Shadrach

For S’s and G’s I’ve rolled an airplane with the PNF holding a beverage. Perfect 1G not needed, just positive G throughout the maneuver. Pouring while you’re doing it would be a “wholenother” thing.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/soundproofinstall.php

Just a data point. I have a pre Hartzell Skytec that's been in service for 15 years. It started to get tired and noisy about 5 years ago. I replaced the battery which had no affect on performance, so I sent it to Hartzell. To mine and Hartzell's surprise is had been operating with a broken shear pin for nearly a year. They installed a new pin and sent it back gratis. I traced the shear to a kick back that occurred at Republic Airport. Sure glad it continued to operate (though I don't know why).

I have never seen a roll rate published for the Mooney but I would guess somewhere between 45° and 60°/sec depending on model and loading. 60° nose up is a lot. As slow as the Mooney rolls, I don't think it would take that much initial pitch to roll out on altitude without without exceeding 1 g. I say this because I've done aileron rolls in two airplanes with lousy roll rates, the Stearman N2S and a C150 Aerobat. I only flew each of these aircraft only once, but they both had very modest roll rates for aerobatic aircraft (I'd guess similar or even less than my Mooney). I recall using ~25°-30° in both. I checked the Aerobat manual which specifies 10-15° but I know we used considerably more than that.

I went to an airshow last summer where there was an Edge 540 putting on a routine that made me want to puke just watching. It wasn’t graceful and it wasn’t pretty to watch. The most impressive thing about it was that the pilot was able to maintain consciousness and not shower the cockpit with the contents of his stomach.

Being hyper vigilant about passenger comfort came late to me. I learned to fly in my early twenties and the flying culture within the young instructor community was not the best in the late 90s. Flying flapless tail draggers made me better at drag and energy management, but I realized that I had started horseing my F model around in the pattern like a Decathlon. The airframe handles it just fine but passengers not so much.

I enjoy positive G aerobatics in appropriately rated aircraft. The rolls in the video were suboptimal (especially the second) to put it nicely. He either pulled too hard at the 180° mark or didn’t adequately pitch up st the start of the roll. He rolled out nose low and was likely accelerating rapidly when he began to arrest the descent. Posting a video of yourself doing something illegal is bad. Posting a video of yourself doing something illegal and at a minimum level of skill is worse. It is a slick airframe for sure which makes it unforgiving. All the more reason for someone with minimum skills not to roll a Mooney much less film it. Performing aerobatics in a standard category aircraft is sort of like the tasteless “riding a moped” joke. It might be fun while doing it but you don’t want anyone to see you.

Agreed, but given that he had power and was getting feedback through the speakers, one can discern that the master relay was closing and was not the reason for the starting problem.

Hmmm. I would have guessed that the starter solenoid would remain on the firewall. Putting it in the fuselage would needlessly create a mess of wire.

This you???

I'm pretty sure that he is referring to the "solenoid" located the firewall which is completely separate from the starter. The starter switch energizes the "solenoid" which closes a circuit and activates the starter. Easy and inexpensive to replace. https://www.aviationpartsinc.com/product/lamar-starter-solenoid-faa-pma/

Something odd is going on for sure. From your post it appears to be more than just the power setting. Poor performance and excessive oil consumption suggest that there is more to the story than mixture/power setting.

If it started after tapping the solenoid (relay), my guess is that it is flaking out when heat soaked.

In case of oil cooler performance, IAS is more useful that TAS. The original post is odd though. Maybe the “74” was simply a typo. Using the numbers given his TAS is in the mid 130s which is slow to very slow for any M20 airframe depending on whether in mph or KTS. There must be more to this story.

Good practice indeed. I try to catch the tanks at the first hint of a fuel pressure drop. I find the system will fluctuate quite a bit before the fan stops turning. That isn’t to say that I haven’t missed it before. I don’t have much experience with Aircraft turbos. I’m guessing there’s some advantage to not touching the throttle while leaning to LOP. Most of the reading I’ve done about operating big radios suggest that they lean first and then add MP back with a throttle. i’ve done a lot of experimenting IO360 at low altitude, high power LOP settings. Even under those conditions you’d be hard-pressed to heat it in under 20 seconds except for on the hottest days.

I’ll take for granted that you’ve already swapped the plugs around or replaced them and are still having the same problem. The reason I say is because an ignition system that is operating suboptimally will collect lead. So then it becomes a chicken or the egg proposition. I can tell you that I have owned and operated an IO360 with massive plugs for over 20 years. Lead it’s never been a problem. I have to clean them at annual of course but the few failed mag checks I’ve had were never caused by lead fouling.

If your plugs are fouling, the mixture knob is not going to affect your situation much if at all. Ground leaning is a fine idea, especially at high DAs but a properly set up Lycoming IO360 should idle and taxi just fine at full rich with no fouling of the plugs. Ground leaning has only been a thing for about 30 years. What kind of cylinders do you have? Oil may be coming through valve guides. First step is a wobble test. https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/attachments/Procedure%20to%20Determine%20Exhaust%20Value%20and%20Guide%20Condition.pdf

I don't really care as long as it's legal and performing well. It's almost dead on for book climb numbers. I've had it to 13,000msl loaded as previously mentioned with no trouble last summer. If she's overweight, it does not show.

Interesting. I have never seen a vintage Mooney without cowl supports. 74 was the first year production year under Republic Steel's ownership. There were loads of changes and omissions throughout the late 60s and into the 70s. I'd be interested to see if they devised some other method of supporting the cowl. Seems too heavy to just cantilever off the firewall. The upper cowl and intake add support when assembled. Is there additional structure supporting the cowl that can't bee seen?

It’s rare that a Lyc IO 360 sees much benefit from GAMIs. Indeed, GAMI would be the first to admit that.

We’re a family of 4. Kids are young. With full fuel (384lbs) and max baggage weight (120lbs + 10lbs in the hat rack). We’d each need to bring a 25lb dumbbell to get to gross

Cool early F. I always wondered if the 66 models had the twist wing. Now I know that indeed they did.

Me no think that is likely unless factory lied. Almost every W&B negligible entry we've done was a matter of ounces and often a small net gain in UL but not worth the calculation. I'm sure if I weighed it that it would differ from the W&B entry but I would bet the delta is less than 1% of empty weight. To get to 50lbs out on a 1700lb airplane would require at lease "50 W&B negligible" entries. I don't have anything against weighing per say, but there is no logical reason to put one's self in the position you mention if everything else is operating as it should. My performance numbers are good. I have a legal document showing the aircraft's W&B is in compliance. There is no logical reason to throw a scale into that state of affairs.

Nor go through all the W&B revisions.