kortopates

Ring flutter is what you're describing. Of course, glad the outcome was good. Maybe you'll become a novelist in your retirement years? in all seriousness though, there are at least 3 manufacturers of quick drains I know of. The economy models by SAF-AIR, the Bogert referenced above, and the expensive Aeroquip. Do you know which brand leaked on you? I have no experience with the Bogert brand. But I found the SAF-AIR can have installation issues on the Continental engines. Its internal height in the engine is too high for some engines causing it to hit the oil sump pickup when you press it in to open. The SAF-AIR owner is well aware and will offer full refund if you run into this problem as I did. The Aeroquip model, although expensive, has proven to be very reliable for me. But John's advice to watch for any drips and replace o-rings is spot on.

Yes, and I should have allowed for that rather than being dismissive saying it has nothing to do with the stall horn sounding. Its a distraction to the horn going off in flight discussion because the airspeed switch ONLY activates the horn on the GROUND when the airspeed is below its threshold speed 60 kts. Vr or rotate speed to liftoff on the J is 62 kts depending on which POH (62 for '81). Secondly, your second bullet point is very important in that the air speed switch is designed to operate only with increasing airspeed. It will not set off the alarm in flight if you slow below 60 kts such as doing stalls. The only time a normally operating airspeed switch will set off the horn is on jacks or you really do flip the switch on the ground. In flight the airspeed switch has nothing to do with the horn, it is does not trigger the horn when getting slow. The throttle micro switch triggers the horn when MAP has been reduced below its threshold value with the gear switch still up. Two different systems...

Thank you John, I had it totally backwards between which is air and electric. The little sigmatek vacuum gauges range is universal and does not match the spec's of King KI-256; plus they are commonly off by an inch. But they are very good for seeing a change in vacuum.

Absolutely, I referred to the HSI incorrectly merely because I have yet to see a Air driven KI-256 in a Mooney, every installation has been an electric KI-256. But vacuum KI-256's exist and same would apply. But yes the vacuum system has nothing to do with the AP which makes it real hard to associate with an AP issue unless the gyro is being lazy as I suggested as a possibility.

Just one short comment on the thread in its entirety, I see a lot of really good post from the very experienced pilots saying how important it is to have ingrained patterns for dropping the gear at the same pre-determined points, checking for gear down multiple times, checking what Mooney tells us is the Primary gear down indication - the flow board indication- at least by short final are all very important IMO. These habits stem from realizing we are only a distraction away from altering our normal routine and need to have multilple safe guards as additional checks to prevent a gear up. Those that think they can rely on the checklist alone and things like the airplane being too fast on final or even the gear warning horn to save them obviously don't believe it can happen to them. But anyone that has has been following the FAA incident and accident stats knows we see multiple gears up every week across the country; often more than one Mooney doing it in a week and we're only something like 3% of the GA fleet. So the accident record really disagrees and shows us that very smart people do this all the time. Smart people make mistakes all the time, primarily because they became distracted at the critical moment and had no backup safeguard to catch it. Its not that hard to pull the power further back to slow down a little hot, or miss the gear horn when other stuff is going on that distracted you from completing the checklist. How else do you explain the hundred plus gears ups a year. (I am guessing a ball park #). These are all smart people. But we're all only human. Adopt a pattern of multiple checks. I also use a P2 Audio Advisory device that says "Check gear". So much of the fleet these days with an insured value below 70K is just going to get totaled after a gear up.

I believe you miss understand the Air Speed Safety switch. It has nothing to do with sounding the Gear Warning horn. The Gear Warning horn is set off by a throttle switch, when MAP drops to specifed low value and the gear is still up. This switch is located on the throttle control cable directly behind the instrument panel on the vintage models and at the engine end on the modern Mooneys. The pulsating gear horn, triggered by the throttle switch, is what you hear in your video. The Airspeed Safety Switch is a ground safety device. Its to keep the gear from being retracted while still on the ground just as it says. It does not sound a horn, but illuminates a red Safety Bypass light depending on the model. Pressing the red illuminated light allows you to bypass an In Op Air Safety Switch. Two different safety mechanism, one to prevent landing with the gear up, one to prevent raising the gear on the ground.

