Shadrach

First thing I would do is check to see if the starter vibrator is buzzing with the key in the start position. That is to say with the key turned all the way to the right but not pushed in you should hear the high pitched buzzing sound of the energized starter vibrator. Note this has nothing to do with the engine's starter. That's the first and least invasive check. Attached is the manual for your SOS system. SOS IgnitionVibratorManual.pdf

I do not think a passport is required to move freely within the country (although it might help), however, proof of legal entry is (copy of form I94). Sort of Ironic that a southern border patrol agent is concerning themselves with a Kiwi traveling with a coworker. As if it were likely that he'd made the trek through the Darien Gap to get here... No one would do that to be an employee on the sell side of a merger...

Does it look like this?

Does your ignition have a "push" position like this one?

Unlikely unless it was really underinflated or operated low for a long period of time. Could have been a small pinch that wore through after a short time in service. You'll know when you get eyes on the tube.

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.