pinerunner

If not for one stupid little tree he might have had no damage at all. Good flying to get down on the dirt road.

I was able to get $4000 off the asking price for my E just because the owner was having trouble selling. If you don't read the market right you get to take the hit instead. Well done repairs don't make a plane worth less in my book but Mooney's are so undervalued its often not worth fixing; easier to call what could be a reasonable rebuild project totalled, sell for parts, and buy another. Prebuy inspection from good center would erase my concerns about the previous damage and repairs but how long did it sit? I'm afraid a supposedly low time engine that sat for a long time might be better going straight to the shop but maybe running briefly and sending oil for testing would be enough. How does one judge a plane that sat for a LONG time? I'm sure it can be brought back BUT....

There are no stupid spark plug questions and since we owners can actually legally change them ourselves I think its great whenever anyone wants to learn more. I'd love to see heated discussions (and pictures) about what this or that spark plug deposit or burn pattern is and what it means. I wouldn't think of breaking into one or trying to modify it, however. The reason is I recall a Busch article (or was it a vid?) showing a case of detonation/pre-ignition he had run into where a chip off the spark plug had provided the hot spot that had started the whole thing. There were warnings never to use a plug that had dropped on a hard surface and stories of old time mechanics who deliberately demolished plugs they didn't trust to abolish the chance that someone might unknowingly install them. I'll try LOP things that make some folks cringe but I treat spark plugs as if I'm holding my life in my hands because I believe maybe I am.

Congratulations.

For fuel prices don't you use airnav.com? When I was passing through Virginia Wakefield (AKQ) had best gas deal near my route. It was do-it yourself with credit card and easy and convenient with a new building with rest rooms, conference rooms, etc.. Not attended but right on the highway so police can keep eye on it easy. Municipal run affair. There was a nice southern restaurant a short walk down the highway from Wakefield. I found it through airnav.com. Near New York city Central Jersey Regional (47N) is often the cheapest gas around. Gas fine, more people, an older airport. 47N is close to NYC TSA and was a bit harder to find by pilotage (stuff around there in Jersey all kind of looks the same). If you have GPS everything is easy. I like airnav.com for checking gas prices. If you wanted to do the Skyline route through NYC, Central Jersey would be a great jumping off point.

Sanford (KSFM) in Maine has a great little breakfast and lunch restaurant. Provincetown, MA (KPVC) is right on the beach out at the end of the Cape. If you throw in a folding bicycle I think they have trails. I haven't gone there but Kitty Hawk, NC has an airport and fly-in museum devoted to the Wright brothers; not in the NE but I'd like to know more about it.

I'm in exactly the same situation. When I was a kid I passed the color vision part of the first two medical and then failed one. After that I would sometimes pass in the doctors office and get my medical with no restriction and then receive a second one in the mail from the FAA reinstating the restriction and notifying me the one I had just passed was now invalid. I haven't really needed to fly at night but understand that if I want to I need to take the test with them for the waiver. Maybe next year. You could try actually talking to them. Looks like there are a lot of us out there. The appearance of the beacon to me is exactly as the other poster described; I see kind of a white/off white color. If they had chosen a yellow-green or blue-green color it would be easy. They seem to have picked exactly the wrong color for us to see easy.

One other thought. I don't remember where I read it but the crankcase seal isn't meant to resist a great deal of pressure. If there were a restriction in the crankcase vent the natural blow-by (past the pistons) would slowly pressurize the crankcase and cause oil to ooze past the seal. Checking for that and cleaning the vent would be easier and cheaper than replacing the seal a bunch of times.

If you add a mechanics rating to your skill set then you can take advantage of the off season to catch up on maintenance. That's how my dad worked it with his seaplane service. The more you have to farm stuff out the less chance to make a profit. I just watched a vid of Mosquitos in WW II going crazy fast 50 feet off the deck to evade antiaircraft so crop dusting seems pretty sane.

That 's actually not bad money (what was in the previous link) but I bet their insurance is costly. Compared to say airline pilots, about which I know little, the entry into it might be easier but the final pay wouldn't be expected to be as good. I hedge what I say because I've heard so many surprising things about different aviation professions that I'm always ready to be surprised. For instance I've heard that flying for the airlines kind of sucks these days. That they're hiring rather low-time ATP's on the cheap as co-pilots and being stingy with their higher-time pilots, all to shave a few dollars (and if so where else are they shaving). If that $80,000 for top cropdusters is true that's not bad pay for doing what you like. If one works hard to do it as professionally as possible all risks are manageable. They have the opportunity to know all the fields they work pretty intimately, work out every possible forced landing site, know the wind patterns around obstacles, etc. An independent lifestyle for those who want it. I did hear that high time crop-dusters don't go to the head of the line for airline jobs. That reputation for fierce independence doesn't fit with the "team-oriented" mantra of the non-pilot airline company managers. So if crop-duster appeals to him, I'd say go for it but expect to work hard to live long and prosper. But don't expect it to be a ticket to bigger and better things. Some crop-dusters are probably more successful ($$) than the professional pilots stuck in little feeder airlines I bet.

This sounds like a great place to visit. I read that they have an unusual dialect that goes back colonial settlement days; did you notice that? We should have a list of airports that are truly fun to visit.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it witch hunt but I'm very interested in who ends up footing the bill for setting this to rights. I know part of the expense with my mechanic is for his expensive insurance. I assume that covers cases like this one and that a reputable shop would eat the expense while a small one would try not to and run the risk of being sued. It's hard to believe its just be a coincidence.