My apologies - WOT is Wide Open Throttle. I said this because that when good mixture distribution is most practical importantance I can't say for sure, but there have been many downed vintage Moony's due to induction icing and at least one early 231 close call. The downed planes I recall where from flying in visible snow - and not necessarily IFR as you might think.

Very good. So I assume you did skip the two specific 360's they list as required maneuvers? I wondered if they were really going to deny a pass for something like that.

It really works, but you need to try a range of carb-temp values (temps) and perform some GAMI sweeps WOT. I've seen it make a big difference but what you really want is a decent spread below 1.5 GPH where the carb heat reduces it by half and you can now run lower power LOP successfully - and that is still pretty rare.

If you had the carb_temp sensor info in your engine analyzer that would help a lot to keep you out of trouble. But not using carb heat it in the pattern could put you in risk on a balked landing/go around when you discover you have only partial power trying to climb and going no where fast due to some ice. You don't have to go totally full rich either, as required to keep it smooth, but enough you'll make full power on the go and can then add full mixture before the temps climb rapidly - cause they will. You already know, that if the worst did happen like that, having a partial power loss on the go from carb heat, the NTSB is going to fault the pilot for not following the carb heat guidance in the POH. The risk is likely small but real.

Without looking it up, I recall 4.5" as the proper setting. There should be label on the King HSI as to its vacuum requirements and I remember it stating 4.25-4.75". If correct, 5.5" is too high and will shorten the instruments bearing life. But if it helped, it likely means its borrowing a little more time if the real problem is the bearings have started to go which manifest itself as a lazy HSI. Especially if it takes a few minutes to erect after startup. CaptRJM is spot on in that the first step is always to perform a vacuum leak down test before adjusting the vacuum up. But I really doubt you have a leak if it was originally at 4.5"

For Don, There was a recent thread on this very topic but of course not titled as such, but I think the OP was asking about engine replacement. He provided a couple quotes from engine rebuilder(s) that didn't seem to be significantly higher than if he was already rebuilding a LB versus a GB. In fact, I got the impression he didn't realize the GB's were dead. I was impressed by that because some significant things changed like the entire induction system which I thought would appreciably raise the rebuild cost. But I think the best answer to your question is to make quick call to a large engine rebuilder like Western Skyways to get a quick quote and verify for yourself. They've done this a lot As to what kind of a hit you would take on resale, I think that would entirely depend on 2 things, how many residual engine hours you would have at sale time and how savvy the new buyer is if its not a run out or near run-out engine. As for Kevin's - LB to the SB? No, that is not possible; never was. John is right on about it being no longer possible to even go to the -MB because that was only authorized by couple different STC's neither of which is available any longer. But going from a -MB to -SB is easily doable since no STC is required; (as long as the airframe was originally a 252 -MB, converted 262 are not eligible). Nor does it take a new -SB engine. The -MB engine is easily converted to the -SB engine configuration. But you can't just convert the engine either, you have to upgrade the airframe as well.

I'll quadruple nominate the gas 40 EZ Tow, with the Mooney adapter. These are available used too, but you pretty much need to be local, so you should tell us where you are located. No chains required in sunny California!

