neutral position. A rolling tendency to the left can be corrected by adjusting the left flap outboard set screw (on the most outboard flap hinge). Adjust the set screw to lower the flap (no more than two turns). You will need to do a couple of flights to find the right adjustment. If the there is a roll tendency with flaps extended you will need to adjust the inboard flaps actuating links. José

I use a piece of hard corrugated plastic. Mine came from a left over poly roofing sheet. I push it under the filter and out to the pilot side and catch in a cup. I could not make a coke bottle fit. Next time I wll try to take a picture. The only item that gets oily, only a few drops, are the two bundled spark plug wires that run rather close to the underside of the filter. The form a funnel looks like a real good investment.

Rent a Mooney, not likely in my area. So if I want to fly one, I have to own it.

Use tubing from pet store for fish tank air. There is a size that slips on the bulb and will normally pull bulb before slipping off.

NOT THE WAY TO DO THIS if you are concerned about costs. However, the experience was priceless in many ways. 1979, passed written no classes just home study 96%, flew 30+ hours, Written ran out. 1982 passed written again with a 90% and no real new study then flew 25 dual hours, but never got around to the check ride after my recommendation at about 45 hours. However, through 1985 made three actual (2 ILS, 1 VOR-A) approaches real close to minimums. My instructor believed in IMC time, so collected 7 hours of IMC. Three hours were in a King Air C90 with no auto pilot, my official dual cross country and 2 of the actual IMC to minimums. I owned and flew a C310 at the time 1985 passed written again with a 88% and no real new study, flew another 15 hours and was recommended for check ride in the first 2 hours, but never scheduled it, just kept up flying dual as my instructor was a friend who flew with me for free. I collected 4 hours of actual in this period. 2006, wow what a lapse, 1986 to 2003 only flew 100 hours total, then about 75 per year 2003 to 2006. I passed the written this time at the conclusion of a weekend pass promise test at 84%, ouch, but a piece of paper was required to take the test. At the check ride, finally, I had about 1,500 total time and 90 hours of instrument with 9 being in actual conditions with about a dozen IMC approaches, most closer to minimums than not. I finally got to the check ride with a 10 day guarantee type instructor. He took all ten days, but we only flew 19 hours, no actual. The check ride was very easy after it started, but a good learning experience with an excellent DE. Before it started, I was a nervous wreck, which is probably why it took so long to get one scheduled. The 10 day guarantee course scheduled it for me as part of the course. This was worth the entire cost of the course. Actual is tough for me to get, but I should be doing 3 approaches today or tomorrow. Since they will be in VMC, and my wife cannot be my safety pilot for hood work, I do not believe that they will count for anything and are not the experience I need. I am still learning my Mooney after 40 hours and they will keep me sort of sharp. I am still concerned about the Mooney for IMC, but it should be very similar to my C310 with 1/2 the knobs and gauges that need to be used. My IR was done in my previously owned C152, which had a much better panel. However, the performance difference of the Mooney is NIGHT to DAY. To get current (6 approaches, etc.) in my C152 in a day required a pit and fuel stop. The Mooney is a bit quicker so probably will not require the pit stop and should definitely not need the fuel stop until the end.

That is why I hestitated to post. The price, performance, and alternaive to 100LL is very nice, but I would worry. The same local company has 3 Ravins flying, another composite based on the Piper Commanche design. One has the auto engine. It will be interesting to follow its life, but I would still leave it for others and keep my Mooney.

Good article. Thanks for staying. I copied and enlarged for my old eyes.

Don, maybe the server is overloaded. I have had problems today. I even lost my DSL, which is not Mooneyspace related at all. However, several things: Mooneyspace is not supported except by volunteers. This is my guess as I have never been asked for a contribution and see no advertising. Try using "Back" next tiime with a ctrl A and a ctrl C, then pasting (ctrl v) into notepad or just into the Mooneyspace when it is back live. This has recovered my posts losts lost like that. Use notepad whenever you feel like such a long post and cut and paste when you are ready to send. I do not have speed brakes, but would like to see something that took so much effort to develop. I sometimes get long winded also.

I hesitate to post this as I would probably not trade my 20E for this, but MOGAS Premium and 385 mph at FL29. It is of course plastic? It uses an auto engine. http://members.iquest.net/~aca/description.htm and http://www.woodward-aerospace.com/lp1.html

I use only Firefox myself. I only use MS when it is required and sometimes it is.

It is much closer to the original speed this morning. It was gettting bothersome, so I am glad to see the fix.

I just checked on the map and estimate that the line was over 60 miles from me when I noticed it. Of course my C152 was very slow, and the line was very fast moving. Its effects stretched at least the 40 miles mentioned in an above response. Even flying paralell to it, the line closed upon me at an alarming rate. Again stay prepared during convective activity times of the year.

