Shadrach

The AD thing is not that big of a deal as no IA that I know of would be comfortable signing off an experimental aircraft with existing ADs. That would leave it to builders with repaiman authorization inspecting their own planes…most of whom are likely going to comply.

Perhaps there is no simple way, but it could be better. When there are 50 owners pissing up multiple ropes in order to install an improved landing light that is not STCd but is an OEM part for at least one certified aircraft manufacturer, the agency has lost the plot. The up side to dealing with multiple resubmissions for the same 337 is that I have never once since landed without a lighting landing light nor ever needed to replace a bulb. I was able to make my plane safer, more visible and more reliable with less draw on the electrical system despite my FSDOs best efforts to make it difficult.

I don’t know that the brake mod requires a 337. There are loads of 337’s filed every year that are not necessary per the regs. I happen to be close to DC and know several IAs that work for major DOD contractors. Before making their acquaintance, I had never heard the term “courtesy 337”. I am not saying the term is an industry norm, but I am saying that some maintenance facilities file 337s for any alteration, regardless of whether or not it meets the definition of major. Are the brakes mounted in reverse on later models? Is installing a used wing a major alteration? it’s a major job, but it does not meet the definition of a major alteration. Does using a used J wing on an F model make it a major alteration? I don’t think so but I’m open to the rationale. My 67 model has a twist wing. What if I needed to replace it and could only find wing from a 69 model without the twist. Does that qualify as a major alteration? All of those parts are type certificated Mooney parts. I don’t wish to be deliberately contrary about the process but there are a lot of inconsistencies from FSDO to FSDO with regards to interpretation of the regulations. It’s not a new problem. It is frequently topic of conversation within the agency yet it is never rectified. Every regulatory/approval process should demonstrably contribute to safety. If it doesn’t, one must ask what it is accomplishing? I feel obligated to push back sometimes on principle. It is frustrating to install a simple/common modification followed by the submission of a 337 that was copied word for word from someone else’s approved 337, only to have it rejected by the office in your region.

In a mid body, a slow steep descent into ground effect coupled with an aggressive flare to arrest the descent can result in tail scraping deck angles. I imagine the long bodies are even more prone to tail strikes.

My understanding of the regs is far from comprehensive but I have always been curious about the regulatory language that makes adding some types of factory parts to update a factory airframe more difficult than others. Does Installing wing tank gauges require a 337? It requires cutting sheet metal, drilling, counter sinking and flush riveting.

Pilot inertia and manual for passenger was the standard forum recommendation when I did mine 10 years ago. Did you replace the stock belts because you disliked them or due to age?

No skid on the new airframes.

I see both sets. that tail skid is vintage standard issue. Identical to my 67.

CS3204 is far more robust with better adhesive properties than RTV. I think the key to repairing these ducts is reinforcing them on the outside before the boot becomes compromised on the inside. I have a new boot in my hangar and have already reinforced it with a coat CS3204 in known wear areas. We shall see if that simply shifts the wear point to another area.

Had no idea that Porsche "owned" Mooney at some point...

No doubt. Extra energy is nice while bouncing down final but can become a liability as one enters the runway environment if there is any significant X wind component. I think using raw numbers is a boondoggle. 15 Kts is likely well under 10% of Vref for an airline, but it’s quite a bit more than 20% of threshold speed for the heaviest of Mooneys at MGW and over 25% of threshold speed for me when typically loaded. I have landed in god awful gusting winds sometimes into sub 2000’ strips. I add an extra 5kts if it’s gusting heavily otherwise 1.3Vso is plenty of margin (I use ~1.2Vso in calm to light winds). I have yet to fall out of the sky. Have had some uncomfortable low level, wind shear experiences but then low level, wind shear is going to be uncomfortable at any practical approach speed.

