Shadrach

Absolutely. Just need a good blanket. As for the cabin, I would get a space heater to bring it up to temp. Ambient temp of 60° over two hours is not going to do a lot to heat a cold soaked airframe.

Now that I think about it, wheel barrowing is a function of tail AOA, not wing AOA. Nevertheless, I don’t think your statement is correct for an air frame with two airfoils. I don’t see how an aircraft in the wheelbarrow position has a positive wing AOA.

It will likely start to wheelbarrow or take off at some point. Neutral AOA on perfectly level ground is one thing, but that’s not representative of real world conditions.

I guess I’m not the heretic I thought I was…

I have never seen Bearings damaged from normal use. I have seen bearings that were improperly serviced that overheated. I’m used to being the board Heretic, so I will openly state that we no longer service the bearings every year. We check the wheels for play and resistance. We repacked the bearings with SHC 100 when we put new shock discs on in 2021. They have perhaps 150 hours since they were serviced. I will likely service them next year even though I bet dollars to donuts that they will show no evidence of needing it.

Is that a fancy way of saying that all of the procession torque will be limited to the axle and bearings (90° to the wheel)?

That’s a tough one to test without equipment. I will give it a shot if I ever get this thing back in the never ending annual ever wraps up.

That’s a reasonable position with regard to the efficacy of Camgard’s corrosion inhibiting properties. As someone who’s flying behind a 56 year old cam that’s been in service for 3300 hours, My anecdotal experience suggests that perhaps there is a metallurgy issue with certain manufacturing time frames that affects cam and lifter durability. It’s not like I live in Phoenix and it’s not like this engine didn’t experience long periods of disuse. Nevertheless, with or without Camgard, I have no reason not to expect the cam to remain in service through the next overhaul. Whether or not Camgard works is a minor concern compared to whether or not it causes “issues“. I am interested in someone articulating how it’s causing valve guides to fail or whatever other “issues” are being found in Camgard engines. Some might say that Avblend is snake oil (I would) but saying that it’s taking out cylinders (I wouldn’t) is a “whole nother” thing.

Fair enough. However it sure would be nice to have greater detail than “we are seeing issues“. What are these issues? How many engines are running Camgard? We’re clearly also seeing issues with engines that run 100LL. As far as I can tell no one has really done the homework to really establish a reliable correlation. I have been running Camgard for nearly 15 years without issue. Is it a panacea against cam failure, I don’t know. I have no personal interest in policing other people’s lubrication choices. I am typically very skeptical of additives. I started using Camgard because the founder and developer (Ed Kollin) made arguments that I consider to be convincing. He basically stated that camgard is the additive package he would’ve created without the constraints of a Corporate R&D department. Perhaps he’s full of it, but he’s at least made an articulate case as a petro chemical engineer and lubrication specialist. Moreover, Aviation consumer’s moisture cabinet test demonstrated significant corrosion protection over a myriad of other oil/ additive packages. I haven’t seen anyone who is suggesting that Camgard is detrimental take the time to articulate why. Maybe you could take a few minutes to do so or at least point towards someone else who has? I’m all ears if someone has or wants to do so. Until that happens, I will continue to suggest that ascribing failures to a product based on anecdotal correlation without evidence of causation is problematic.

One piece. If you really take your time, it should take about 2 minutes. Removal should take about half of that. It’s helpful to have a dental pick to get removal started…wouldn’t want to risk breaking a nail.

Don, With all due respect, there’s nothing definitive about your cylinder shop’s statement. “More issues from cylinders coming from engines that use camguard”. I would be skeptical of anyone who made unqualified statements like that. If Camguard is causing these “issues”, then why are your other three cylinders running strong? Perhaps the other three should be overhauled as a precautionary measure? The genesis of most old wives tale can be traced to credentialed professionals making foolish statements about subject ancillary to their area of expertise. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes for this one to spread. In the meantime, if you have any excess Camguard on the shelf consider selling it cheap (i’ll take it off your hands). Statistically speaking, having a bottle in your hangar is probably as detrimental to cylinder health as having a bottle in your engine. You can’t be too careful.

Could you post a link to that says test. Everything that I’ve read (including the MSDS) suggests that Avblend is mineral oil with blue die.

The most ridiculous make work item in GA is repacking wheel bearings every few hundred hours.

^^^^This is the way… Find a machine shop. Take them the old part. No need to tell them it’s for an aircraft.

That’s why I always slip into the wind and make sure all of my landings are perfectly delicate touchdowns.

Man’s age old question…”Should I tap that?”

That’s a lot of trouble to go to when cracking the door a few inches generates a lot more flow. I’ve heard good things about the Kool scoop. The late, great @Bob_Belville had a passenger side window installed so that he could have dueling kool scoops for airflow coming through both windows.

Try browsing the POH download section there are several 77 POH’s starting on page two.

Dawson has one. Better get it while it's hot... https://aircraftpartsandsalvage.com/aircraft-parts/airframe/general-airframe/landing-gear/mooney-ldg-retract-assist-bungee-assy/

I feel certain a new Mooney pilot would then shift the conversation to how heavy the elevator feels.

this is getting pretty nerdy but I’ll bite… 1) Why are you using the static load radius to calculate the RPM of a spinning wheel? 2) Static load is very likely based on max rated load. The max rated load of each main tire exceeds my aircrafts empty weight. They are no where near the spec static load radius in use whether stationary or rolling down the runway.

I agree this is very likely some combination of inexperience and trim position.

Wow, they went 9 pages. I thought we at Mooneyspace were the best when it comes to bludgeoning deceased equine.

Angle of incidence is the angle between the wing chord and the longitudinal axis. Not the ground. The effective AOA at rotaion speed is determined by both by angle of incidence and landing gear geometry. For instance an RV6 and an RV6A have the same angle of incidence but very different AOAs in the 3 point position.