Basic Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About Igor_U

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Reg #
  • Model
    '67 M20F

Recent Profile Visitors

500 profile views
  1. Perhaps you are correct to part this one. It's just one unlucky plane! Thank you for sharing all the details.
  2. Dan, in my experience, it is very difficult to backup a tractor with steerable nose wheel of the plane. I have a similar setup as you describe (Troy-Bilt riding mower) and had to install the welded mount with hitch ball in front of the tractor to backup the plane into my hangar. Please see the pictures. Tow bar attachment detail: FWD mount with hitch ball. Aft view, showing towing hitch installed. I use this setup mainly to push the plane into the hangar due to ramp being steep and it takes two person to roll it in. Tow bar is Ebay purchase and quite massive. It can be extended which should make steering easier but it takes more effort to attach it to the plane nose gear.
  3. Mooney spar design

    Cliffy, Very good observation! Every Boeing (or other commercial/business jet manufacturers) have wet wings with somewhat similar construction, however their execution is much better, IMO. Their design and construction includes fay surface seals between components and then fillet seal with special attention to wet-wing fuel tank areas. All the wing (and fuselage) components are primed which of course helps preventing corrosion and issues we sometimes see on our Mooneyes. Even at Boeing, Sealing and Corrosion protection improved dramatically since days of B727, and even newer programs improving their design and protection by updating materials and processed on each new iteration of the model. Also, progressive maintenance of Transport category airplanes with big checks helps avoiding issues on older airframes over the years flying. I was somewhat surprised that wings on our planes and not fully primed (my ’67 F is certainly not) while fuselage is and this can contribute to corrosion. Enter the sealed areas of tanks that are impossible to inspect and decades passing by… I was also surprised not sealing the tanks during wing assembly (omitting fay surface sealing) and just filet seal after construction. To my understanding DIY RVs are built with tanks sealed at the time of wing assy and we don’t hear much of leaking tanks on RVs. This is not a really a (big) critique of Mooney, or other GA manufactures as I am sure no one in 60-s or 70-s, at the peak of GA production would think we would fly our planes after 30 years let alone over 50. Also, this reduced the cost of construction and could be rolled down to the customer and keep accounting department happy. At the time, no one really perceived this as a big issue, considering the life expectancy of the airplanes and of course, cars at the time were not that great and corrosion resistant either. I am guilty of working on my 50+ year old airplane (and cars, except the new one) but this helps me better understand condition, potential issues and lower the cost of ownership. Over past 13 years of ownership my IA and I had done a lot of preventive maintenance that could be deferred since often I was paying just for parts and some reduced rate labor. So, yes, I still hop into my ’67 Executive to go cross country but I’m aware issues can pop up anytime that can deem repairs not economical with low hull values of our planes. Good luck.
  4. M20C turbo

    I consider it as a good price for sure; if you need turbo this would be a cheap way to get it.
  5. 80kt headwinds and early Mooneys

    Great post Dave. Just the other day I mentioned your smooth wooden wing Mooney to some of my friends here. When I went through PPT, carb icing was frequently mentioned and the graph was on the sheet we filled in with other pertinent data like W&B, Flight plane etc… Nowadays I fly behind fuel injected engine and don’t have to warry about that. I don’t quite understand your comment about EGT differences at lower altitudes; I’d like to hear mere. How I understand it, actual EGT’s are not important but the GAMI spread is. I don’t have experience with carbureted engine in a Mooney, though. How different is M20A from C?

    there is a limited number of channels available hence you can not fit fuel quantity in single CGR-30P. If you want to remove cluster gage your options are to get a second CGR-30P ($$$) or get a additional certified fuel gages like Aerospace Logic Dual Fuel gage for around $650. This is my plan but you could go with cheaper certified gages as well (Mitchell). In my case, JPI units or EI MVP-50 (preferred but $$) were no-go as it would require new panel. Keep in mind that installation of CGR-30P will free number of instrument holes in your panel (in my case 4 + Cluster gage location) so you'll have extra room on your panel. I don't remember if you need to remove the old instruments per STC but I see no reason why not. instrument hole blanks are cheap, lighter then instruments and old wiring and lines... Personally, I don't see how this unit is half step IF you get the new fuel gages and possibly CiES senders as well and will not require change of the RHS panel. BTW, If you go for it, consider getting this smart charger: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/eicrgr30p-usb.php It is part of the same STC, used for data download and iPad charger and is cheaper then other chargers on the market. Good luck

