Mooneymite

Low wing aircraft tend to have issues with vapor-lock. Flying your Mooney inverted will avoid this issue. :-)

So, would it be more economical still to set RPM even lower than 1900? What about 1500RPM X 15" of MAP....would that yield better economy? I've never explored the world of low RPM ops.... I know that "generally speaking" lower prop speeds can be better, but is there a point where it is too low? Obviously MAP has to drop as well to prevent an over-boost situation. Personally, I don't think that 80KTS in a 'C' is on the "backside". For economy, best speed would be closer to best L/D, right? But what is the "practical" best speed given the required maneuvering in the hold? .

(I did a quick search of the forum for this, but couldn't find that it had been discussed. If it has, can someone send me the links?) I recently flew to the Jacksonville area. I knew that the coast would be fogged in and planned my arrival for when the weather was supposed to break up. Surprise: it didn't....so I had to hold. In 14 years, I have very rarely ever had to hold in my Mooney because I try not to fly into "hard IFR" and I don't usually fly into airports where congestion is a problem. When I got into holding, I realized I really had never read much discussion about the best speed/power settings for holding. Seems like all we talk about is going fast. Flying a 'C' model, I pulled the prop back to 1900 and set MAP where I would get about 80 Kts, and leaned aggressively....I had to keep moving the power because of the turns in holding, but it seemed like it was pretty close to 15" most of the time....fuel flow showed about 4.2-5.0 GPH. (I held for about 20 minutes and then successfully got in on an LPV approach to about 300') What do you do when you just want to stay airborne at a typical holding altitude, burn the least amount of gas going nowhere? Techniques? Any Mooney guidance?

Quote: DFW68 Dear Fellow Mooney Owners, I'm a new owner of a 1974 M20C and a proud member of this forum. I am in need of the aircraft, engine and propeller serive manuals and associated illustrated parts catalogue in a PDF format. Aircraft: S/N 20-0016 Engine: Lycoming O-360-A1D S/N L-31264-36A Propeller: Hartzell HC-C2YK-1BF S/N CH43005B Thanks in advance in guys!

The only airplane I've ever owned with dead-on accurate fuel gauges was an RV-4 with automotive equipment. It was always "right on". The only fuel indicator I actually trust in my Mooney is the clock, though the recently installed EI fuel flow is proving itself accurate to about .1 gallon/hr. of flight. The gages are there for legal reasons. I wouldn't trust them for any serious fuel decisions. When I first got my Mooney, I futzed with the senders/wiring/gages, etc. endlessly....nothing made them trustworthy.

Quote: jamesm If you go to Zefttonics web site http://www.zeftronics.com/ and have the right web browser and virtual machine combination. They have an excellent troubleshooting guide and give specification for resistance(s). Make sure the resistance falls with the Specification that Zeftronics calls out for the generator control unit (GCU), if you are going go with Zeftronics . I had to send back a rebuilt generator because the generator resistance were out of tolerance for the GCU to work correctly. The GCU does have a terminal bus bar for the connection no cannon type plug between the GCU and your generator. You might want to consider plane power alternator conversion you save about 8 to 9 pounds on the front of your engine and your batterey will charge at a lower RPM. http://www.plane-power.com. I went the expensive route prior to Plane Power's conversion kit. I had to replace the starter support assembly (aka Ring gear) since the alternator belt is narrower and the belt pulley diameter are different. I put in the Plane power alternator with Zeftronics voltage regulator since Plane Power's Voltage regulator wasn't available at the time I did my switch to alternator. So far no trouble. Hope this helps. James '67M20C

Quote: N6719N Don Maxwell did mine. I think it was plug and play as far as the connection went, but I do remember they had to drill a new hole to move the mounting location over a bit due to interference with something.

Quote: N6719N I had the same problem with my C. Replaced the regulator ... I think it was a Zephtronic unit... completely fixed the problem. If I remember correctly, the over voltage sense is in the regulator, and like you I still had the original. Over time, the kicking on of the over voltage light progressed beyond just after start. It has been about a year since it was replaced, and absolutely no problems. I bet you will be fine. Good luck!

I have a '74 C model with a factory alternator. Out of the last few starts, half the time the OVERVOLTAGE annunciation comes on as the alternator comes on line. Each time, cycling the master switch has brought the alternator on line. Once the alternator is on line, it doesn't happen again....it only happens after start....some of the time. I have ordered a Zephtronics replacement Voltage regulator for the original Oeco 20082, but I'm wondering if there's anything else I neecd to do. I have checked the connections on the altenator itself, but I'm wondering if an overvoltage can be caused by something other than the VR. Since the alternator output is good once the master switch is cycled, I'm guessing the problem is NOT in the alternator itself.....is this correct? I realize that there are a lot of generator equipped C models out there, but mine is a "from the factory" alternator set-up. Any wisdom/experience out there with the OVERVOLTAGE light? Has anyone installed the R1530B Zephtronics VR on a C model? Thanks! Gus '74 M-20C

I have no first hand knowledge of this ebay offering, but after reading the details, I'm curious if it can be flown legally within the certified max gross weight. Caveat emptor. 10 gallons of fuel and a 170 pound pilot are usually pushing the limit. This offering has a starter and extra fuel capacity, so the pilot probably needs to be on a severe diet.

