cbarry

You forgot the comma after owner.

Not to digress too much, but IMO the most critical component in the equation of market value of the traditional piston aircraft fleet (new or used) will be the viability of a long term compatible and ample fuel supply. A TAS of 0 cancels out the joy of “cleared direct!”

I’m not a mechanic, but are you ok with these possible rub points? It may take a while, but constant vibration and friction may cause a failure at some point.

I’m not a mechanic, but is it possible that the spinner alignment/support ring has become brittle and failed? If I’m not mistaken, that spinner has a plastic ring underneath. Could it be that a piece of it is broken off causing the imbalance that seems to migrate?

I sure hope we don’t find out the cause to be a simple miscalculation of fuel remaining. IMO, although not knowing the equipment on board, even the most basic fuel totalizer still needs human input—which is where the reliability/predictability can wane.

Is it possible the mag timing is off? I’m not a mechanic, but this may be an item to have checked that can affect CHTs. As others have mentioned, the baffling’s appearance is suspect. Another thing to note is fully closed cowl flaps may be causing a little too much back pressure on the airflow entering the cowling.

This is really not surprising except that using the word “assurance” in their program title opens the door to further frustration if and when they are unable to fulfill the customers’ requests. I say it’s not surprising because more and more of today’s commerce feeds off of access/subscription fees as simply a way in which the company subsidizes their inability to turn a profit otherwise under the pretense of marketing discounted prices. On another note, even though the details don’t seem to be completely ironed out yet, I can see a point when access/program fees may be “offered” to be converted into unwanted shares leading to kicking off a K1 resulting in the shareholder possibly having to report undistributed income. I truly wish them well and at least effort is being made to make good money again (I meant to say make Mooney good again)!

That’s a very nice and well thought out new panel! Congratulations!

You might consider checking the vent lines on the fuel tanks for an obstruction or partial obstruction. With the fuel boost pump on, or at low power setting, the engine may be getting enough fuel, but at high/takeoff power the engine driven fuel pump without the boost pump may not be sufficient if the tank vent lines are mostly obstructed. Of course, you could look at the wing you’re drawing fuel from and watch the tank area start to collapse if the vent line is mostly obstructed.

It can only indicate the hole in our wallets! Actually, I think it may indicate a close tolerance proof tested bolt.

To gain access, it might be possible to drill each of the rivets out around the inner portion of the access panel, remove that portion and then you’d have access to put a backup wrench on the nuts. Then you can reassemble using the dome style nut plates or find serviceable ones to reinstall.

Is it possible that the oil flow through the governor is restricted or not maintaining the proper pressure as the MP starts decreasing (now at a higher MP than before)? I’m not a mechanic, but it sure sounds like the governor oil control valve is not opening well to increase oil flow or the check valve is not “holding” well as MP drops. You know your airplane, so if it doesn’t seem normal, it probably isn’t.

If folks were as conscientious about applying power sequentially and in stages, as they are about cleaning up the drag components, I believe most go arounds would be a non-event. In other words , “Balls-to-the-walls” as a first thought might not always be the best. I’m not an instructor, just trying to be a conscientious Mooney driver.

The other question that hasn’t been asked but needs to be answered is why the SA failed after only 200 hrs since overhaul (assuming it’s the failed component)? Is there an obstruction in the oil galley feeding the SA causing premature wear? Was the overhauled unit’s components (such as the cranking shaft) just at the minimum tolerance but still passed to be used again in the overhaul?

I’m not a mechanic, but it sure sounds like a connection/electrical issue between the probe/s and the oil temp gauge. Even simple issues such as a bad grounding strap connection can throw off indications that otherwise would be normal.

I’m not a mechanic, but if I’m not mistaken, that tempest vacuum pump flange has a star/pointed shaped gasket that sits in the notched grooves that are centered on each side of the flange—rather than a traditional flange gasket. I bet there’s an issue with that gasket either missing or misaligned.

Prior to a panel upgrade, my Eagle had the Moritz gauges and a JPI 700. I could expect to see about a 20 degree (F) inflight difference between the two oil temp probes’ readings. I may be wrong, but this was one way to tell if the oil cooler was working well. Now with just the JPI 900 using the probe location the JPI 700 did (the cooler side), I believe the “working oil” to still be about 20 degrees warmer—all else being equal.

That bend on the shroud looks like someone was too lazy to take it off completely to inspect the muffler/flame tubes.

This story makes me want to put another set of “no step” labels directly on the flaps. I do find it helpful to lower the flaps completely before folks board or disembark. The greater the angle, the less the flap appears like a walkway.

Not a mechanic, but I would confirm your fuel injectors are clean (simple items first).

I own N132MA which is a 2001 Eagle 2 that sits at 1026lbs of useful load. My Eagle 2 has not had the Screaming Eagle conversion. I see where N131MA appears to be on the market. It’s also a 2001 Eagle 2 with TKS and the Screaming Eagle conversion. It has a stated useful of 900lbs which I’m curious of. I may be wrong, but I’m wondering if the useful load was updated after the conversion because even with TKS, I would think the useful would be slightly north of 1000 lbs (because of the conversion).

The often dreaded conversation upon arrival: Lineman: “Sir are your brakes off?” Me: “Yes. Is your staff familiar with the nose gear turning limitations of a Mooney?” Lineman: “Oh yeah, we know.” Me: “Good. I prefer this aircraft to not be towed, so if I need to park in a different spot, I’m more than happy to do so now.”

I think you meant to state a beginning date of 1/30/2009.

The Cessna was the go around traffic, not the Bonanza. The Bonanza ended up landing after the Mooney. The Mooney pilot, I agree shouldn’t have paused, especially not stopped to ask permission to cross the other runway when no LAHSO had been given. However, he has every right to use the amount of runway needed to exercise safe operations. It appears he was just being cautious about crossing the other runway out of concern for other conflicts when the main conflict was at his six.

I’d be curious to know if at least 3000 feet of separation was being provided between two category 1 landing aircraft using the same runway (which obviously isn’t that much of a distance if too much time is taken by the first aircraft to expedite exiting the runway…) However, “unable” is still the available to use when the safety of the movement/flight is on the table.