Igor_U

That would be interesting to hear, how it was done... How would someone be able to buy Modworks STCs if the company does not exist?

If I understood you correctly, you are running your engine at roughly 2gph less then "per book" meaning you are developing that much less power and result should be lower TAS. Without looking at POH or doing the math, seems to me you are at the ballpark... So, yes, MP gage could be reading low. What does it read with the engine of, on the ground? It should read close to Altimeter setting value at See level and (negative) difference would transfer to the reading in flight as well.

I agree. It takes me more then 4h to remove all necessary access panels and cowl and as much to put them back. Plus additional work and repairs I do; we do it in my hangar. As for wing access panels: normally I remove only ones specified in SM. Easy way to recognize them was to replace screws after the paint job with new, stainless steel ones. I don't need to consult the SM to do that anymore.

It is not certified. In Questions and Answers they state: "This product is not FAA Approved. For the FAA Approved version, please search part # on our website. " This part 11-11554 is listed for $999. Way too much for me but it is a cool product. I guess I'll keep my Whelen strobe for a while.

This is much cheaper than LoPresti's $16k price. Does your price range includes your (full) install labor as well? I'm sure most of us, not close to WI, would prefer ordering parts and do install at home field. How much work would you insist doing yourself? Thank you.

Maybe it's me but I'm not sure if I'd trust what looks like coolant hoses on top to hold the jack upright as any side load could popped them open. I would prefer something more substantial, like jacks on page 2. Annual story of a friend pops up in my mind: as soon as the gear was up for a swing test, a strong earthquake hit Pacific Northwest and he was watching his plane precariously balancing on the jacks. What were the odds? Anyway, jacks and plane survived that test!

Vance, I agree that 10% thickness reduction standard applies to structural tubing; also quick look at SM did not reveal anything about the push-pull rods. However, years ago at the annual, my IA found out worn (Elevator?) control push-pull tube he wasn’t comfortable with. To my understanding, on ’67 only, that tube slides over phenolic block in the belly (so it clears the tubular structure) and got slightly spot-faced as it was not greased generously… IIRC, my IA contacted factory regarding that wear and I think they answered “no wear was allowed”. I don’t know where was this coming from. Contacting MSC (D. Max), the responses was, if it’s not bad, they clean it, refinish it and rotate the tube 180 degrees. So, answer would be: it depends. Mainly of you mechanic and how comfortable he/she is signing the repair. I ended up getting a new custom replacement tube, modified from Ovation by LASAR since original was not available. It wasn’t exactly cheap but I was doing my own maintenance with IA’s supervision and inspection so labor was free. Regards,

There are other shops doing it but further away and charge more. Sad part is that my prop was new in 1990-is at the time B-hubs came out. Bad luck...

Yes, it does look like corrosion on this detail view. No primer in the wing structure, ribs - same as my '67 F IIRC... Is this your plane?

If I were a betting man, I'd say that service manual specifies minimum tube wall thickness. You could clean the corrosion with Scotch brite pads and refinish the tubes with epoxy primer or such. Hard to say from your pictures but definitely some corrosion on tubes and elsewhere.

Was this done recently or when the AD came out and Hartzell offered a hub 50% off for a year or so? The owner of my friendly prop shop at KBFI told me that eventually he'll stop doing the inspection unless I OH the prop siting the liability issues. Thank you.

This is an old thread but I’m interested in your panel. This is for the Aspen flush installation, correct? What is the cutout size and were there any interference issues with Yoke tube support structure? It looks very close to it. I am working on laying out similar panel but for double G5 flush install and see some possible issues. I might just order the 8-hole kit from LASAR if it’s easy to modify. Thank you.

If that doesn't work, you can always remove the servo from the wing. Not easy but it really helps to have one of these 1/2" wrenches:

It turns quite long, if you look at SAAB. In mid 80-s they took stock SAAB 9000 Turbo's to Talladega and run them for 100,000 km at full speed for 20 days and nights setting an average of more them 130mph In mid 90- they came back the test with newer SAAB 900s setting up new records. So yeah, even older 2.0l high pressure turbo car engines can run close to 100% for periods of time. I used to have on of those...

