Shadrach

Was there any disciplinary action taken?

From the article you linked. "an official told Military.com that the individuals were permitted to retain their status as aviators." It'd be ridiculous to permanently remove two skilled aviators from duty over something that did not endanger person nor property and likely no regulations at the time, I am sure the regulation part has been remedied.

That looks like it's post vasectamy.

November 2017 F18 Launches out of Whidbey Island NAS on a special mission.

I know that it's crude and debated whether to engage at all. However, given the coincidental recency of my own inadvertent drawing and the fact that things have gotten a little stiff around here lately (pun intended), I thought the place could use a little childish levity.

Normally I would ignore such crass behavior…but I think this place is getting too uptight. I made an inadvertent C&B when I flew over a pool party last weekend. Unflattering proportions… Of course reoriented it looks more like a Dicknose under glasses…

There is a plenum at the base of the windshield that ports through the holes to which you’re referring. It’s not the greatest system when in tip top condition. Most are not in tip top condition. The sceet tubing deteriorates ove time and should be replaced every 20years at a minimum.

Brain fart. I meant verticale.

There should be a pocket in the baffle wall behind he cylinder. Make sure that it positioned properly behind the cylinder. Just a fractions of an imce in horizontal misalignment can make a difference. Using a s spacer to maintain the gap behind the cylinder works. I used a thin rectangular piece of baffle seal material.

Hard IMC = conditions at or near minimums at departure, en route and destination without divertable VFR. HARD IFR = flying a turbo, piston twin, single pilot in hard IMC.

Looks like a doubler was added where the supports would mount and they were never reinstalled.

Those images were lost when mooneyspace migrated to a different server. I will try to get some images when I am at the drome this week. This was the original thread from 2011:

What are you using as a reference? Who is doing the work? The factory routing of the oil hoses is down the outside of the rear baffle wall and then forward under the exhaust system. There should be a heat shield built into the floor of the lower cowl just inside the cowl flap to protect the hoses. I can find no supporting documentation for doing it as you suggest. Does the plane have a modified/aftermarket cowl?

I would not be happy with those numbers. Not because I think it”s frying cylinders but because I know it can run cooler.

I would think that having ignition advance on both ignition sources to be the real benefit.

That’s pretty reasonable. My 67F weighs 1680lbs (according to W&B for which I have all revisions) but is not as well equipped as your bird. The delta in unequiped airframe weight between short an mid body is about 15lbs. One obvious area of gain is that the original prop your E was delivered with weighed 53.75lbs. Your current prop weighs 71lbs. Do you feel like you run out of up trim on approach?

What's your empty weight? Unless I have passengers, my take off weight is usually ~ 2200lbs.

Can you post a pic of the caliper reversal? I am trying to visualize the brake line routing.

As I read it, only the "D" engines are approved for dual electronic ignitions. So does this mean that J models with "D" series engines are the only Mooneys that can have variable ignition timing on both left and right ignition sources?

#3 is almost always the hottest CHT and coincidentally the leanest (first to peak) on IO360 powered Mooneys. I do not see how omitting the front baffle on #1 would be beneficial. The additional flow around the front of #1 may lower the #1 CHT, but it may create a localized increase in pressure in the lower cowl stemming the flow of cooling air around the back of #1/#3 as wall as the front of #3. Some cowling tweaks help and some make things worse. Probably best to restore to stock and then reevaluate. Also, there is a concave pocket in the baffle seal wall behind #3, make sure it is aligned in such a way as to allow flow around the back of #3. If that pocket is not lined up properly, almost know air will flow around the back side of #3. See image below. This is an image I captured looking straight down at the top of #3 and #1 in the dark with a shop light in the lower cowl. Notice no light behind #3? The Cylinder fins are offset from the barrel so that they do not provide flow around the back side of the cylinder. Note the back side of cylinder #1, all the light is coming through the fins of #3. This si why is is essential that the pathway behind #3 be aligned and unobstructed. I agree with Rich on the RTV. The RTV on your front baffle seals may be causing turbulence that is detrimental to airflow. It's a poor aesthetic that in all likelihood has no benefit. The front baffle seals on my F model have been in service for 3300hrs over the last 55 years. The engine runs consistently on the cool side for conditions (have trouble keeping #1 and #4 >300° in winter). They have never been "glued" to the cylinders.

Numbers match what I would expect from my “box stock” 67F. Don’t split hairs over a few mph. All of my speed testing has been at WOT, ram air open, peak EGT and 2500rpm. Aircraft weight and DA at the test altitude is the primary factor. Test speeds vary by about 10kts depending on conditions. Tested top speed of my F has been as high as 156kts (cold winter day at 1500msl and as low as 144kts (hot summer day at 13500msl). I think that all of the 200 hp Mooneys fall in this range +/- 5 kts. CHTs and Oil temp seem within normal range.

Good advice above. I will add that I do not see anything that looks odd in the attached images. The gear doors leave witness marks on all Mooneys over time. I put prop tape on the doors in the area where they contact the wing. I see no scuffing or paint tire transfer in the wheel wells, just the typical collection of crud the all accumulate if not washed regularly.

@RoundTwo is correct. J-11968-5 is the part number. Date code is just month and year I believe.

Agree about the shock being delivered direct to the wing. Perhaps it does contribute in some way. That being said, I have done a number of tank repairs over the years. I don’t see how minor wing flex compromises the sealant bond. It would seem to me that if the leaks were gear induced, the failures would be in a specific area of a specific station but that has not been my experience. Additionally, my wings suffer far more motion and flex in sumner time turbulence than they ever see on landing.

What's the date of mfg on you shock discs? I am dubious on the theory that leaks are induced by rough landings or old discs. The discs are either flexible or they are hard. Either way, any impact that would generate sufficient wing flex to delaminate the sealant would likely result in a condemned wing.