Its truly amazing how fast paced this issue has been. The above AVWEB article, just out, is already old news. The gossip part about CMI's reaction is still relevant, but the meat of the issue is even more improved by the letter that CMI just published and Mike forwarded to all our Savvy clients and subscribers. Its pretty clear Mike B is getting everything he asked for and CMI is doing damage control, see the numbered bullets 1-3 for what CMI says they are updating the MSB too. Although this isn't entirely over, the battle is and GA won this one. Most of you probably received this from Continental, but I wanted to make sure you all saw it. It's pretty clear that Continental is going to be walking back the compliance requirements of MSB05-8B. Apparently they underestimated the reaction to their MSB. Encouraging. --Mike Begin forwarded message: From: Continental Motors Group <edavidson@cmg.aero> Date: April 20, 2017 at 3:02:16 PM PDT To: Michael Busch <mike.busch@savvyaviation.com> Subject: Important Communication from Continental Motors regarding MSB05-8B Reply-To: Continental Motors Group <edavidson@cmg.aero> View this email in your browser Important Communication from Continental Motors® regarding MSB05-8B Press Release Mobile (AL, USA), April 20, 2017—Continental Motors Group, an AVIC International Holding Corporation company, made the following announcement today: The publication of MSB05-8B has caused much speculation in the last few days. Some communications sent to the General Aviation Media community or directly to owners may have caused some confusion. Continental Motors® and the FAA are working as fast as possible to make sure that, while ensuring the highest levels of safety, owners and operators of aircraft equipped with Continental engines will not be burdened with unnecessary costs. In 2005, Continental Motors® superseded Cam Gears P/N’s 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031 with a new part, P/N 656818. Continental Motors® issued Service Bulletin SB05-8 recommending the replacement of the older design parts at the next overhaul or when the gear is accessible. Production of parts P/N 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031 was discontinued in August 2005, and since then, only the P/N 656818 was produced and installed in factory new or factory rebuilt engines manufactured by the Continental Motors® factory and sold as spares. In July 2009, SB97-6 (Mandatory Parts Replacement at Overhaul) reiterated the need to change the parts mentioned above with the new design parts. In late 2016 and early 2017, as part of the ongoing FAA Continued Operational Safety program, reports of camshaft gear fractures were provided to the FAA. A statistical assessment was accomplished by the FAA, and the initial data indicated an AD was merited. The FAA then asked CMG to reformat the current bulletin into a format compatible with FAA AC 20-176 to facilitate an AD. Continental Motors® subsequently superseded SB05-8A by MSB05-8B at the FAA request. Continental Motors® is working diligently with the FAA to make significant amendments to MSB05-8B. We expect this to happen in the next 15 days. Our team is working on three main issues to alleviate the burden potentially imposed on aircraft owners and operators: Change the mandatory replacement of the camshaft gear to a visual inspection procedure allowing “on condition” operation until the engine is overhauled, replaced, or the gear is accessible. Change the time limit imposed by MSB05-8B, to values that still ensure that the appropriate level of safety is attained, but does not dictate a mandatory overhaul time limit. Publish alternative means of compliance, to allow camshaft gear replacement without complete engine disassembly. Background information Which engines are affected? The following engine models are potentially affected: IO-470-U, V IO-520-A, B, BA, BB, C, CB, D, E, F, J, K, L, M, MB, N, NB, P, R L/TSIO-520-ALL LIO-520-P IO-550-A, B, C, D, E, F, G, L, N, P, R IOF-550-B, C, D, E, F, L, N, P, R TSIO-550-A, B, C, E TSIOL-550-A, B, C Engines manufactured or rebuilt at the Continental Motors factory after August 9, 2005, are not affected as the new design part was installed since that date, unless the cam gear in the engine has been replaced during a maintenance event with an earlier, superseded gear. How do I know if my engine is affected? After checking the list of models potentially affected, please verify the following: My engine was manufactured or rebuilt by the Continental Motors®factory after August 9, 2005. Your engine is not affected, if the cam gear was not replaced during other maintenance since the engine left the factory. My engine was manufactured or rebuilt by the Continental Motors®factory before August 9, 2005. Only engines manufactured or rebuilt at the Continental Motors® Factory before August 9, 2005, are potentially impacted