Anyone interested in a Mooneymite would do well to look at www.mooneymite.com. Lots of good info about the Mite and this is where the majority of Mites get bought and sold.

Quote: gmce. ........So where do you guys store charts, plates, pens, flashlights, etc? I have the one pilot side pouch that holds a checklist, and maybe a few pens.... that's it. Any aftermarket storage ideas? Thoughts? I suppose I could use the seat back pockets but would prefer something a bit easier. What about "mounting" a flashlight, etc? Any tips? Thanks!

Without knowing your specific aircraft and it's BOW/CG, it's impossible to comment. I have a C model and have no such issues. Would you care to post your '"vital statistics"? Has the aircraft been modified, or is it more-or-less standard?

There is an complete Accutrak II on Barnstormer.com. It is not mine, I have no knowledge of the seller, or condition of the item: 706-718-9785. Columbus, GA. Posted May 9, 2012.

Quote: jerry-N5911Q My shop just found one -- the inspection of the huck bolts and hinge assembly on my M20C revealed the hinge bolt was badly worn and needed replacement. It was an alarming find. The bolt was $3.50 and the labor about 1 hour. I am happy the AD directed them to have a close look. 4100 hours TT, probably the same time on the part.

. Not a single short-body discrepancy yet? Makes sense. These airplanes have been flying for more than 30 years without this problem cropping up. While this AD was warranted for the long bodies, the short bodies should have been left out and just covered by the SB unless there was actual evidence that: 1.) There had been any mis-assembled. 2.) That a mis-assembly posed a serious problem in a short body. I still think this AD was over-kill for the short body fleet. "Within 10 hours" after flying for more than 30 years? Give me a break! Let's see if ANY short body discrepancy ever shows up. .

. All the above posts are good, valid suggestions. Here's one that's served me well: When you go to look at an airplane, take a real good look at the owner, too. The airplane will reflect the owner and vice versa. Obviously this doesnt work if you are buying through a broker/agent. .

. I realize this thread is about speed comparason, but the combatants are not really in the same league. I just sold my RV-4; I've ridden in several 6's. Van designs great airplanes, but they aren't Mooneys....not even close. if knots/dollar is your main thing, yeah, the RV is the way to go. I sold the RV; I still have my Mooney. YMMV .

Ya know, I love my Mooney. As a matter of fact, I love ALL the Mooneys, but up against a J-3! Now that's like competing against motherhood and apple pie. As a matter of respect I'm not voting....

. Okay....anyone with a B, C, D, or E find a discrepancy under this AD yet? The youngest short-body is more than 30 years old, so hurry up and inspect within the next 10 flight hours, or who knows what will happen! .

Folks, the issue I'm adressing is not the AD per se. The actual work/effort involved in this particlar AD is minimal. My Mooney is already in compliance. However, if this is the way Mooney deals with a "suspected" defect, we can expect further abuse which may not be so benign in the future. Maybe a few errant rivets in the wing spar of one Mooney will ground the whole fleet next time. No cost to Mooney and no due process for the owners. Same process as this AD, but a lot more AMU's. Mooney, not the FAA, is driving this thing, but we're forced to pay the fare. Does anyone really believe that Mooney would have added the B,C,D,E's if it was paying the cost? We weren't even given a chance to comment, present evidence, or participate in any way. This is a very bad abuse of an important safety process....

. I agree that this was a shotgun approach by both Mooney and consequently the FAA. An AD is a draconian solution to this situation, though at negligible cost/inconvenience to Mooney....just to the owners of the older models. The estimated $85 does not begin to cover all the costs that might be incurred in compliance....all at owner expense. Had there been even one short body occurance prior to the issuance, I would have thought, "maybe", but without any evidence that any short body had ever been discovered with this discrepancy, this AD is onerous and un-called for. There have been years and years of inspections and not once was this reported, but all of a sudden all the short bodies are suspect too? The SB would have been satisfactory. If the SB turned up a few short-bodies with the discrepancy, then and only then would an AD be warranted. As was previously discussed, even if the discrepancy existed in a short body, it does not have the dire consequences assoicated with the longer Mooneys. This is about Mooney protecting its shorts at our expense. I have no problem with the SB; this AD on short bodies is unwarranted at this stage without evidence of a problem in the short-body fleet. .

Are you talking about the top to the "doghouse"? Can you post a picture?