I liked reading Gravel's addition to the thread. I also do not read into the thread any suggestion to penetrate convective activity. Maybe the intent of the other reply was to emphasize positive avoidance? One scary almost IMC remembrance for me, pre-Mooney in my C152, was from Andrews, TX (E11) to Las Cruces, NM (KLRU), about 3 years ago on a 4th holiday weekend. This was for a trip from 07TS to KFHU that I make about 1 ½ times per year. I fueled at E11, stayed on the ground for a flap problem 3+ hours after coming out of an annual 300 nm behind me. E11 is one third the way to the KFHU destination. My weather briefing was about one hour old when I took off VMC from E11, but in the end a more current one would not have helped. My instrument rating would also have been of little help except it got me on the ground quickly and safely before the fast moving activity got to my location. Just south of Hobbs, NM, at 8500 msl, I asked my wife if she was seeing the lighting I was seeing WAY off in the distance, just at the horizon. I had no ADF or a strike finder as I do now. Although she said no, I was sure I did, so I radioed Albuquerque FSS. I was told a three hundred mile long squall line had formed from south of the Mexican border most of the way through NM in the last 30 minutes, NOT forecast. The briefer said I could “possibly” get through a hole 150 miles to the north. My decision was an immediate precautionary landing at Hobbs, not my alternate, but the "closest". I flew VMC at the bottom of the yellow arc in too much turbulence for my liking even in VMC direct to Hobbs. I cannot imagine what it would have been like IMC. In less than the time to divert 40+ miles to the north, land, taxi and tie down, about 60 minutes, the winds were 50 to 60 with up to 1” hail, reported, but not seen by me, and driving rain. Tied down securely and drenched, we took a taxi for a hotel night stay in Hobbs. The FSS was very glad that I gave them the PIREP via the phone from the hotel rather than taking the suggestion to try and maneuver around the weather. The convective activity was very severe and had developed with little to no warning. It rained, with lightning and thunder, for several hours. There was not a convective warning for the route of my flight until it would have been too late to help. The activity was solid for many miles more than my airplane had the capability of diverting around or above. The bottom line is in always being prepared to avoid convective activity in any way that is necessary. Sometimes it must very expedient, maybe erring on the side of caution, as well as being within your and the airplanes capabilities, even with well meaning suggestions from others. If I had been IMC at the time, the outcome probably would have been very different.

Same comment as flight2000. In addition, it has emergency electric gear extension. That was not in the airplanes POH as it was an add on with no operating paperwork that I could find. This was a challenge on my first pre-buy in my E.

I have an E, shorter body, so I am not sure if my input belongs here. I now have 40+ landings in my E, starting 3/13/10. My total landings are around 5,500. I use power at idle stop 90%+ of the time VFR from downwind to base turn. IFR is a different set of variables and I have only done a simulated IFR landing in my Mooney up to now. My total IFR to minimums landings, almost as many as my total Mooney landings, not many, have been smooth. The power manipulation and other instrument checking such as Altitude, VSI, etc. are much more prevalent IFR. The only one for which I can state a figure is the VSI at 400 to 600 on final. I am pretty sure I am close to that rate VFR. Twenty plus of the Mooney landings have been at my 2,500 grass strip. Ten plus were at KFHU, 12001 x 150 feet, but with a density altitude of 8,000 feet. The other ten or so were at paved runways of various lengths, most in the 3,000 to 5,000 foot range. I use full flaps most of the time with partial to get practice used only several times. It takes 7 1/2 handle pumps for full deploy of my E's flaps. I go to 4 pumps before final, below 100 mph, and full flaps after on final. Most of the time the last two pumps (3/4 to full) are only when I am assured of landing. I only pay attention to two items, airspeed and the intended touch down point. I have cross checked the VSI once or twice in VFR. I use the airspeeds 90 to 100 downwind, 85 to 90 base, 80 to 85 final, 70 to 75 at 07TS's trees or landing assured as a starting point, varied by load using similar to the 300 pound rule given above utilizing a gusting and/or crosswind factor. I "fly" the airplane to the touch down point, but find it is more of a challenge to do power off compared to my C152 and even my C310. I still carry a small bit of power on final, but cannot say what the MP is as I rarely look at it. I usually only carry an imperceptible throttle movement unless I add when I have underestimated the descent rate, then it might be an inch plus of throttle movement in the Mooney. I still tend to carry this inch plus of throttle movement in the Mooney from downwind. I should get better with experience as I do not like adding power after I have gone to idle stop, VFR. The Mooney's ability to slow down to increase the descent rate is a bit different than the C152, although more like the C310 (1985 a long time ago). I still carry more power in the Mooney VFR than I am used to doing in anything but a King Air, turbine difference. I have had two Mooney one-bounce landings. I perormed a go around at a paved no obstruction 3,000 foot runway. I started the go around well above the ground, not due to a bounce, but to excessive speed and altitude at my average landing assured check point of about 50 to 200 feet agl. One of the bounces was at KFHU with 20 kts gusting to 30 kts at 30 degrees to the left of the runway heading after nine uneventful squeaker landings with less than an inch of pitch control left after main wheel touch. The second touchdown not hard, at least according to my passengers, but less than I expect of myself. The turbulence that day was un-nerving to me by the tenth landing, all aboard were just riders, the W&B changed with every different set of passengers, so I may have been a bit lax on the airspeed control, or tired, but it may have been a short wind speed drop. The other bounce was at my grass strip leading me to use 1,800 feet of the 2,700 feet. I let the airspeed get away on final, lost my feel for the distance to the runway, and was then too anxious to get on the ground. Both bounces were not high enough that I came out of ground effect and I had the extra speed to allow the aicraft to settle by subtly relaxing my pulling back effort and waiting. The one at my grass strip also had less than an inch of control wheel pitch movement left and almost continuous stall horn at a smooth second touch down, which limits my ability to keep the nose off the roughness for very long. However, my normal no-bounce landings have the same conditions.

