mooneym20d

Quote: xftrplt mooneym20d, I think, you missed my point (which had nothing to do with an IR, but, rather, how to separate the men from the boys). Clearly, if I had a day job, I shouldn't think of giving it up for writing humor.

Quote: drmarkflies Has anybody looked at the FlightAware track for N486KC, the accident Bravo in the forced landing near Front Royal, VA? http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N486KC The track indicates an earlier flight on Feb 23 originated in S. America. Does that make sense to anyone? The accident flight track (FlightAware) looks about normal to me for landing at Hagerstown. The pilot left 9,000 for 5,000, leveled off then appeared to do a controlled descent. The speed track is hard for me to intepret. Any insight you more experienced pilots? This is a puzzling accident. I hope they are doing ok.

Quote: DaV8or This poll should have included a "Yes I am instument rated, but not current." option. Getting the IR was tough, but keeping current has proven even tougher. Now I'm so far behind, it's pretty much like starting all over again. Having the 430 doesn't really help much either. That thing is a user interface nightmare. Anybody know of a FAA approved simulator with a 430 in it in my area? This is posted by the real Dav8or!

I also flew yesterday. Working on my CFI in my Mooney. I was going to cancel with 33 knot gusts, but thought, what kind of CFI would I be? (maybe a smart one) Anyway, the winds at KTAN were 210 @ 21G33. My options were rwy 30 or 12. Basically a 90 degree crosswind. Fought the plane all the way to taxi speeds. A flawless landing, however. I think I've mastered the plane at this point.

Quote: xftrplt So it's an IR. I'll be damned. And I had always thought the Navy used a fire hose.

Mooney did not have the ram air in this model. I've owned 2 of the A Models. One had a duct connected to the mesh intake sending cooling air to the mags (this one had an alternator). If you have the small tubes on the back of the inside cowl - then these are for the mags. The other had no duct - I assume it was for the generator that was installed. Hope that helps.

PPL @ 29 (learned in a 1983 M20J, that's when I got the Mooney bug) PA-28-140 @ 31 - M20A @ 34 - M20C @ 39 - M20A & M20F @ 41 - M20E @ 45.

I just bought a digital CO detector because I suspected CO in the cockpit. I confirmed my suspicions when I turned it on. The readings were as follows: Taxi - heat on - cowl flaps closed - 347 ppm Taxi - heat on - cowl flaps open - 39 ppm Taxi - heat off - cowl flaps open - 22 ppm Cruise - heat on - cowl flaps closed - 38 ppm Cruise - heat off - cowl flaps closed - 16 ppm Approach - heat off - cowl flaps closed - 44 ppm From these readings, I deduced that a leak was occuring somewhere outside the heat shroud and coming in through the firewall. It seems the slower the air flow in the cowl, the more CO I detected. I checked the exhaust and found the tailpipe clamp had come loose. That was tightened and the remainder of the exhaust was checked. The heat shroud was removed and no cracks were found. New gaskets were installed at the flanges and the nuts were torqued to specs. The plane was put back together and another CO check was conducted. I no longer get the 347 PPM reading, however, I do get as high as 38 PPM on the ground and 18 PPM on approach. Cruise gives me approximately 8 PPM. Can anyone give me any insight as to wether these readings are normal? I do know that these levels are not dangerous for the duration of exposure. I will be taping any gaps between the nose gear well and firewall that lead to the cabin.

Quote: allsmiles If you would agree that every landing is different (you do agree don't you?) in that they present different challenges, then you would agree that it is bad technique to use one recipe fits all. Also it seems sloppy and narrow minded to "ignore" anything. It doesn't say anywhere, on any plackard, that it is ok to ignore for two minutes or so. The arc is yellow because it is meant to be transitioned through, and not stay in it for any specified amount of time. (Byron, you don't discount the yellow arc in the same way you discount ground handling by the prop, do you?!) (ouch!!)

Quote: dmc For pictures of the damage that it incurred in the most recent gear up, see below: http://www.aigaviation.com/aviationsalvage/salvagedetail.aspx?SalvageId=1066

I'm sure the DoD has their eye on these guys.

AC 20-37E Date: 9/9/05 300. PROPELLER BALANCING. This section describes only the general issues and types of propeller balancing. It is not intended to provide instructions for maintenance personnel to perform static or dynamic propeller balancing. a. Unbalance. (1) Propellers can become unbalanced during operation from mishandling, wear, damage and a variety of other causes. In some instances, the process of moving an aircraft by pushing or pulling on the propeller blades has bent or unseated the blades to an out-of-track condition or damages the blade preload system. Propeller wear and damage - and the repair of that damage - are also contributors to propeller imbalance. Unauthorized or improper repair of propeller spinners has also been identified as a cause of propeller imbalance. This is quoted from: AC 20-37E Date: 9/9/05 So I did, but now I don't. Should add that in the poll question.

Quote: alex CNN or MSNBC either or!

Quote: alex ...I'll go watch FOX and see if they can give me an answer. I have a better idea - Go watch MSNBC - they'll give you a distorted, one sided answer.

Quote: jetdriven if pushing your prop causes the blades to unseat then perhaps your prop wasnt airworthy to begin with. Don't you give it a "good tug" when preflighting it?

Quote: DaV8or Great link. Thanks for sharing. Everybody should check this thing out. Lots of good info with pictures and diagrams. It should be noted for this discussion that the FAA too says not to push or pull the aircraft by the propeller. It does not however state a reason why, nor does it include any detailed physics annalysis. My personal opinion (and it is just my opinion, no physics degree or laboratory testing) is that moving the plane by the ends of the blades, or by the spinner is bad for the prop. Rather than get into potential liability issue by illustrating where it is and isn't OK to push/pull, they just say hands off altogether. In addition, there is also the potential for inadvertant engine start, so again, just easier to say hands off. However, having said all that, I completely understand the position of following the propeller manufacturer's, FAA and AOPA's advice. Not pushing and pulling on the prop can't hurt the prop in any way. Pushing and pulling on the cowling...? Me not so much. For myself, I will continue when not using my power tug, to push/pull with one hand on the tow bar and the other on the prop root. It's a risk and I accept it.

They pulled on the prop :-)

Quote: mooneym20d Has anyone read this article? I saw in the performance specs - Vne 168 KCAS. Is this correct? Why is there a difference between the Vne in this E and my 1971? My is 200 mph or 189 KCAS.

Has anyone read this article? I saw in the performance specs - Vne 168 KCAS. Is this correct? Why is there a difference between the Vne in this E and my 1971? My is 200 mph or 189 KCAS.

Has anyone heard of a fuelguard fuel flow indicator? If so, can I get this fixed or replaced. Can't find anything about it on the internet. Thanks.

Let's get it going!! John, I believe I met you a few years ago. I was interested in a RayJay Turbo system. Couldn't get the STC for it without buying the turbo from M20.

I have seen the percolating fuel. Worried me the first time I saw it.

Quote: jetdriven All except the clamp around the tube on the pilot side. That took as much time as the whole rest of the job. It physically cannot fit. You just have to keep bending it and retrying it. Maybe file some on the edge of the clamp. The job is worth it though.

Thanks Byron. I must say, you are certainly a wealth of info regarding Mooneys.

Quote: N601RX So how did they explane that one?