kortopates

Loosing prime is not an issue till it sits for months; regardless of changing the oil filter and oil. It's easily regained by removing the top plugs and using the starter about 15-30 sec at a time till oil pressure comes up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If your receiver hasn't connected to Sirius in awhile you'll have to go to their website and "refresh" your Sirius radio ID. But you need to have your unit on when you do and it can take up to an hour till your receiver gets the signal and is essentially re-activated. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At least per the Lyc SB, you're quoting the dates of one of 3 part no's for the connecting rod assembly, (perhaps the one used in your engine) but the SB indicates all bushings shipped after Nov 18' 2015 have to be replaced! Generally connecting rods are re-bushed at overhaul and only entirely replaced if out of limits.

You're in the window of the time period but easy to check out. As a factory reman you need to check by your engine serial # in the SB. And if you are affected you'll get Lyc warranty to pay for it.

Yes, I assume slick mags and its on the port of the one of the mags. looks like an electrical connection issue but should be easy enough to tell from inspecting it at the magneto.

See this thread

Count your blessings you didn't procrastinate till it broke in flight leaving you with a difficult emergency landing. Seen that too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct. But all indications are this will be followed by the FAA issuing an AD on this SB, and if adopted with 10 hr compliance time stated in the SB now its going to be hugely painful.

Good for you, but most affected people will not be by serial number but by a engine overhaul done by someone other than Lycoming that happened to use the affected lycoming part no's; especially the Lycoming rod bushings since these are replaced at overhaul. People with overhauls done during the affected time period will have to look for the affected part no's in their engine build parts list or contact their engine builder.

Good News!! New SB attached – no longer a Mandatory SB and no longer to become an AD by the FAA. Continental CSB05-8C (camshaft gear).pdf High lights are it calls for recurring annual inspections and replacing affected gear p/n's at next overhaul. From the last paragraph on page 1 of CSB05-8C, shows this will not become an AD: Per definitions contained in Chapter 1 of M-0, Standard Practice Maintenance Manual; MSB05-8B was created in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20-176A, Service Bulletins Related to Airworthiness Directives, at the encouragement of the FAA and was issued in March 2017. Subsequent analysis by the FAA has determined that an Airworthiness Directive (AD) may not be warranted at the present time therefore, this bulletin is being reissued as CSB05-8C, a Category 2, Critical Service Bulletin.

This is HUGE!! Its going to affect a LOT of people. Its not just Lyc reman/overhauled engines listed in table, but it has the potential to affect any overhaul done since Nov 2015 if any of the lycoming parts listed in table 2 where used, with the chief concern being if the engines connecting rods were re-bushed with the Lyc bushings. But if the Superior bushing was used instead, then that engine dodges the bullet. This could affect 1300 engines and is likely to be an AD. Here is the complete MSB: SB632_Connecting_Rod_Identification_and_Removal_0 (003).pdf

And it only took another week for us too see another gear up in a vintage model. This one in a 63' C J bar Mooney that was auctioned last fall - see http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:96:13652792576812::::P96_ENTRY_DATE,P96_MAKE_NAME,P96_FATAL_FLG:17-JUL-17,MOONEY But that was just 1 of 3 Mooney accidents and incidents over the past weekend

I guess the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that you always have options. And this was no exception. The Cirrus POH (actually FOM) is one of the best most detailed ones out there and I believe it and their standardized training program have been very responsible in greatly improving the fleets early higher accident rates. They devote a separate document to just CAPS deployment. Although they don't specifically cite an absolute minimum altitude for deployment because they say it depends on several factors and they say they have only demonstrated it to within 400' AGL and then add as of 2013 a pilot successfully deployed it at 444' AGL and their were 5 fatals with CAPs deployments too close to the ground to deploy, Cirrus has also said it should work to 300' AGL if maintaining straight and level flight but if the aircraft is coming down they say it can take 400' to deploy it and 920' if in a spin. There other key point with their training and POH is the need to perform the industry standard safety brief before departure. This may not be universal but Cirrus didn't invent this, its being preached by the majority of training organizations and is prudent for all of pilots because just as Cirrus underlines, its too late to be on takeoff and start making unanticipated decisions about if you are high enough to deploy or even high enough to turn back and just which way you will turn or where you might land. But in performing a pre-takeoff brief, the pilot verbalizes several key decision points such as what minimum airspeed he/she will continue the takeoff run past the half way point of the runway, what minimum altitude he/she will deploy the chute if a problem and what minimum MSL altitude he/she will turn back to a runway and which runway taking into account the airport physical environment as well as weather conditions while their is time to give it some thought. I doubt the pilot would have briefed deploying the chute below the min demonstrated deployment altitude of 400' when he had wide open space ahead. But we know the NTSB is going to say the pilot deployed the chute below the minimum demonstrated altitude. How can we not conclude that better emergency training and following procedures to self brief would have helped this pilot survive the accident? To me this is a wake up call to any pilot not yet self briefing each departure to go over their emergency plan before taking the runway.

