Shadrach

Is that the Hoskins part number or the Mooney part number?

Was there a visible puncture? If the tube failed in a under year, I am wondering what caused it.

@DXB It's the "started almost instantly" comment that gave me the impression that the SOS was not working which is why I wanted to verify ignition type. The appearance of an "Instant" start happens when the key is released at just the right moment to the both position, the mag fires and the (well primed) engine starts immediately or it kicks back.

That sucks. At least you are at you home field. Should take less ~hour to replace. The nose wheel tire and tube are the easiest to R&R.

Does it have impulse couplings or shower of sparks?

Did the student have a record of lawful admission on his person? I’m not suggesting he deserved to be harassed. Some Authority figures behave badly regardless of whether a law has been broken; it’s that much more egregious when no statute has been violated.

Safe to assume that you didn’t do an inflight mag check when you observed the numbers in your OP?

Ok. So your numbers make perfect sense. Remember raw EGT number has nothing to do with which cylinder is leanest or richest. Speaking specifically to Cylinder #2. It looks like it’s only firing on one plug. When ROP on a single point of ignition, the combustion event is burning slower than the other three cylinders. This means a significant portion of the combustion event is still burning during the exhaust stroke and continues burning in the exhaust riser. That means less fuel burned in cylinder, lower CHT and higher EGT. It looks like you run further from peak when on the lean side. Was it running smooth LOP?

Seems ignition related to me (cyl#2). What cylinder where you using as a reference for leaning and what was the peak EGT number?

Honestly it could be a few things. One test you can do is to turn the retraction speed screw all the way in until it bottoms out . This will completely block the return pathway back to the reservoir. If the flaps stay down with the screw bottomed out then the return valve ball needs to be recoined (staked) to its aluminum seat. If the flaps come up with the screw bottomed out, then fluid is leaking back through the pump side and the pump will need to be disassembled. DM me if you want and we can make arrangements to talk you through it.

I think John is talking about the jack screw end of the cable under the floor.

That ranks right up there with looking at an airport that is 10 miles northeast of you and then making an initial call to the tower or CTAF that you are 10 miles northeast of the field.

@bencpeters Given your location, I am curious if have you have ever been into Stehekin (6S9)? I inquired about the strip when I was backpacking there last summer but the locals implied that while it is maintained it is largely unused.

I would say that this is unrealistically conservative. It would be very difficult for me to operate in and around the eastern seaboard and expect this kind of separation. For this reason, I am almost always in contact with or monitoring an ATC freq. <2nm separation, same altitude is common place in an around the Balt/Wash metro area.

I agree that access is suboptimal. The answer to your questing is that additional squawks would definitely be caught. How many likely depends on the quality of your maintenance. In 20 years of Mooney flying, I can name one issue (already mentioned) that likely would have been mitigated with quicker cowl access.

I think the difference is overstated. I would like better access, but I don't think the types of maintenance issues severe enough to cause a crash are going to be caught by most pilots. If they were, Mooneys would be over overrepresented in the stats for off airport landings due to mechanical failure. IIRC they are above average in that category.

I had a similar experience departing my home base. I was feeling a bit outclassed in my vintage, guppy mouthed, M20F as I admired a beautiful 231 in line just ahead of me for departure. I was cleared for take off about 30 secs after him. We were both westbound. I followed his climb gradient thinking he'd pull away. Oddly, he seemed to be getting larger in the windscreen. Then Tower called to verify I had "that Mooney in insight". I confirmed and asked him if I was faster and he just said he had gotten a collision alert. I increased my pitch slightly and offset my track to the right 20°. I was slightly ahead and roughly 500' above him when we arrived at the VOR (5.5NM from the runway) where he turned south. It was a much nicer, newer plane then mine, but it was hard not to admire how the old girl goosed the turbo until we parted ways.

Isn't it the same tail save for the shorter rudder on the early C models?

I would feel more comfortable doing a straight in to an uncontrolled field If the last controller I speak with before going to CTAF can confirm no aircraft observed in the area. When I cut off a NORDO aircraft I mentioned earlier, I was not receiving advisories nor would it have mattered as I don't believe ATC has coverage in the area below 5K.