by MSB05-8B. Inspect logbook or other paperwork for indication of replacement of part numbers 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031 by P/N 656818. If evidence is found that the original gear (P/N 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031) was replaced by P/N 656818, follow instructions in MSB-05-8B. If no evidence of parts 655430, 655516, or 656031 replacement is found: Use inspection instructions of MSB05-8B to determine the part number of the camshaft gear installed. Use the part number found to determine if replacement is necessary or not and follow instructions in MSB-05-8. My engine was manufactured or rebuilt by the Continental Motors® factory before August 9, 2005, and has been field overhauled since that date, or the case has been disassembled for any reason for a field repair. Inspect logbook or other paperwork for indication of replacement of part numbers 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031 by P/N 656818. If evidence is found that the original gear (P/N 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031) was replaced by P/N 656818, document in logbook, no further action required. If no evidence of parts 655430, 655516, or 656031 replacement is found: Use inspection instructions of MSB05-8B to determine the part number of the camshaft gear installed. Use the part number found todetermineif replacement is necessary or not and follow instructions in MSB-05-8. Why issue an MSB mandating compliance within 12 years of manufacturing date? Continental Motors® has always indicated that engines should be overhauled when reaching 12 years after manufacturing, factory rebuild or field overhaul or after reaching the TBO set for the engine. Although many owners operating under PART 91 choose not to observe this, we stand behind this recommendation. There are many parts, metallic or not (gaskets, O-rings etc.) that age with the engine. These parts need replacement after time in service or because age can modify their structure. The certification process ensures that an engine reaching TBO will not be adversely affected by engine run time or because of the aging of some materials. The fact that many planes are not hangared and are parked on a ramp, some in hot and humid or maritime climates, is also a factor to consider in the aging of airframes and engines. Has Continental Motors® requested the FAA to issue an AD on this subject? No. The FAA COS team reviewed the data related to these gear reports and performed statistical analysis. Their analysis showed that an AD was warranted and the FAA requested that CMG rewrite the related service bulletin in a format corresponding to FAA AC 20-176 to support the pending AD activity. Continental Motors® never requested the FAA to issue an AD. Is it by design that Continental Motors® issued MSB05-8B twelve years after issuing SB05-8? No. The fact that twelve years have passed between the original issuance of SB05-8 and MSB05-8B is purely coincidental. # # # AVIC International Holding Corporation was set up in 1979, with majority shares owned by Aviation Industries of China (AVIC). Headquartered in Beijing, the assets of AVIC International represent up to 280 billion RMB. The company has over 100,000 employees across 400 subsidiaries, is located in over 60 countries, and possesses eight publicly listed companies. AVIC International is a well-diversified company, with holdings in International Civil Aviation, Trade & Logistics, Retail & High-end Consumables, Real Estate and Hotel Management, Electronics Manufacturing, and Natural Resource Development. More information can be found at www.avic-intl.cn. Continental Motors Group ™, Ltd. of Hong Kong, China is a subsidiary of AVIC International Holding Corporation of Beijing, China. Its mission is to provide advanced gasoline and Jet-A piston engine products, spare parts, engine and aircraft services, avionics equipment and repairs as well as pilot training for the general aviation marketplace. Continental is an international operation employing approximately 460 team members in Mobile, Fairhope and Miami, USA; 200 team members in St. Egidien, Germany; and 8 team members in Beijing, China. More information can be found at www.continentalmotors.aero. Contacts: Emmanuel Davidson +1-251-436-8623 +336-4823-5559 edavidson@cmg.aero Video : Continental Motors, a century of innovation Video : The Aviators : How does Continental Motors manufactures engines? Video : Avweb "How does Continental Motors manufactures Diesel Engines?" Follow us on Facebook Continental Motors Web Site Copyright © 2017 Continental Motors Group, All rights reserved. You are registered as aviation media in our media listing. You can choose to opt-out of this listing at any moment. Our mailing address is: Continental Motors Group 2039 broad street Mobile, Al 36615 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences

