Shadrach

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.

I’ve been flying in and around the Balt/Wash metro area in a single com, tail dragger. I did not realize how much I appreciated dual coms with the ability to listen to and preload multiple frequencies until operating without that capability in busy airspace.

This pilot made one crucial mistake that precipitated this accident.

Pretty much the case with transgressions everywhere. The reason I believe his story is because he was not able to negotiate for a more reasonable fine. He’s still likely to pay more defending this than the $2400 they requested to put it to bed.

That’s a reasonable assertion. The demands of just one spouse and multiple kids has me on the brink more often than not.

This doesn’t look to me like it’s about getting even. This looks like a very small sandbox with two officials locked in a pissing contest. This looks like small town political standoff. The pilot is the pawn.

I’ve landed at several non public strips and permission has always come by way of a phone call or an invitation from an existing tenant. I would not land on a reservation without written permission. I’ve heard some rather unsavory stories about how the property of outsiders is treated on some reservations. I don’t really see what this guy’s religion, house, or community have to do with this situation.

Let’s hope it does not drag out through multiple appearances. Being a pawn in a political pissing contest between to reservation officials with your Mooney at stake is an unenviable situation.

It’s recent. Video uploaded 2 weeks ago.

Unlikely broken. More likely the the cable either needs to be lubricated or is not properly secured causing the cable to “bow” rather than move the indicator. Imagine if you ran derailleur and brake cables on a bicycle without securing the cable housing to the frame? You need to ensure that cable movement at one end of the housing translates to equal movement at the other end of the housing. Also, ensure the cable is not slipping at its attach point at the jack screw or at the indicator. I would start at whatever side is easiest to access.

Those are good points. We can never mitigate all risks. Standard pattern entry does not guarantee that there won’t be conflicts, however it certainly provides some additional benefit over entering the pattern at whatever pattern leg and altitude is convenient to one inbound individual. Like it or not there are still a significant number of 75 + year old aircraft out there flying around with no electrical system. Most of them avoid busy, metropolitan and surrounding areas out of common sense. When I’m flying into country airports in low density parts of the country, I think it’s common sense to take into consideration that NORDO operations are still a thing In rural areas. A common entry point (more or less) and altitude does a lot to mitigate over me/under me and over wing/ under wing blindspots. I may not like that Bill was out there flying is Aeronca without a radio but he’s perfectly legal to do so. Me not liking it won’t change the fact that if we had had midair, we’d both probably be dead and the NTSB report would have most certainly referenced a Mooney flying a non-standard pattern as a contributing factor.

I used to be comfortable picking whatever pattern leg was convenient to my inbound track. I once had a conflict with a NORDO Aeronca Chief that I did not see against the ground cover and cut him off while he was on base. He walked over as I was tying down and made me aware of what I had done. He then introduced himself as Bill Pancake (those in the Aeronca community will know that name). It was clear that his chances of seeing me were limited by his right wing. I drove right into his pattern. Since then I reserve non standard approaches for controlled fields.

What type of valve? Do you have a pic? I’ve been thinking of ways to install a bleeder valve at the actuator.

No need to complete the SB. Just pull the side panels and inspect the tubing. Tube under the pilot window and the lower aft tubes that connect to the spar are especially prone to corrosion. Once you’ve verified the cage is good, you can proceed with purchase. You can do the complete SB on your own time and money. When I did mine we did the complete SB which included new insulation and a repaint of the tubes with two part zinc-chromate epoxy. I would expect to pay a lot more than $1000 to pay someone to do what I did. That was 15 years ago. I pull the interior about every third annual. The status of the structure has not changed since we performed the SB.

I remember reading that in one of the books. I don’t recall if it said 4.5 or if it gave a range of 4-4.5. I’ve never bled a ‘64 model. However, I have verified that 1965 and later when properly bled are precisely 4 pumps to full deployment. That said, there are a lot flying around that are not properly bled. Another member of the forum speculated the the 4.5 book number may have been a catch all for the factory so they didn’t need to spend hours and hours getting every last air bubble out of the system. One of the nice things about four pumps is that deployment is divided into fourths. You don’t really need to look at the indicator at all and the handle doesn’t stick halfway up when fully deployed. This is what it should look like when perfectly bled and adjusted to factory specs.

Self healing Mooney ailments are rare…glad it’s working again. Every system that I have bled is 4 pumps to full (pump cylinder volume is 25% of the actuator cylinder volume.) Just in case there is a some air upstream of the pump, I would ensure that the reservoir is full and then pump the flaps half down and leave them for a day or two.

I know all too well. I did clean and retape all of the gaps under the wing root fairings about 10 years ago. The original tape had completed delaminated leaving a yellow powdery mess on the aluminum.

I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m merely interested observer. it seems to me your statement is not entirely true. It’s not that the amp hour rating is interior so much is the battery type being used. How do you suggest they create a lifepo4 battery that fits within the systems current (cca) specifications and still has the capacity of an AGM battery? We live in good times… when our airplanes were delivered they had crappy wet cell batteries that would barely break 250 CCA and 20 ah.

I’ve made that case as well. That could be done by installing two ETX900s in parallel would yield 12V 31.2ah and 780CCA. @EarthX Inc stated that the current would exceed the specs for the starting system. Which is why I suggested a dual battery on a switch. Installing two ETX900s in series would yield 24V 15.6ah and 390cca. Installing in series and parallel would yield 24v 31.2ah and 780cca. Im not sure why 790cca is a problem, but I’m assuming there is a legitimate concern.

That would make it a 24 V system for which they do not have an STC.

Agreed, it’s silly to blame the battery producer for this issue. My guess is that if it were any other battery, no one would, but let’s beat up on the new tech… Technology has provided some truly fantastic innovations over the years and then there are things like Cirrus IQ…the factory installed battery depletion system that won’t connect in a hangar but will drain your battery. The SR series app tells you the following: Fuel on board O2 fill level (if applicable) TKS Level (if applicable) Battery Voltages Battery Temp It’s amazing that pilots of other makes have managed for so long without having such information available on their phones…

First thing to determine is if it is staining from a previous leak that has been repaired or a new leak. To my mind, a leak like that would be accompanied by a pretty strong fuel smell in the cabin if it were still flowing.

So my error was in assuming that @Jetrn wanted to replace his stock voltage regulator with a voltage regulator that was an approved replacement for his stock voltage regulator but only in other Mooney models. I now understand that the rr1244 is part of the plane power STC. I agree more information is needed. I still don’t think this is a major alteration. Indeed it may not be compatible at all, though I think that unlikely.

I did not address it specifically, however I “assumed” compatibility after referring to the TCDS (see my earlier post.) The 24V M20J and M20K do indeed have different alternators (TCM and Lycoming specify different accessories), however both 24V J an K systems specify the same voltage regulator options (Precise Flight DGR-2 or the Electrodelta VR802). Perhaps I’m all wet. Being that you’re an electrical engineer, perhaps you can shed light on how a voltage regulator that is approved as a drop-in replacement in one application would be out of spec in another when the component being replaced is the exact same part number?

I have a pretty good idea of how the FAA works. Which is why I suggested they really don’t need to be involved. It’s a minor alteration. The problem is that so many interpret the regs to say what they think they mean rather than what they actually say. So the problem is not returning it to service. It’s keeping it in service when another IA looks at it several years later.