    Yes, I have a CGR-30P (premium) for couple of years in my plane. Since it's Primary, it replaced all of my engine instruments except for Fuel levels. I wanted the unit that would fit into standard 3 1/8" hole and took RPM and MP/FP gages out as well as aftermarket EGTx4 and OAT gages. JPI was a no-go for me as would require new panel cut and I couldn't installed it into existing hole. And I prefer EI service better as well. For now, I kept the original cluster gage but covered the bottom half (CHT, oil temp and press). I plan major pilot panel upgrade (G5s etc...) and at that time will remove cluster and replace it with Aerospace Logic Dual Fuel level gage (2.25" dia). I installed the unit myself, with IA's supervision. No issues at all as their documentation and instructions are great. I have only good things to say about EI support. They helped me reprogram unit to use existing shunt for ammeter. Keep in mind it takes time to do the removal of old gages, wires and fuel/vacuum lines. Installation probably took 30-35h due to difficult access on my '67F and having avionics (DME/ADF/Transponder) on RHS panel. Also I had to fabricate and attached a tray for unit remote CPU as there was no room on firewall or back of the panel. Display is very bright with good resolution and size is not an issue for me. It is located above the old cluster gage (old MP/FP location) but with a new panel I might move it on LHS panel where VOR1 indicator would normally be. Good luck with your install.
  8. Well, IFD440 is slide in replacement for Garmin 430 and accordingly to Avidyne, it should "talk" to G5. However, G5 STC does not list it as approved GPS/NAV, it lists only Garmin's product. I have asked Garmin about it and Garmin's answer was: Thank you for contacting Garmin International. The Avidyne system is not approved as an interface with our G5 under the Garmin STC. this would be something you would have to contact them to verify if they have completed any needed testing for the interface and have the necessary 429 and 232 configurations for. Garmin has no plans to add this interface to our STC. Not really something you want to hear but you should discuss this with Avidyne; they were helpful while talking to them on the phone. Good luck
  9. I am looking at the same upgrade. I think you need a new indicator compatible to IFD440. I am looking into G5/HSI to pair it to Avidyne... And you could keep old King, of course.
  10. Mooney M20F Versus M20F Exec 21

    Just Google vintage Mooney advertising and check for photos. Also, have a look on Ebay. some sellers have them, taken out of old magazines. Good luck.
  11. Mooney spar design

    Pipers PA28 do not have a life limit. As far I know, no airplane certified under CAR 3 does; that is something newer designs under part 23 do have, though. I seems to remember Piper Tomahawk has 12,000h limit on wing life...
  12. Mooney spar design

    Yes it's true, all PA28 have NACA 652-415 laminar flow airfoil. So do Comanche's, PA32 and their twin counterparts (some have NACA64A215). This goes for both Hershey bar and later semi-tapered wings. Designer John Thorp and his team wanted to move main spar aft and NACA g series laminar airfoils have max thickness at 40% chord as opposed to 30% for more traditional NACA 4 digit airfoils. Changing the airfoil would not be practical as that would require massive redesign of the wing spar and fuselage attachment points. I believe Semi-tapered wing has larger wingspan as well as a quick look at Cherokee and Warrior manual would confirm. Should Pipers be faster? Well, not all laminar flow airfoils are the same, some are actually designed with gentile stall characteristics in mind. The other wing feature is that Designer chose to use same airfoil at the wing root and the wingtip (NACA 652-415 ). This is normal for rectangular wing but less so designing a tapered wing like Mooney. Mooney wing airfoils are NACA 63-215 wing root and NACA 64-412 at the tip. Last two digits in the NACA 6 series designation are relative thickness of the airfoil so while Al Mooney decided to use a thinner (12%) airfoil at the wingtip, Piper team decided 15% would do at the tip as well. Also, you can notice the airfoils are different thus having different characteristics; it be safe to say Piper's choice is with more drag, showing constant pressure rise and gentle stall characteristic desirable for training aircraft. How good are these wings in maintaining laminar flow is another question. Build quality of the metal wing with thin skins and wing jigs is something to desire for. Composites are much better in keeping the desired shape of the wing. Even wooden Mooney wing was supposedly much smoother and faster then metal wing after the redesign. Ralph Harmon was designer of the Metal Mooney wing. I am not so sure that Al Mooney hired him, though. As far I remember, Mooney brothers left the company due to (another) bankruptcy at the time first M20s were getting in production and were never around to see them flying. I could be wrong, though as I read the book years ago.
  13. convair B-38

    Wow! My old manager had a scanned picture on his desktop of (the other) one, in camo-paint scheme. Picture was taken in 1970-s at Iceland airport, during the ferry trip to airshow in Europe. Very unique airplane.
  14. For more info you might want to look at this old website: http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm I don't know how accurate this is but my 1967F would cost $22k-26k. Not really comparable to today's prices as 536 were made and last year Mooney made only few planes...
  15. Mooney spar design

    What you see on that picture is just a T shape Wing spar cap that failed, not the whole spar. Spar is build up "I" beam (upper and lower caps plus web) similar to Mooney's and you can see it on the Isometric view attached to the report. Wing shapes are, of course different with early PA28 having Hershey bar wing while later one have outboard portions of the wings tapered. Similarly to Mooney, PA28 have laminar wing profile so the main spar is at maximum airfoil thickness (40% of the chord) and passes aft of the pilot's seats. I'd be interesting to read the final accident report and more about history of the aircraft. Making a left crosswind definitely didn't break the spar; previous flights did.