I am betting there has to be good story on what led you to purchase this K since it does't meet your preference for a NA Lycoming model. Mind sharing this?

Hold out for 252 or Encore; very rare but the best Mooney made. And I am not biased at all

I am sure you didn't buy your K model to turn around and spends buckets of cash to pay for a one off STC to turn your K into a J - cause that what it would take. The solution to your problem is easy, sell the K and buy the model that has the engine you want; or go for a trade. Can't get any cheaper than that since you do all of that on your own time. Sounds like a J or maybe pre-J is what you want because there are no normally aspirated Lycoming powered Mooneys after the J model.

Ross nailed it when he said it was IRAN'd - that's exactly what it was. A Major overhaul has a legal meaning with the FAA and requires the engine re builder to overhaul in accordance with the manufacturers guidance. This means a lot of new parts and overhauled parts must installed into the engine, including new hoses, overhauling the magneto's and overhauling the starter, new piston pins, new rings, new fuel pump etc. See Lyc SB 240W for the comprehensive list of parts that must be replaced. But whenever a partial overhaul is done like this, its strictly a repair and the time since major overhaul doesn't get to be legally reset since the last real major overhaul. Which was apparently 1972 or 45 years ago and I'll assume 1555 hrs ago. So the engine isn't high time in operational hours but its chronologically very old which is most likely why the owner had to re-do the bottom since we see seldom operated engine suffer from corrosion quite commonly; especially the cam in lycoming since it sits up high in the engine. SB 240W Mandatory Parts Replacement at Overhaul and During Repair or Maintenance.pdf

It might be helpful to know what is providing the GPSS? But with GPSS, the GPSS needs to be GPS mode (versus) heading and your AP needs to be in Heading mode as well. GPSS in GPS mode allows the GPS to provide steering information as heading inputs to the KFC 150, in lieu of just following your heading bug. After you completed the procedure turn and captures final then you would have to engage APPR mode on the KFC 150 to track both lateral and vertical guidance and GPSS is then no longer being used. In effect, GPSS mode and APPR mode are mutually exclusive.

Not enough detail to begin here. If you want to describe how you set things up? e.g., was the AP tracking the course as it approached the hold and how were you flying the hold? Do you have GPSS? etc.

Bottom line is that it hasn't been majored since '72 meaning the engine has 0 residual hours and value. But that doesn't mean it can't fly reliably for some time to come. But IMO the seller really cost himself in resale value by doing it that way, but not knowing all the details he could still come out on top with the sale. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course taking a big step up is going to take much more transition training time than a more lateral move; especially the lower the experience level of the pilot. I've worked with freshly minted Pvt pilot into a 231 and freshly minted Commercial SE/ME pilot in an Acclaim. Both took a few months and tens of hours to get them comfortable but neither was ever questionable.

Pretty unbelievable story that so many pilots didn't notice or report it. I am trying to imagine how visible this was to airport people and departing traffic. I assume it was pretty obvious and therefore assume most people thought someone else had already reported it. I certainly understand that but so sad. But there are at least a couple ways pilot could have avoided this outcome despite nobody noticing or calling it in. The 406 ELT is obvious. Another is activating a VFR nextgen flight plan through LH on the runway with their smart phone or device before they were airborne. (I thinkI have heard that functionality has been integrated into FF). VFR flight plans after all are for this very purpose and the latest capabilities allow you to activate on the ground with out using the radio. Its possible one or more occupants didn't perish right away either that could still be alive. But if not this accident, certainly others.

A modern Mooney is easier to fly than a vintage model so whatever latest NA model you can afford. But its very doable to transition to a Turbo too - right out of the C172. Don't get hung up on mission; especially as a hobby venture. Supposedly mission needs put you into a single engine 4 seater. Beyond that's is about how much you love this pursuit of aviation and how willing and able your are to put the requisite amount of money into it to get the most enjoyment out of.

Sounds more like an early prototype of the eventual R or S; since a J didn't include an engine upgrade. But I assume they were going to 6 cyl for more power, but they could have been merely considering changing engine vendors and thinking the same approx HP with the Continental IO-360.