kortopates

It looks too big to fit right behind the emergency gear extension - the only small rectangular section I can think of.

This recent service letter from Mooney appears to be the factories response to address the apparent increased gear incidents and focused on all kinds of causes from pilot error on up. Its also a pretty good comprehensive write-up on how both manual and electric gears systems work. David mentioned the ACO inspector didn't appreciate the worn down block issue but Mooney's SB sure does. The SAIB should have included a reference to this Mooney SB-344 SBM20-344.pdf

Sounds like your issue may be as simple as needing to lubricate the pins that the calipers slides back and forth on - what you referred to as the rods I believe. Suggest using some silicone DC4. They will often bind when your moving the plane by hand without them being properly lubricated. You may be replacing the pads just to be safe, but with the dual puck brakes you should be able to get much more than a even a couple annuals of wear on the pads before replacing them. Unless perhaps you live on a very short field and need to really get on the brakes with every landing. But if your able to land, use aerodynamic braking (hold the nose wheel off as long as possible) and exit with barely touching the brakes they should last you many years without replacing the pads.

Folks I assure you the FAA investigates every incident and they do their best to attribute a root cause to every one. That's not to say they get every one correct and have the resources to delve into each to be absolutely sure but every one gets investigated. In addition to interviewing the pilot they'll review maintenance records, visit the plane when possible and often interview the maintenance provider. The breadth of their review is determined by what they learn about the incident initially. I wish I could give you a copy of the FAA's reporting form to highlight better, but they have to address a broad list of potential factors for every incident/accident to determine if it was caused by the Pilot, Airworthiness issue, weather or even fault with FARs or combination thereof - everything is on the table at the start. For a great many they determine right away from the pilot it was human error and don't need to go further but being pros they certainly take what the pilot says with a grain of salt and don't necessarily stop there; especially if the pilot believes the gear failed. I am not an FAA employee but a volunteer Lead FAASTeam rep that learns many of incidents and accident details within our FSDO from our investigating inspectors. I have to assume the SAIB was written because their data indicates too many gear failures from a lack of maintenance. To me that suggest too many annuals that aren't following the Mooney Service manual to fully inspect and lubricate the gear i.e. pencil whipped annuals. For example, just cycling the gear like you would after changing a tire and calling it good. I am a bit unique since as a CFI I am not only involved with safety issues on the Operations side of the house (pilots, airspace, runway safety etc) but also as an A&P/IA I am also working closely with the airworthiness side of the house and hearing the maintenance issues so I am more exposed to the broader issues than the typical FAASTeam member.

Given the number of Mooney annuals I hear about with no more of a gear inspection than cycling the gear I am not surprised. Given the number of reported "gear failure" incidents we see I wouldn't fault the FAA but conclude the SAIB is deserved if they've tracked many of the gear failures to insufficient maintenance. Unfortunately it will likely only get read/reviewed by the conscientious Mooney owners that don't need this reminder - it really is redundant for those that follow the Mooney SM and Mooney 100 hr checklist. But those seeking the lowest cost quick annual probably won't care or notice this. I wonder if even an AD making it mandatory at annuals would make a difference in reducing gear failures, but I can see the FAA doing so when numbers don't improve. Aging parts is a separate but related issue. Has the FAA done anymore than just investigate the OPP complaint on David's gear bracket?

Although you could use Excel, the best tool is Savvy Aviation and it’s free unless you want to become a subscriber for AnalysisPro for professional analysis of your data. See SavvyAviation.com to create a free account to chart your data. All engine monitors supported. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I recall it being stronger cowling able to better handle the air loads. don't recall details though.

Have a good time up there tomorrow! Weather is actually worse on Saturday here in the southern SOCAL area with an inch of rain predicted with all the accompanying hazards. But WVI is far enough away at 350nm we'd want to do it as a weekend trip anyway. Hopefully we'll see you all at another future one So hope you enjoy it as much as we enjoyed Camarillo last time.

I personally find the pulsing of the recognition lights to be all that is needed to significantly increase visibility- especially at night. I’d wouldn’t pulse the landing lights to avoid having to switch from pulse to solid on for night landings - to much of a bother IMO. Also i personally wouldn’t add a beacon either primarily because of a FAA legal interpretation that will consider them both together an anti-collision light system that requires them both to be functioning to be airworthy. That logic just doubles the chance of having to fix a failed light. Although on the pro side you can argue that with all LEDs the chance is very small. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s needs a new high pressure needle valve inside the port. Suggest pulling the port and sending it to https://www.c-l-aero.com/ they are a repair station for oxygen systems and components. It’s an inexpensive repair. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s a standard practice to remark an airspeed indicator. The same thing is done going from the 252 to Encore conversion. I’ve been involved in both the J and K conversions. Maybe years ago it was cheaper to install a new IAS indicator, but i doubt it. These days re-configuring a digital IAS v-speeds is easiest. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This MSB23-01A is about to become emergency AD 2023-04-08 And the FAA is taking the worst case scenario by removing the 200 hr exemption: Differences Between this AD and the Service Information The service information specifies compliance for engines with less than 200 operating hours, while this AD requires compliance for all affected engines, regardless of the operating hours. The FAA has determined that this unsafe condition, of improperly installed counterweight retaining rings, is likely to exist on affected engines. While the manufacturer's service information excludes engines accumulating 200 or more operating hours, the FAA has not, as of yet, been provided with adequate data to support that exclusion. In the event the FAA receives data to support the exclusion of engines with more than 200 operating hours, or make other changes to this AD, the FAA may consider further rulemaking. Sorry but I am traveling out of the country right now and can't post more helpful information.