I live on a residential airpark, 07TS, "Cross Country Estates Marshall". It was a major leap of faith to move to a Mooney from my C152, because our strip is grass "most" of the time. However, so far I am so delighted with my M20E that I try to forget about this drawback. Due to the heat or cold, the taxiways and runway can be more dirt than grass and very bumpy, more so the taxiways, several months a year. Due to the Central Texas rain patterns it can also be very soggy for several days at a time about 20 times per year. Texas clay in this area gets rougher in the summer due to cracking soil. This concerns me more than my inability to taxi when the grass has gotten soggy/muddy from rain in the past 3 1/2 months of Mooney ownership (brought home on 3/13/10). The roughness has yet to reach its peak for the year. I know not to go when soggy. The roughness "no go" will be harder to determine or accept. We have a mowing service to keep grass trimmed. BTW, my avatar IS my Mooney, my wife and I onboard at LaGrange, TX, 3T5, but NOT at 07TS. That is why it is sitting on asphalt. The second photo below shows the strip, but do not confuse it with our streets. Streets are completely separate from the taxiways and runway. The strip is to the botom of the second photo. However, Wilbur Wright Drive at the top could be used in an emergency, as it is a 40 foot wide paved street and we have undergound utilities. Taxiing is slow in my Mooney versus my pevious C152 to minimize bumping. The neighbor up the street also has a Mooney and has been flying from here for several years. It is "vintage" enough to just be a M20 model with no letter suffix. His taxiway is shorter to the most of the time smoother runway. Stop or fly by if you are in the Georgetown, TX neighborhood. My house is indicated and parking space is ample at my end of Taxiway A. We are almost right between KGTU and T74, at about 7 nm from each. Both have services with T74 usually having a near area low fuel price. We have no services as a residential airpark only, with 29 lots sharing the aviation ammenities. Use caution, as we are only 2500 feet plus 200 foot overuns due to a true 40 to 50' obstacle of trees and wire (marked with the orange ball) on the approach side of the trees at the approach to 17. Runway 35 has far less obstacle height with only 15' trees and a fence, but slightly downhill at 75 feet msl difference between ends. I use about 1/2 to 2/3 (brakes vs no brakes) of the 2700 feet ~ 1350 to 1800, "if" I touch down by the second residence (airspeed, airpeed, airspeed), to land on 17. If not, I have used almost 3/4, oops lost the airspeed control, with moderate braking. This almost matches the published performance. I have not needed a go-around at 07TS yet, but be prepared, as I have needed one elsewhere (my first 10 hours) in my short 40+ hours, 40+ landings, of Mooney experience. The start of the official runway is near the south edge of Taxiway A and the 200' overun extends back to the trees. I am normally at 150 agl to 400 agl by the departure end in my E on takeoff, 200 - 300 pounds under gross and cool for the higher number. My neighbor's M20 just about matches me with 150 HP, but he is usually lighter. The first photo is final to 35 in my C152. The second is from downwind for 17 in my C152. The third is looking into my hanger at my C152 pre-door install, now have a bifold, and pre-Mooney purchase. I stil have no apron, just grass right up to my hanger. The fourth is our location on the San Antonio Sectional, north half.

10 hours was enough for me to get used to the positions. I would not think about swapping now, after 40 hours. It is different, but so are a lot of other things. 400+ in a 182 with TPM and 200 in a C310 with TPM in a quadrant an two of each. My Mooney's TMP is just another difference to remind me that I am flying a Mooney. I also do more by feel (tactile) so it is a non-issue.

I went through the same realization of the larger meaning of being able to own and fly a Mooney as Urs_Wildermuth. I would have had a Mooney in the 70s if I had actually known the truth. I have one now and am hoping the fears that kept me from doing so are unfounded. Flying one is much better so far than any of my other aircraft. I am still fearful of the maintenenace.

Quote: carusoam I think Hartzell owes you the information on exactly what hardware is involved. There should be part numbers and the number of each set of hardware required. ........Meaning, a trained A&P is not going to see this as an obvious and proper way to mount the spinner. (at least not without the instructions from the manufacturer). Too much risk of new cracks to try something without having the proper knowledge from the manufacturer.

Makes sense, but spacers (washers?) are not shown or detailed in installation manual as far as I can tell. I might try them to relieve the obvious stress.

The concern starts now. The parts look identical, except for damage on exisiting spinner. What caused the failure? Will send all photos to Hartzell. A little grease or something on mount hub and inside the spinner, and several very tight screws in the lock nutplates. The front fit looks okay from reading the manual, no chafing, and feel upon removal.