Interesting tidbit about the OP’s set up - The first thing I did when I started troubleshooting the issue was to determine type of starting system. It was clearly an SOS setup. I engaged the key in the start position but no buzz from the vibrator. I bumped the starter by pushing the key but left it at that. Given the OP reported that engine only starts when the key is returned to both, I assumed there was a problem with the switch or the vibrator and therefore no spark through the retard points. OP is clearly mechanically inclined so I left him with some additional trouble shooting tasks for another day. He was able to get the vibrator to buzz with a jumper wire. He determined that the vibrator is wired to the starter (a la Cessna twin). So the vibrator engages with the starter. However, he has no spark at the plugs. I am left thinking that the retard breaker points are the issue. What is odd to me is that someone installed a very expensive “push to start” Bendix switch (currently >$700) and didn’t bother to use the start position for the vibrator, The switch does not have the “push” label plate, but clearly requires a push to engage starter. The system is equipped with a starter defeat switch under the cowl for hand propping. Switch setup aside, this looks to me like the the retard breaker is either not being energized or is not discharging. What the OP is trying to determine is if something aft of the mag could be causing this. He did verify that the vibrator lead is seated in the left mag. @N201MKTurbo your input would be welcomed!

Interesting side note. Statistically this pilot was super lucky. The fatal accident rate for the Lancair is 10X the GA average and ~ 40X that of the ubiquitous C172. That data came from the Lancair Owners and Builders Organization.

Probably happens more often that you think. They just don't get reported. I personally know of several successful dead stick landings, though some were just relayed as stories from the past. I know of two that happened recently enough for me to hear about it from the source on the same or next day. One was a Cessna (Carb Ice) and other a Cirrus SR22T. Cirrus was in cruise at 12.5, almost directly above a large airport. No concerns about adequate altitude, only proper energy management. Landing was quiet but otherwise uneventful. The pilot was chastised by the factory for not pulling the chute (AC was still under warranty).

It is an ethical question but a hard one to grapple with in real time. If one were in a car with no brakes at 45mph and had the option of continuing through an active, red lighted intersection or running head on into a concrete overpass pillar, I think many if not most would roll the dice with the intersection. This guy did a good job. Technically speaking, at any altitude of 2900msl he had a shot at KTTA (~250msl), but everything would’ve had to go very well and the margins would still be pretty thin. 14:1 glide ratio so he had just under 7 miles before arriving at 250msl if perfectly set up and no wind. The outcome could’ve been a little better or much, much, worse. This gamble paid off.

Plenty of folks have screwed up weighing procedures and miscalculated both empty weight and CG.

Sorry Lance….

I like everything about this plane including the paint scheme and colors. If it had manual gear it would be nearly perfect.

There is a really cool stinger tailed F model out there somewhere that has a full 201 cowl and windshield, plus a rayjay turbo normalizer. Used to be based at Truckee IIRC. In some ways it’s literally a Mooney unicorn. Edit- The plane I mention is actually N6717V which was posted earlier. It was based in South Lake Tahoe at KTVL or KMEV.

That is a sad accident report. Potential gear up into a poorly executed go around into a low level stall… glad the pilot walked away. Did he continue to fly after the incident?

That’s an interesting observation, but doesn’t really make sense to me logically. I would not assume there to be much of a difference in force required to crank any of these engines. Whether four or six cylinder, the displacements are similar. The four cylinder has 2 compression strokes per rpm and the six has 3. However the Bravo has a modest 7.5 CR compared to the Lycoming’s 8.7. Seems like the differences to the starter would be negligible.

We were discussing the 2740 birds but sure, the heavier birds need more speed to maintain the same margins. Plenty of evidence that the heavier Mooneys are being frequently flown too fast on approach as well. Indeed under some conditions, I would likely add more speed margin to a 3200 lb Encore or a 2900lb J model as for all of their fine attributes, at max gross, they have the lowest power to weight ratios of the breed.

Exactly. Garrison has some insight into transaction prices. Asking prices are all over the place. I have a friend that routinely sent me listings for 80 and 90k Cherokee 140s last summer. He finally purchased a reasonably equipped Cherokee 140 locally for under 40K. There are still plenty of those 80-90k 140s for sale, but I am not sure who if anyone is buying.

You may find a Mechanic that will weld it but those kinds of folks are getting scarce. I would take it to a local machine shop/metal fabricator. Most could repair that easily.

I think if you polled vintage owners with Brittain equipped aircraft, you would be surprised how many well preserved, air tight, vacuum servos are still in service after 5 decades. It’s not that I am avoiding maintenance. On the contrary, I have a stack of replacement servos bagged on the shelf that I procured in anticipation of a failure. It’s yet to happen. I’m not saying they don’t dry out eventually. I am saying that high quality rubber that is unexposed to UV and high heat can last a very, very long time.