kortopates

I've crossed the border numerous times and don't believe their is such a requirement unless they are picking on Canadians and other foreigners. Cars yes, but not airplanes. Unfortunately, our CBP folks are not easy to deal with. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then it should be in the POH, but looking at a later '75 M20F POH I can't find any mention it. All it says at 2-8 and 7-8 is that the horn sounds with a MAP of 15" or less if the gear is still up. Nor does it show button for it on the panel page that list everything installed by Mooney. Perhaps a Mooney approved kit modification?

been in a lot of F's and never seen one, or heard of one till now, sounds like a mod. Got any more info on this? would like to learn about the details.

There is no pre-flight check other than the pre-landing check; only an annual/100hr inspection test on jacks

See AIM 5-4-1 a.2.(a).(2) - "When cleared to a waypoint depicted on a STAR, to descend from a previously assigned altitude at pilots discretion to the altitude depicted at that waypoint." Which was 17K to FL230. But you should have told ATC you would be unable to comply with the speed restrictions. I am sure he knows what a M20T and Mooney are and I doubt he really cared about your speed, but technically they aren't suppose to give these to us, and therefore we don't expect to get them either.

Another weekend and another Mooney gear up landing incident - this time another J-Bar Mooney - 66' M20C in FL on 7/29

$700 is too low! I got $1000 trade in from my installer with new panel.

Yosemite is such a popular destination this time of year that your odds of finding accommodations within the park are pretty nil if you don't reserve months in advance.

Probably a lot of truth to that. I've also read that Mooney's make up about 10% of the GA fleet but don't know. But what I can say, is since the 3 accidents/incidents reported on Mooney's on July 17, we've had two more gear incidents - a K reported on the 25th and J reported today. The K was reported as a gear failure on landing which of course is very possible (that definitely happens a lot too) but many gear up landings are often first reported that way too. In comparison, we've only seen one Beech gear incident reported on July 14 on, and that one also refers to a failed gear.

The image showing the Call to undefined method may be a more helpful error message

There really isn't a redline for EGT. Continental did not publish an EGT redline. For whatever reasons, Mooney invented this for their blue-line target EGT sensor that measures EGT on the odd cylinders and added a 1650F redline on their own, presumably using 1650F since its the most conventional TIT redline for turbo's. But apparently it did do what Mooney intended, as it got your attention that something was wrong in that you couldn't find EGT without continuing beyond 1650F, and if you had kept on leaning you likely would have started flaming out cylinders running on only one plug before seeing a peak unless your gami spread is very small. Anyway, you're doing fine using your JPI to lean but its also important to know at what approx EGT you can expect to see peak on your richest cylinder (e.g., ~1575F) so that later while in cruise, after leaning it down to 50 LOP at about 1525F, you'll notice if it started creeping up on you so you can make an adjustment. Another easy way to use your monitor to help you better "monitor" in cruise is to put the monitor in "normalize" mode while in cruise. Then any EGT changes, like loosing a mag or plug, will be very obvious to you 27.4 is actually the high number from TCM on the 310HP, and at Savvy we prefer to see 0.5 to 1.0 GPH above the high number.

Only if your P-Leads are reversed at the mags - which happens a lot. @Hank says it right. The perspective of Left & Right is from the rear of the engine from the pilots seat.

I am having the same issues since the upgrade to MS forum. It appears the upgrade has broken Tapatalk. i can't get logged in on Tapatalk - just Mooneyspace directly on my PC. I use Tapatalk mostly so hopefully there will be resolution soon.

Of course we're very much into big data analysis of our vast flight data. But we have to leave oil type, its consumption and metal analysis to folks that analyze oil samples like Blackstone since we have way of tracking that. But FWIW, at Savvy, Mike has always been recommending straight weight oils when possible and the Phillips x-ctry for those that need a multi-weight - both with Camguard.

