Taracka

As a reminder I have lots of M20C parts and other aircraft parts listed on EBay and will be listing more in the near future. Since I sold my Mooney I no longer need to keep the parts as spares. To see these items go to EBay and search for the user rtaracka. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hello, I’ve listed a bunch of aircraft parts on EBay. I recently sold my 62 M20C and am working on selling the cache of parts I retained just in case. Some of these are Mooney specific, others aren’t. I will be listing more parts as time permits and intend to list parts on this forum as well also time permitting. You may search on EBay by my eBay screen name rtaracka. If you are interested in any of the items you may purchase them on EBay or email me at taracka@skyvalleyltd.com with any questions or offers. Thank you for looking, Rich

I am not aware of any lipo batteries that are approved for any certified aircraft. The SBS J-16 is approved for several models, just not any Mooney’s. This makes it easier to get field approvals on other types of aircraft. While the amp hour capacity of the Powersafe battery is less than the Concorde I have installed now, so is the demand with all the lighting changes to LED. also I have no intention of flying this aircraft IFR which is usually where they draw the line on field approving these batteries. Besides, if I change my mind and decide to fly IFR I could switch back.

Hello, I’m thinking about seeking a field approval to install a Powersafe SBS J-16 battery in my M20C and wondering if anyone has done this and has a copy of the field approved 337 I could use as a basis? thanks, Rich

So First off, I flew the other morning down to the Seattle mode c ring to confirm my suspicion that the issue is local radar interference. We have two maritime shore based radar stations here and I noticed the mode 3A failures occurred near them as well as on the ground. The report for my flight today showed zero errors. It seems my mode c is hit and miss on the ground (today luckily it was hit), probably a product of marginal reception of the nearest atc facility. I received an email also the last week from the FAA guy stating they are investigating the following issues and that I should fly as normal until they get it figured out. They acknowledge there is an issue with mode 3A errors with the Skybeacon such as when the aircraft is on the ground in a non-coverage area and the transponder isn’t being interrogated, and yes, you will fail a test flight if this happens, they don’t care that it wasn’t in “rule” airspace. They are working with Uavionix engineers on this issue. The FAA guy also indicated they need to have an internal meeting and determine what an acceptable level of performance is outside of “rule” airspace. This confuses me since it isn’t required in those areas. He said he would advise me when they have determined this.

Immelmann, I had two failed flights before the third one that passed getting me the rebate and yes, they counted those. I have corresponded with the FAA guy and he’s saying it’s a setup issue. I will try working with Uavionix to see if we can come up with a solution. So far, they think it’s an Ads-b fringe area issue. What I’ve found after numerous flights is the only transponder monitor threshold setting that works at least some of the time is 39%. With this setting I’ve had four passing flights and three with mode 3A fails ranging from 1 to 22 percent. A transponder check was done very recently and everything checked out on the transponder. While I realize the AT150 is a thirty year old transponder, Uavionix claims their product will work with ALL transponders. I will update as I know more.

About a month ago, I installed a Uavionix Skybeacon on my M20C. Initially there was an issue with the Transponder monitor threshold needing adjustment to work with my Narco AT 150 transponder. After 4 test flights I got that worked out, passed, and got the rebate. About a week ago, I received a certified letter from Mike Smith at the FAA in Washington DC stating my ads-b failed to comply with equipment performance requirements and I had 45 days to fix it or the airplane would be subject to filter which prevents processing of ads-b data. After speaking with Uavionix tech support, they feel the problem is fringe area poor reception. The FAA guy says it’s the device configured improperly. The Skybeacon has short duration “mode 3A” failures which seems to be consistent with being at low altitude where my transponder isn’t being interrogated and thus not sending out a squawk code for the Skybeacon to see. I’m stuck in the middle of this and am considering returning the Skybeacon and going with another option since I have spent tons of time on this and most of my rebate on fuel. Has anyone on here had a similar problem? Rich

I spoke with Uavionix tech support today. They reviewed my PAPR report and confirmed it was perfect and they indicated it was a technical problem on the FAA end. They sent a review request to the FAA contractor help desk and will hopefully succeed in getting a GAIRS generated.

Transponder monitor threshold is a setting in advanced settings. It is default set at 42 percent but in some cases is needs to be adjusted to work with some transponders.

I had sent an email to the address indicated on the website and got an automated reply which included the same link you just gave. I tried it yesterday and still no GAIRS report. Repeating the flight and submitting correctly the first time may be easier than dealing with this error.

I requested it via the rebate site after the other site and it still didn’t work. It will only give me the PAPR report. It’s like the first site screwed up the system somehow.

No but I could describe.

I forgot to mention. I also went to the correct site and reattempted request with the same result, no GAIRS report.

So yesterday I installed a SkyBeacon on my M20C. The first test flight failed requiring an adjustment to the transponder monitor threshold. The second flight passed, at least I think so since there were no red flagged areas in the PAPR report. The problem is apparently I requested the report from the wrong redirect and it didn’t email me a GAIRS report. Since there are no humans at the FAA it sounds like I’ll be waiting a while to resolve this. Any ideas???

Thanks guys for the helpful info and yes I lube and clean the gear religiously since I operate from a grass field and things get dirty quick. Once The J-bar gets to the point where it starts to build resistance, I am able to latch it with one hand without much trouble and I don’t consider my arm to be particularly strong. It might be interesting to measure with a scale for reference sake. If I had to guess I’d say it takes maybe 25 pounds to reach the latch point but I’d just be guessing.