I was actually asking Hank for clarification regarding his specific scenario as I am trying to learn precisely how the events and symptoms he described came to be. I agree that losing a plug should not reduce ROC by 500fpm. I have flown my airplane with a dead mag and it performs reasonably. The thing is though, single ignition performance can be greatly influenced by mixture. If you have a dead mag, you can select a mixture setting that produces a faster combustion event to offset the single point of ignition propagation. When you have an ignition issue on a single cylinder in climb, you don't have that option. Consider the following scenario: hot day, mixture full rich, Richest cylinders are already richer than optimal for conditions with both plugs operational. Then a plug fails on the richest cylinder. The combustion event speed on that cylinder is reduced by half but the piston speed remains constant. Under such a scenario, I can envision a significant impact on climb performance, especially if operating near gross in summertime DAs. In cruise, a lot of the deficit could be leaned away. Indeed, depending on conditions, I might consider running all the cylinders single mag to ensure smoothness and uniform combustion until I could land. Trying to maximize the power output of an engine with a plug failure on one cylinder is like trying to lean two different engines with a single mixture control.

@bencpeters I’ve been enjoying a lot of the first hand experiences from C to K owners. There is a lot of good info here. I am not trying to be contrary but some of the comments don’t comport with my understanding of physics. Which is to say that there may be operational procedures that account for and contribute to the differences in “feel” Some of the difference mentioned that I think are likely more perception than reality: Airframe cleanliness - yes the modern (post 1978) airframes are cleaner and this will make a noticeable difference in cruise speed. However, the "slipperiness" from these aerodynamic improvements at approach, climb and landing speeds, is likely more perception than reality. Float - why would a K model be more prone to float? It’s the same airframe as a C model, just 10” longer with higher wing loading. Same wing, same flaps. What’s more likely is that pilots for whatever reason (perhaps the aforementioned higher wing loading), are flying approaches at a higher multiple of Vso in the heavier airplane. Operated by the numbers, there should not be a lot of daylight in the landing performance of the two airframes flown at the same weight and approach speed. Weight is where there is a significant difference in these models. I don’t have any K model time, but I think 1800’ is tight for most of them based on book performance numbers alone. Most C models weigh in at <1700lbs empty. Most K models are going to be >2000lbs empty. So ~400lb or more delta in weight. It’s entirely plausible that the single pilot, take off, operating weight of your C model would be less than the empty weight of a K model for many missions. I fly a mid-body (F) with a fairly large range of operational weights (op weights at take off range from 2050-2740lbs). It’s a different experience when operating at <2200lbs as you are likely accustomed. Most K models with you, gas and bags are going to be within spitting distance of your C’s 2575lb mgw. The K model has a 17% horsepower advantage but compare operating weights for the same trip and in many cases you’ll find that you’ll likely be operating with a lower power to weight ratio unless operating both at max gross. Climb and cruise performance will be better in the K model but not significantly so until above DAs of 5000’ or more Has your mission changed or are you just wanting an upgrade?

Are you saying the engine was “missing” on that cylinder because of single plug failure? Perhaps the lack of heat fouled the remaining plug?

Any situation where separation was provided solely by “big sky theory”

Short answer - continuing the approach. He failed to pick a prudent go/no go point to assess the quality of the approach and act on it. If one is going to engage in operations that necessitate reduced margins, the go/no go decision point should be made well ahead of entering the reduced margin environment. I am speculating that like so many other Mooney pilots, he carried a surplus of energy to the runway. We’ve all pooched an approach. I am also speculating that the excess energy was recognizable but the approach to landing continued . The go around was likely initiated in a panic with the airplane having too much energy to stop but insufficient energy to clear the trees even at full throttle. I hope I’m wrong about this accident but it’s not like this is an unusual scenario. I have made hundreds of Mooney landings into a number of <2000’ strips, sometimes with > <1500’ available for landing. I’ve had a few pucker inducing situations. My SOP has evolved in such a way that I expect to go around, not land. As I cross the threshold, I only abort the go around in favor of a landing if speed and descent rate are in a very narrow range of acceptability.

A fouled plug or bad lead can reduce CHT and increase EGT significantly. Furthermore, they were ground running the engine between both, right and left mags. Under such a scenario, I would expect the cylinder that was alternating between running on a single point of ignition and not running at all to be much cooler than the rest. Nothing in @Hank’s statement seems implausible. Maybe could have been worded more precisely, but it makes perfect sense.