Actually your D model being a short body is not as good as the mid body J, I would suggest using what is published for the C model, since they are both short bodies in similar weight classes. For the C model, Mooney published 2 glide ratios: 10.3:1 with a windmilling prop and 105 mph at gross or 2575 lbs - which should match yours assuming a constant speed prop (since some of the D's used a fixed pitch prop with a max 2500 gross weight). But I'd generally plan for a lighter weight than max gross and so would suggest using 100 mph. They also give 12.7:1 with the prop stopped at 100 mph at gross. Good luck with getting the prop stopped, so I would stick to the more realistic 10.3:1.

That's a good conservative number and the same speed I use (for being under gross). I calculated it out from the POH to be 11.5:1 (1.9 nm per 1000' AGL).

We sure do this as a part of every Savvy PPI when the aircraft ha an engine analyzer.

there should be no movement in either direction with the spacers on both sides occupying all the slack.

You must be missing spacers on both sides of the rod bearing attaching to the nose gear door. When tech's or owners disconnect the rod end from the door for any reason, they tend to loose one or more spacers when they pull the bolt out through the nose door bracket. Unless I miss understand you, there is no tightening other than filling in the space on both sides of the bearing with spacers. For example, mine you 2 spacers back to back on each side of the bolt at the nose gear door bracket for a total of 4 spacers. And these little steel hollow spacers that go over the bolt are very pricey!

They are in both the digital and paper volumes of the MM. The digital isn't readable in my opinion - you get lost quickly using a ~15" screen as a window into what is probably sized at about 45" across when trying to trace. if you don't have the paper foldouts, since they are so huge, I'd recommend ordering a new copy of your paper MM from your MSC.

Ply rating does not necessarily mean the number of physical plies but an equivalence to a old standard fabric ply. Your typical 6 ply tire has less than 6 physical plies. Pilots mistakenly think more ply's are better, when in actuality we need to stick to the ply rating the manufacturer specified in the plane's type certification data sheet (TCDS) and maintenance manual. Otherwise the plane is no longer conforming with the type certificate without it being an approved alteration (with accompanying documentation). Could you argue its a minor mod? Perhaps a retractable gear airplane is not the best choice to experiment on in case of any unexpected results. More background here: https://www.avweb.com/news/maint/193372-1.html

That's a very reasonable assumption/interpretation - If he was describing what he felt as noise, vibration etc it could easily be ice breaking off the the prop and banging on the fuselage and windshield. Vibration would also come from the prop as ice comes off. And if that is a fair assumption, you have to really question the decision to continue climbing up through what was likely another 3 thousand feet or so of icing conditions. Even with much less ice on the airframe, you have to question a decision to climb without knowing where the tops were, time to get there and likelihood for more icing when you are presently near your limit. Agree the ground speeds are likely very telling of lost performance but with out any knowledge of winds aloft or IAS we really can't conclude much.