And @gsxrpilot The Mooney wing tip recognition lights available from Whelen for about $100 ( these: http://www.skygeek.com/whelen-01-0770303-00-recognition-light.html ) are 14V 25 Watt PAR18 Halogen projector bulb. http://www.topbulb.com/err-bulb-25w-14v-par18-halogen-ansi-err Yes - 28V Mooney's use a 14V bulb (in series with a large voltage dropping resistor which is also in the wing tip). If you are willing to dremel down the sides to the proper shape and solder on two wires to the terminals and cover with heat shrink you can fabricate your own for under $10 - okay I exaggerated by a few bucks. But that's still 1/10 of the cost from Whelen. There used to be two flashers or pulsers available from LASAR and PreciseFlight. The LASAR was ideal in that it fits right behind the rocker switch but is no longer available. The Precise Flight is still available and fancier (does more) and I recall it was $359 last time I checked - but not sure. My LASAR works by turning the recognition light switch on for just 1 sec and then off and that puts them in pulse mode and would expect the Precise to work similarly. That is the only way I ever use them and in pulse mode they improve recognition over than without pulse mode. Plus while pulsing they don't get that hot to melt the lenses Thus they are a win-win IMO plus strobes don't flash straight head either, but you can of course do similar with pulsing headlights too. But I don't think you can pulse the much brighter HIDs that I use - since they say to leave on for 30 seconds minimum if just turning them on to test. BTW, I am not the first to mention this on MS, if I recall correctly one of the European Mooney owners posted the info on the projector bulbs a few years ago here.

So does the M20K - no different than J really (except the wet area in the K is a bit larger) but the issue is with the small holes in the top of the ribs, not the bottom. They get mistakenly or accidentally blocked by patch repairs and then trap air and prevent people from getting rated fuel capacity. And without the knowledge of the pilot if they don't drain the tank to empty and fill to see what it really takes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's only true if filling above the factories definition of full which is at the base of the filler neck. After you're recent re-seal didn't you find you got factory rated capacity at the base of the filler neck? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I see now both wings are pretty damaged as well as the front of the fuselage. BTW, meant to include this link for the witness account of the low and slow approach: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/07/accident-occurred-july-15-2017-at.html?m=1 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Will never happen because their are only a handful of Mooney owners to buy them. Plus several of us just buy the $5 projection bulb so don't find them expensive to replace and use the pulsing system which eliminates the plastic lens melting - both issues solved! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMO this is hardly an indictment of the dangers of a short runway but purely a reminder of the perils of dragging it in or the low and slow short field approach. Sadly way too many pilots are taught in their ab initio training the very poor and dangerous method of dragging it in on a short fields when they should have learned to do a more precise steeper approach with less power that never gets on the backside of the power curve. It's not only safer but also provides shorter rollout. I have never been to Washington Island but we have a similar popular runway on the west coast (L52) that is very popular with Mooney fly-ins which are attended by all models of Mooneys a few times each year. It's paved but has a steeper obstruction clearance slope than this one yet so far we've never lost a Mooney on it (that I know of). But of course very glad their was only damage to the bird and not people!!! But I hope this bird flys again someday. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All turbos have a certified service ceiling - at least any capable of flying in the flight levels. Indeed Paul is right, Mooney went too FL280 in order to claim 252 mph cruise. There was a 252 pilot over 15 years ago that flew everywhere and routinely at FL280 for the speed. IIRC, He sold it when the engine needed overhaul. I hope most of us flying the flight levels have emergency backup O2 within arms reach - mine is in the seat back pocket. O2 problems are rare but I've had hoses pop off the connectors and issues with the Scott connector not seated properly - but nothing that wasn't at least temporarily fixable that either needed the backup or require a descent. But I'll assume a few others have by the occasional death by hypoxia. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed that dropping EGT and CHT together indicate a mixture anomaly which could be fuel and/or air. Could be too rich or too lean. But is this on all cyls or just one or ...? A higher than normal MAP at idle and rough idle could be from an induction leak but that is doubtful given the symptoms at WOT climb unless this is a carbureted engine. Really begs for download engine data. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Something seems wrong if that doesn't work. What kind of magnetos do you have and are you upto date on your 500hr 5 yr IRAN inspection? I am wondering about impulse coupling? Yes, 3-4 sec prime requires mixture full rich and throttle open.