Guess i should’ve made my question more clear. I checked all preloads and they are within spec. I am an IA and have worked on Mooneys for 10 years. My question (which isn’t answered in the Maintenance manual) is how much preload should be felt in the j-bar when the preloads are set within the correct range. When I lower the gear and the j-bar initially stops, I get about an index finger space between the back of the j-bar and the latch socket seat before I push the bar the rest of the way to engage. I’m looking for data from other j-bar Mooney owners more out of curiousity than anything else. I have heard of gear collapses as a result of j-bar failure at the base and curious if the failure was determined to have been caused by incorrect adjustment and overstress of the j-bar at the weld joint or if maybe corrosion was a factor.

I took another half turn (lengthened) on each rod and that caused the preload to be below spec so I returned it to the previous position. It stands to reason that if the j-bar goes into the latch socket with no resistance past gear down, then there would be no preload, right? Again, I’m seeing about 5/8-3/4 inch of travel between where the gear is down and where the j-bar hits the latch socket. Since I inspect Mooneys on occasion And Since the maintenance manual doesn’t mention this, I’d like to have it straight in my head what is right,

have a C model and I’m curious, with the preloads set correctly per spec, how far from the latch socket do you start feeling preload resistance in the J-bar ( when lowering the gear) before you push the bar the rest of the way to the latch socket. I’m getting about a finger width between the J-bar and latch socket and wondering if that is typical. thanks , Rich

I have a C model and I’m curious, with the preloads set correctly per spec, how far from the latch socket do you start feeling preload resistance in the J-bar ( when lowering the gear) before you push the bar the rest of the way to the latch socket. I’m getting about a finger width between the J-bar and latch socket and wondering if that is typical. thanks , Rich

What I meant is according to the fuel flow function on my JPI EDM 700 I am burning 18.5 gph on takeoff from a density altitude of 250 feet. When I spoke with the folks at Marvel Schebler they indicated that should be about right for an o360 a1d and was likely not the culprit for high CHT's

It doesn't look like the center cowl scoop was available for the "c" , only the "e" model per service bulletin m20-182. My "C" burns 18.5 gph at full takeoff power which the experts say should be enough. Also, I have the stock exhaust.

The reason I don't think it is mixture is I have climbed to 10000 and had cht's stay hot all the way up with the mixture rich enough to cause the engine to begin to stumble from it being too rich. I haven't had the opportunity to compare the "C" to an "F" to see if there are cowl design differences.

Clarence, good point I forgot to mention. Apparently the spark plug gasket type thermocouple can read about 40 df higher so yes, the bayonet are the type we should use for comparison. thanks, Rich

Hello, I have been thinking about this high cht issue for a while and here are my thoughts. First, I still have yet to hear from anyone with a "c" model fitted with a 4 channel digital engine analyzer who isn't seeing high cht's (greater than 400) on best rate climbout. My C model has been thoroughly gone through (baffles perfect, etc.) and will produce 450 deg. cht's if I let it by not shallowing climb to get greater than 120 mph. If I do this I can keep cht's around 400 then about 360 in cruise. I have read a lot about cowl design and I can tell you Mooney really screwed up on the "C" model. The inlet holes are too large even with the cowl closure which mine has, the upper plenum volume is too small, the cowl flaps are too small, and the oil cooler airflow raises the pressure in the lower cowl making airflow even less efficient. Do a Google search on "M20C evaluation report". Here you will find a series of tests conducted several years ago with a well maintained 1965 M20C. Included in the article is a chart and in this chart you will notice CHT's as high as 440 during the climb. Also, there is all this talk parroted by many (I think started by Mike Busch) about not letting you cht's get over 400 no matter what because the cylinder head aluminum loses half of it's strength at that temp. What they don't indicate and I'd be curious to know is how much strength that aluminum needs to lose before it poses a problem to cylinder integrity, is it 50 percent or much greater. If the cylinder is five times stronger than it needs to be then losing 50% of it's strength is a non-issue. Lycomings engineers were pretty capable guys and they must've done tests involving lots of math and metallurgical knowledge to determine that the green arc was good to 450 with a redline of 500. Furthermore, my "C" models's engine has made it to TBO twice with high cylinder head temps and zero cylinder problems. Also, in the "Lycoming flyer, Operations", it says "For maximum service life, maintain the following recommended limits for CONTINUOUS operation. Cylinder head temperature 400 or below." It also states to observe redline temperature and not exceed this value (500df) for climb and high power cruise operations. I would think with how much Lycoming gets sued they'd have changed that info if they felt it posed a risk to cylinder integrity. Nevertheless, it would be good to find a solution to reduce cht's on this model. I suspect it will involve a complete cowl redesign. Perhaps the new one currently being tested by the member on this forum will show positive results. So again, if someone out there with a 4 channel digital engine analyzer on a "C" model can get temps below 400 during a 100 mph climbout on an average day with temps in the 40-80 deg range. I'd like to hear about it. Also, this has to be done with a warm engine, in other words, second takeoff. On mine the first takeoff shows noticeably cooler cylinder head temps due to the oil temp being lower. Rich Taracka A&P IA

Thanks for the info. So I'm measuring a change of about .120 in the spring which means it is compressing more than the .060 the book calls for. Does anyone know if this measurement changes with temperature? It was about 80 in the hangar. I'd rather err on the side of having it a little too tight than loose and .120 is a little tight, in other words the bungee is compressing the spring a little more than it should be.