The unexpected severe icing encountered by N731CA was of course a terrible card to be dealt to an inexperienced pilot; especially when he is told to expect light icing by the controller. Would the outcome have been different if the controller was able to give him higher sooner? We'll never know for sure. But it really doesn't look like ATC kept him the icing at 17K for very long. First off the controller was very forthright in alerting the pilot to icing conditions and requested the pilot let him know right away: During the departure climb, while passing 8,000 feet for 10,000 feet, the pilot was directed to climb and maintain 14,000 feet.The controller then advised the pilot of moderate rime icing from 15,000 feet through 17,000 feet with light rime ice at 14,000 feet. The controller asked that the pilot advise him if the icing got worse, and the pilot responded with, “we’ll let you know what happens when we get in there and if we could go straight through, it’s no problem for us.” With respect to timeline it sure doesn't look like the controller significantly delayed him at 17K beyond 30 sec from climbing: At 1002:17, the ZNY controller advised the pilot that he would be cleared to a higher altitude when ATC could provide it, and that light icing would be encountered at 17,000 feet. The pilot responded with, “I can confirm that light icing…” and stated that, “…light icing has been present for a little while and a higher altitude would be great.” The altitude of the airplane at that time was 16,800 feet and 101 knots ground speed. Thus the pilot only confirmed light icing so far, no mention of moderate nor certainly severe. But only 15 sec later, the pilot "rattled" from the icing so I would assume it was worse than "light", This is when he makes his first request to get higher asap: At 1002:34, the pilot reported, “we’re getting a little rattle here can we ah get ah higher as soon as possible please.” The ZNY controller responded with “stand by” and coordinated for a higher altitude with an adjacent sector controller. Less than 30 sec later, the controller gave him higher. At 1002:59, the ZNY controller directed the pilot to climb and maintain FL200 and the pilot acknowledged. It only took a minute later while climbing to 20K that the pilot and plane are known to be in trouble.: At 1004:08, the airplane reached an altitude of 17,800 feet before it turned about 70 degrees to the left and entered a descent. At 1004:29, while descending through 17,400 feet, and at 90 knots ground speed, the pilot transmitted, “and N731CA’s declaring…” Can we blame the controller for taking 30 sec to coordinate higher with the next sector? I really don't think so. The pilot was way over his head as most of us would be encountering severe ice when we were primed for light-moderate icing. But the the only hope the pilot had was to descend back down to VMC conditions at below 12800-12900 where he reporting entering IMC. Instead he continued to climb into what we assume was severe icing till he either lost control in the climb or lost control descending and the airplane broke up from over stress. Either way he either waited too long or waited till he started loosing control to take action and declare. We could fault him for not declaring an emergency rather than waiting 30 sec for ATC to clear him higher. But it really looks like he needed to start his exit before he even got to 17K or at least declare and descend immediately when he was at 17K picking up ice at too quick of rate rather than place all his hopes on continuing to climb up through it if he was heavily iced (i.e. rattled from the ice accumulation). We just really don't know how much ice he accumulated when but all indications are he was accumulating it through most of his climb to 17K and should have been taking action there to exit. Very sad but I don't see how any of this is the fault of the controllers for holding him at 17K for 30 sec to coordinate higher. Also I see no relationship between this accident from severe winter icing and the couple of summer ice encounters reported in this thread.

Very good. I know I wouldn't want to fly it till I had the emergency gear extension repaired back to being airworthy either. Hopefully you'll just need some minor work to get back to working condition. Take your time with the gami's. If you are new to doing gami sweeps it may take you a few flights to get good data. Getting good data in turbo's is harder to get good data than normally aspirated engines. Most pilots learning perform the sweeps too quickly which doesn't work too well. You need to be able to see that your results are very repeatable or consistent. Then you can trust your data to make some changes. Be sure to include the LOP Mag test too because ignition issues will also lead to roughness issues and can even prevent getting good gami spreads. Suggest following our process at http://content.savvyanalysis.com/static/pdf/SavvyAnalysisFlightTestProfiles.pdf to help you get good data. But you'll need fuel flow sensing on your monitor to be able to collect gami sweeps - trying to record it manually introduces way too much error. Good luck.

The emergency extension clutch should work in any gear position. Since it apparently did not engage, the brass clutch must be chewed up from attempting to raise the gear with the emergency gear lever unsecured - that is the only way I know of how that they get chewed up unless the rigging is seriously off. But this an annual checklist item when performing the gear checks. The gear pre-load checks are done after manually extending the gear, not using the electric motor. Thus this should have been tested good at the last annual whenever that was. Very odd your clevis pin fell out. Much more common is those links break at the hole. First the hole wears larger from operating the gear at or above max gear extension speed. As the holes enlarge so does that shock on them each time the gear is lowered, till they break at the hole. They can be repaired by welding the hole smaller and then punching the proper hole size back out to a nice tight fit around the clevis pin. Somehow, the cotter pin securing the clevis pin became damaged enough that what was left of it must have fell out - they just don't break. You should check, but my guess is the hole in the rod has worn enlarged enough that the clevis pin fit was sloppy enough that the cotter pin got worked to failure till the pin fell off. Only point of all this is if the clevis pin fits sloppily into the rod link hole you'll need to replace or repair the link or you'll see this happen again very soon. Any slop you find on the right side probably also exist on the left side too; so suggest checking them all on both sides.