Shadrach

but still quite a bit more than ARS...

Yeah, likely in an area of turbulent air flow anyway

My plane is at the upper end of the speed spectrum for the model but it always bothered me that one of the counterweights is about 1/4" above the wing tip skin.

Yes, but that was an OEM part that likely should have been replaced sometime during Clinton's second term... I am intrigued at the prospect of a silicone duct as it is far more durable that rubber. To my understanding it is more flexible but less likely to permanently deform. The failure mode for the OEM rubber piece begins with a localized crease. Once that happens, almost all of the stress from movement is transferred to the creased area with the weakened material. With time and vibration, said week spot slowly develops a small tear that propagates along the crease and compromises the structure. Remember that under normal circumstances, the only suction to which this duct is exposed is the pressure drop aft of the air filter. Brackett recommends cartridge replacement at 5 in H2O which is just under .4 inHg (0.18psi). It seems to me the risk of an engine out related to the duct would be due to a complete structural failure of the duct that then throttles the engine. At that point the above suction numbers go out the window, engine performance is greatly degraded and things go pear shaped rapidly. It looks to me like silicone might be the better choice.

They certainly have the expertise. It's good practice to try to make the first turn off (Bravo) when landing 31 at KLNS. It's just under 1000' and puts you right on Weber's ramp.

The only way to tell is to open the tank. Is there visible fuel staining on the wing? It could also be a sending unit gasket.

Should they be flush in level flight?

Wow…I’m out of touch. I would have thought they’d be close.

Congratulations on the new Powerplant. You definitely got your moneys worth out of the old one. Would be an interesting data point to see if the new one behaves the same. I think the only thing anyone was taking issue with was your suggestion that a well understood and frequently utilized Continental hot start procedure was a bad idea based on your anecdotal experience with your old power plant.

Agreed. Unnecessary and not nicely worded. That being said, I doubt @jlunseth is going to lose any sleep over it. Given my own challenges with being tactful, I try not to let it bother me when others showcase their shortcomings in that department.

@Echo, what made you go matte finish? I kind of like the look and texture of the smooth OEM finish. I am sorry I was not following this thread closer as I could have caught that the hardware you received was not same as factory. I doubt those yoke were on there for 60 years. They come off every 500hrs as required by AD 77-17-04. I think it’s a poorly written AD that has the potential to cause more problems than it solves. What inspired you to replace the hardware? I have found that a hammer and drift will facilitate pin removal but it feels heavy handed.

I took my ride with 40 and change and in hindsight was not really ready. I handled the airplane well but was not comfortable in the least. My discomfort fostered some stupid mistakes. I had to go back the next day to complete the oral.

I enjoy John's posts as much as anyone and he definitely is a well of good Mooney information both general and K model specific. However, Pinecone is correct…No fuel should go beyond the servo at idle cut off. Not understanding that is not a crime nor is it a personal attack to point it out.

Amen...much of my participation in the maintenance of my aircraft was due to repeated discoveries of poor workmanship. I could bore someone for an hour or more with my stories. Mags timed 180 degree out of spec.. Static ports covered after instrument work etc. etc... Post mx preflight is one of the most important activities a pilot can perform. regardless of who last worked on the plane.

Best to change frequently during the during the break in period. I did my first change at 10hrs, then 25hrs and then regular 50ish (sometimes less) hour intervals. There were no issues that would have prevented those initial changes from being extended, but I had to change the oil to know that. It's good to be conservative with oil intervals. Once the engine has a history of good dispatch reliability and is running consistently, pushing the interval a bit every once in a while if away from home, is not likely to make much difference. Your particular engine model has a history of being a thorn in the Lycoming warranty dept's backside. My guess is that the reduced interval is part of a kitchen sink approach to ensure the aircraft has the highest performing oil and also (cynically speaking) to provide an additional means of denying warranty claims. In the whole scheme of things 50hrs is pretty lousy for oil service life, 25hrs just seems wasteful given what we're able to achieve in other applications. Don't feel like folks are piling up on you. On the whole, folks on this forum want to help new owners avoid pitfalls. Your engine is somewhat high strung by aviation standards and is an expensive piece to engage in "experimental" maintenance practices/intervals.