I installed EI CGR-30P in my M20F two years ago and I'm very satisfied with it. It fits in standard 3 1/4" hole (I didn't want to replace instrument panel at the time) and is primary replacement for most of my engine instruments. It couldn't replace Fuel quantity gages and I'm looking into install of Aerospace Logic dual Qty. gage... Installation was not too complicated (I did it with help of my IA) and I don't find it's size to small. I prefer it to JPI's EDM 730-830 that I considered at one point as well. MVP-50 would certainly be better but it takes a lot of space not currently available in my 6-pack equipped Mooney. On their website, JPI says EDM 350 Deluxe is for experimental aircraft only so I don't see how can you install that in your Mooney. Regards,

wsb, Would that be STC limitation or there's simply no room for installation under tight cowl? IIRC, I read that Bill Cox (Plane & Pilot magazine) installed LoPresti cowl. I think he had M20F with RayJay turbo...

Window provides light to the baggage area; there was an option for a 5th seat back there. Some 5-10 years ago, there would be an M22 for sale on Ebay or elsewhere every now and then; not so much these days. I remember some MS member reporting a purchase of one few years ago but never seen any pictures or details of restoration, etc (he owned a shop in CO or such). Looks like a period paint job. Interesting plane, not really good looking and maintenance hog but quite a performer.

I second jaylw314 plan. While weather is normally better East, MEA is 7000 between LTJ-BTG and if you cut corner at DSD, I believe is 12500’. Normally, if you can enter Willamette Valley VFR, from south, you should be able to continue to PDX on lower altitudes, below freezing levels even if up north you need IFR. I think I’d rather do that then cross over Columbia Gorge at 8000’, IMC with no TKS. Good point about KTTD: new RNAV approach has even higher minimums then decommissioned NDB approach. I’m flying to KHIO a weekend after, from north. Hopefully WX cooperates. Have a good flight!

If memory serves me well, panel lights were options. These are part of plastic overlays and controlled by rheostat overhead. My '67F has them...

67F here; S/n 670091. A bit older then yours (first flight was October 1966) as '67 models were produced in fast pace. I have no original paint pictures but I believe it was orange and white. Below as picture taken after a new paint job over 10 years ago.

Exciting times for you, it is looking very good in silver! I remember a thrill when I saw first tum my F model with a new paint job. Really significant change. One, question, though: When (and how) were the Vortex Generators (VGs) installed? Were those removed? I think I see them on the plane before the paint was stripped. It seems that if they are not removed, an old paint would till be underneath them, possibly compromised by paint stripper. good luck.

Not really true. While F35 uses a lot of Al and Ti in the airframe, significant percentage of structure (more then third, IIRC, namely all skins, etc) is composite. As for Boeing, 787 is true fully composite plane and so is the wing of new 777-9. Word is that new 797, if they ever launch it will be composite as well. this includes the fuselage that was originally thought to be metallic. As for Mooney, I hear not much is going with the M10 trainer as it's shelved as they wanted to re-think whole idea. It is hard to hope for any profits considering the cost of development and certification. As someone said: "How do you make a small fortune in Aviation? Start with a large fortune!"

Yes, That's what I though it might be the case. Your DG must be deeper then others as I've seen quite a few photos of panels with vacuum DGs below AI. On the other hand, when I'll do my panel, this might not be an issue for me as I'd like to install second G5/HSI at that location. I see you got a vertical faceplate for Accutrak which is great; I meant to mention that they might want to ask them about it. Did you try to place AcuTrak horizontally, in top right corner where Landing gear lights are? That would be my preferred location but it seems very tight, especially considering structure under panel. I would like to try that, though. Location you've chosen is not bad at all and I'll seriously consider it in my layout. Regards,

Nice panel. Any reason DG is not under G5? Did you have any issue with trimming surround sheet metal structure? Thank you

Interesting, I have a friend, ex-Mooney owner who is living there for almost 40 years. In his words, not many really live there; maybe 20% of the houses are occupied and rest are vacation properties. Casual walk through his neighborhood seemed to confirm this. It sure is a nice place, though. Also, years ago, he moved his Rocket from Truckee to Carson City to avoid CA taxes. Regards,