An induction leak is an entirely different kind of anomaly - a mixture anomaly as opposed to an ignition anomaly. In a normally aspirated engine like your J, it will manifest itself when MAP is much lower than ambient atmospheric pressure, such as idle, and pretty much disappear when MAP equals ambient, such as WOT. One test for this is in our write up on Savvy Flight diagnostic using a 10" MAP reduction and comparing EGTs. But I really don't like this test. We use it because its the only test that works in carbureted engines but for fuel injected engines like your J I much prefer using gami sweeps. The gami sweep test is much more reliable, understandable by our clients and much more conclusive. The test is done by comparing baseline gami spreads done at WOT and low altitude compared to gami's done with no other changes except MAP is pulled back 10". RPM is used to reduce power to no more than 65% power to avoid higher than 65% power at low altitude. If there is an induction leak you will see that cylinder move to a much leaner ranking amongst its peers in very significant ways - such as from one of the richest to a lean outlier. If the cylinder is already one of the leanest in the WOT baseline, it may get so lean it flames out before the richest cyl peaks. Its generally very obvious. One of the big clues that gets us to suspect a leak is a higher than normal idle MAP, such as 15+" and an engine that won't idle smoothly at a slow idle. See the last page of this Savvy article on the principal behind the induction test but the article is using the basic test of 10" MAP drop in cruise that I dislike. https://www.savvyanalysis.com/articles/in-flight-diagnostics

Is that because they could not ascertain the proper part No for your 14V cowl flap motor? Since Globe does this work under their FAA repair certificate, they need to match it to the approved documentation and part number to issue a 337 for the overhaul - which is a new motor. I do see Mooney spec'd a 14V cowl flap motor as part # 880050-509 and their description refers to "14V (Vendor P/N M409M302)" -- did you try these part numbers with Bobby at Global? The Vendor number should be Global's part #. That has got to be your motor # as its hard to imagine more than one used on the 262 conversions. BTW, All this information is in the M20K IPC which you should have. Good luck!

Only one a year!??! That's way off from reality! Most weeks there is at least one Mooney gear up. In the last 10 days of the FAA records show there has been 3 Mooney gear ups already! And if you think the old vintage Mooneys are exempt think again there too. In just the last 3, one was an 81' and the other two were a 67 & 68'. But its really hard to determine if the older Mooneys are electric or J bar because those details are usually lacking and many pilots right after the event will often say the gear failed when they actually forgot. So its also really hard to separate maintenance issues from pilot error. But the over whelming take away is that Mooney gear up happen almost every week and frequently multiple times each weekend. And what's really sad is the its really diminishing the fleet these days since a great many of the vintage birds are under insured in that any gear up will result in the insurance company totaling the plane and selling it for scrap with fewer and fewer getting repaired. You just won't see the majority of gear up's because they never make their way into the NTSB accident reports. The vast majority do not constitute an accident; especially for Mooney's. Their is neither significant structural damage nor does anyone rarely get hurt just sliding in on the Mooney belly. Just significant expenses that they get scrapped So these are never considered an accident and only an incident which makes it harder to track details. But the FAA publishes daily accident and incident stats for the last 10 days and you can see the the 3 Mooney gears up reported here: http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:93:0::NO::: But recognize the link shows the current last 10 days of reports whenever you bring it up. So the stats I am referring too will change tomorrow.