All certified gasoline, injected, aviation engines are constant flow. I have only seen a backfire occur once regarding an aircraft. It was a Tripacer that had been over primed and it caused a dull pop followed by a fire that damaged the air box. You likely had some amount of excess fuel enter the exhaust and ignite just up stream of the turbine. Not ideal either. Bottom line is that boost pump at ICO should not deliver any fuel to the intake manifold.

I’m talking chassis dynos. My experience (likely limited compared to yours ) is that there is a notable difference from one shop to the next. HP/TQ relationship is consistent, so from a tuning standpoint the engine is likely to get to the same place. Different dynos, in different shops, operated by different operators yield notably different results on my experience. Especially when we’re talking about a delta of 10hp. I would think a loaded, engine dyno would be far more accurate and consistent.

The condition of the engine in Washington is verifiable, the assembly is the variable. Then engine in Jersey is of unknown condition but is assembled and was running when put away. Which one of those variables is easier for you to mitigate? Is there a significant price delta? If it were me and I could negotiate an acceptable price, I would likely choose #1. However, that is because I have an engine shop that is 30miles from my home drome with whom I have previously worked. I would have them IRAN with DLC lifters.

And we’re just talking engines. Dynamometers are equally inconsistent. They are good for tuning to a desired point on the curve, not so good for delivering actual power and torque numbers.

Is it actually backfiring (intake) or is it afterfiring (exhaust)?

Where are you located? Honestly, either could be viable. Some questions about each: #1 Is the engine still disassembled? The overspend would not bother me. How long has it been stored and how long since it was yellow tagged are concerns. #2 Where was it during its 6 year hiatus? Was it properly pickled or living outside on an unused airplane filled with old oil? Old Lycomings can be a crap shoot, but they’re not as fragile as they’re made out to be. We only hear about the horror stories. No one talks about engines that sit for years and suffer no ill effects but there are plenty that do. My original engine averaged 57hrs a year before it was OH’d but some years it didn’t fly at all or just got a few flights. No ill effects from sitting for mine, but others have deteriorated badly with lack of use. The cost of splitting the case to inspect an already removed engine is pretty minor in the whole scheme of things. You need to find the right shop to do it but dropping a few grand for piece of mind might be the way to go.

I know several that are currently local to my airport. One that is a forum member (Byron) just <30nm away. We have two youngsters (<45) on the field that put in notice at a local corporate flight dept and are preparing to get a repair station cert. I may start do some work for them on vintage Mooneys as things progress.

Idle cut off and return line are at the servo. The fuel divider and injector lines (top of the engine) will not see fresh fuel until mixture is moved from idle cut off position. Running the pump with the mixture at ICO ensures that the coolest fuel available goes to the flow divider when the mixture is opened. It also helps carry heat away from the fuel system aft of the cut off valve.

I will assume by “backfire” (combustion in the intake) you mean afterfire (combustion in the exhaust). At idle cut off, no fuel should flow beyond the servo. If running the pump at idle cutoff over-primes your engine, then fuel is making it through the cylinders and into the exhaust while at idle cutoff. I don’t think that is supposed to happen.

I’m sorry but you seem confused about what constitutes a fact. 1) Please offer some semblance of supporting data for the claim about IO360 rated horsepower? There are certainly variances from engine to engine. The different timing specs of various 200hp IO360s might factor in to some degree. That variance might even be as much as the 3.5% you claim (doubtful). The idea that Lycoming and the FAA have conspired to “over rate” the IO 360 seems unlikely. 2) One person’s anecdotal observations on an upgrade they just sent 10s of 1000s to install are not likely unbiased, nor do they negate the laws of physics. 3) The 5% difference in max rated power is not nearly enough to add 10kts. Furthermore the delta diminishes at cruise power. 70% is 147hp for 390 and 140 for 360. I don’t begrudge anyone’s choice to go with an IO390, but to me it feels like the answer to a question that no one asked.