And that is the difference between the 14v and subsequent 28v installations. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The MB and SB controller is different and even more advanced in that it doesn’t constantly maintain a UDP a couple of inches above redline like earlier designs but varies UDP to just above the MAP setting. Thus we’re not loosing the breathing efficiency like some of the more basic controllers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i can’t actually recommend any power setting not approved in your POH, so would suggest 2400 and 31.5” But your welcome try with 2300 rpm LOP and report back Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course you will! I know a thing or two about Mike's C310 and how he flys it. Mike's TSIO-520 has a real turbo controller with a hydraulically controlled wastegate which you don't have with just a turbo and manual pneumatic wastegate. Plus you missed he's also using RPM to control power - he's not running anywhere near redline rpm. Additionally his redline MAP is only 32" which is a far cry from yours and much more like a turbo normalized engine than most turbo's. The bottom line is that Mike power stetting is never above 65% unless he's in a real hurry - which is on blue moon since he has two of them. Mike's turbo is rare compared to most, but he says this to underline the point more for the normally aspirated engines that should be run WOT at altitude using bith RPM and FF to control power. FF can only control power so far before your cylinders start missing, thus the need to also use RPM. But the engine breathes more efficiently and the reduced RPM aides in giving more time for the slowed lean combustion process to complete before the exhaust valve opens.

A great wealth of information, much of which you won't find anywhere else. Truly a great proponent of on condition maintenance.

two flights each upto 2hrs - for 4 hrs dual

Personally, I think that is the smart answer - the 10 hr job one time, versus the 6 hr job every year till someday cracks are present and there is no choice. Then in retrospect, all those annual 6 hr jobs was a waste unless you don't have a long term ownership view.

Sorry I am going to have to disagree too. Most of the time an extension tube bends easier or before it can move the other gears.

Friday is typically a full day 8 hrs day of Mooney specific ground. Over Saturday and upto Sunday morning you'll do 2 flights up to 2 hrs each with an instructor experienced in your model. First one will be the VFR flight review maneuvers, with the second flight being Instrument work potentially leading to an IPC for a current instrument pilots. Non-instrument rated pilots can do anything the pilot wants to work on including more extensive VFR training or nigh currency as @hammdomentioned.

I am pretty sure I had the best possible temporary job flying Mooney's back in 2016, flying for Mooney International. Its was summer job for 3 months flying China. The pay was substantially better than the survey work listed here and also came with all expenses paid for both myself and my wife. Of course they were looking for much more experiences rather than someone needing to build hours. At the time I was recently retired from my career engineering job, which made it possible, with the only complication that I had transitioned to being a full time instructor with a couple students as well as working for Savvy Aviation. Luckily I was able to continue working for Savvy while in China. I also delayed my start date a short time to finish up an IR student with the new ACS (the day after it became effective) just before heading to China. My wife is a college professor and has the summers off so she was excited to join me for the first 6 of my 12 weeks there and started studying Chinese as soon as we knew we were going. We were both excited to be able to go live in China and travel extensively for 3 months. The job turned out to quite different than it had been billed; due to poor communications between the Chinese staff and the US folks. But it turned out to be even better than billed. I was told the main need was to give demo rides to VIP's in China, mostly government officials and sales related flights and to mentor their two young commercial pilots. As it turned out, my job was 90%+ instructing their "Chief Pilot", a relatively new commercial pilot with little Mooney experience and only 10% or so giving demo/advertising rides. But in the latter role I got to meet the US Ambassador, many other officials and see Veronica several times (the owner of the Meijing Group that bought Mooney). Veronica is an amazing young Chinese billionaire. All the flying was in a new air conditioned Acclaim and the AC turned out to be vital in the hot humid Chinese summer weather. The other big perk was my duty days turned were only Tuesday and Thursdays which gave me literally 4 day weekends every weekend for 12 weeks to travel somewhere in China. Which is exactly what my wife and I did - every weekend. It took a couple weekends stretching our legs before management was comfortable enough to let us travel unrestricted because of their concern for us not being able to speak or read Chinese. But hiring a guide in the early trips and use of Google made all of that very possible and after a couple of not too far away trips we where going everywhere by plane or train. Not only did we get the 4 day weekends but out of our 12 weeks we also got two full weeks of vacation. First the second or third week there, the entire company (about 60 people) shutdown for vacation. They all went to Japan for a company paid vacation while my wife and I went to southern China for a week on a river cruise. Later they took my Mooney down to paint new Chinese registration marks on it, and I got another week vacation during the painting and curing process. When the 12 weeks were up they wanted me to stay longer but I had other commitments and offered to come back for a big airshow in couple months, as well as come back next summer. But by then I had trained myself out of the job since my Chief Pilot was now ready to get his CFI. With a fresh CFI cert he no longer really needed me. In the end I flew far fewer hours than the number of hours I fly here at home as a CFI. Unfortunately the Chinese government and military where an obstacle to flying like none other and would decide to close our airspace last minute. As an example, after any period of bad weather they would close the airspace to conduct training exercises grounding us on a perfect flying day which was frustrating. The military is China's biggest obstacle to the growth of GA in China. Even though the Chinese government is fully supportive of GA, the government has no say over the military till apparently Premier Xi's level. But it was an amazing experience and all the people that I worked closely with, about a dozen including the maintenance staff, became family.

none Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What Phillip said except for the tail. My tail only had a strobe light because of the white nav lights in the rear of the wing tips. So i had to pull both a nav light and and synch wire from up front to the tail, since the Orion tail lights has both Nav and strobe together. i think i ended up pulling a 4 conductor wire. At least now my rear white wing tip lights are redundant. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Leaning out the ground mag test does stress the mags more to better show an anomaly. But in so doing, passing comes down to seeing each plug fire with a rise in EGT. Not so much on the RPM drops and differential any more.