I have an E model and I would regard it as a 2 plus 2 plane, like some sports cars. If you're not very tall there would be plenty of room for kids in back. If you are tall it gets to the point where the front seat is right up against the rear and a rear seat passenger isn't really possible except maybe if they're an amputee. I think the Mooney reputation for being cramped is a bit exaggerated. I'm 5'7" and at 225 lbs I have no problem with shoulder room. I also don't need pedal extenders even though I only have a 29" inseam and in fact when I adjust the pilots seat I still have one notch of seat travel left. You do have to step down into the cockpit quite a bit and the passengers seat is right in front of the door with the floor NOT lined up with the door so there's a slightly athletic move getting in. My instructor, an older gentleman, winces a bit getting in and out. If you can afford it most people consider the J model the all time favorite since it has extra room and improved aerodynamics. The F gets you the extra couple of inches of leg room and higher red line speed (I've wondered why for a long time now) but is a little slower in practice than the E. I wouldn't be too quick to pass over E's and C's though. I've had me and three teenagers in mine for short flights and they didn't seem to mind. I think two adults and two children would be OK if the adults weren't very long legged. I like my E and don't long for an F. I came into a lot of money I'd probably just trick out the E better.

I managed to get into an unheated hangar up here in Maine for $150/mo. I've got two electric outlets so I can get power to my engine preheater and also give a little gentle heating to keep the dew off in the morning. I would have been more cautious buying it if it hadn't been always hangared. If I could afford a heated hangar I'd upgrade to that but without a hangar I think I'd have skipped owning. Paint deteriorates in the sun and I think the expense of repainting delayed may make up for the monthly cost.

Hmmm. Well first it only takes a second or so to do both mixture/throttle and second I can just give it throttle and follow up with the mixture a few seconds later if I'm in some split second decision kind of scenario. Assuring myself of that was why I took the trouble to try at altitude and make sure I was comfortable with the way the CHT's behaved. If you work at staying ahead of the airplane and the situation in general those cases are very rare; you have plenty of seconds to take care of business. I think you're also saying that setting up the mixture the way I do is complicated and might distract me from the gear but I find it easy and hardly any more complicated than going full rich on entering the pattern. I read/listened to both Deakins and Busch discuss this, agonized over it for a while, and then took it up and tried out what they said came back down and did the data dump from my UBG-16 and was satisfied. Maybe I'll do it again in a few months and show the data (need $$ for annual, insurance, etc., doing carpet while I save $$). Retraining is a bit hard so I agree that most should stick with what they're comfortable with and not make changes frequently, changing their mind a lot. My bottom line was that I decided there wasn't a good enough reason to run full rich in this low power region of flight when I was learning to use the best possible mixture settings for all others. I chose a compromise setting that would be reasonably lean and offer maximum simplicity throughout a normal landing and be OK, though not ideal, for a brief excursion to full power. So I'm not afraid of forgetting or not having time to go for the mixture first, but I still train to do mixture then throttle (RPM already at max when landing). As for the avgas I sure think they should fast track GAMI 100LL and/or the Swift fuel. I think the GAMI guys said the typical refinery could blend it up for you right now if only it were approved. I'd love to be part of the testing program.

I agonized over just this issue and then decided to do it. My procedure is to drop power in the pattern just to the point where the prop comes out of governance and set it at 2500 rpm with the throttle. Then lean to maximum power (RPM drop and re-enrich to bring back to max RPM). Then I leave the mixture alone throughout the rest of the landing, making things simple for myself, like a 172. I tested this setting at altitude to make sure that applying full power wouldn't make it cough and sputter like if you lean for idle and try to take off and that was fine and CHT's didn't take off. I'm active enough on this leaning stuff that I'm pretty sure alarms would go off if I hit the throttle first and left it lean. SOP for go-around is mixture first then throttle of course. It should be less critical than if you did it on takeoff since you have flying speed and good cooling (not like the start of the takeoff roll). I always go rich for high power settings. Retraining yourself is a tricky business and its hard to honestly promise yourself what you might do in a tight situation. Dave

As everyone else has said. great flying. Great glide ratio is one of the reasons I got a Mooney. This must be precisely what the mechanic carries insurance for since you couldn't have a better smoking gun whether it was human error or a faulty part. Catastrophic failure within hour into test flight. They'd have to be crazy if they try to charge you more for making good on this. So they sent it out to a specialty shop that overhauls engines? Makes you wonder. My father had an A/P and flew thousands of hours behind engines he overhauled himself. Only way he could feel comfortable. If you can't do that I almost think you should shop for your mechanic before you buy the plane.

Two points 1. If you're on the LOP side Manifold pressure and RPM do not give you the power you're generating so those tables are out the window. 14.9 HP per GPH which is quoted above (kwmfM20S) is what you want to use. MP and RPM work on the ROP side because air (actually the oxygen in it) is what us chemist call the limiting reagent. On the LOP side fuel is the limiting reagent. It seems obvious to me once you think of it this way. 2. I wouldn't try any of this without a good engine monitor, which I assume you have. Given that, checking the CHT's and making sure they don't go too high should keep you out of trouble. I think at very low power settings peak EGT may be better than LOP or ROP. In one of Busch's vids he mentions fouled plugs in fish-spotting planes that operate a lot in the "loitering" mode. The lead-scavenging additives need a certain minimum to do their job well. Busch (or was it Deakins?) was responding to a question "Is there such a thing as too low a CHT?" I haven't slowed my E model down to absolute maximum range yet, but I've been pondering doing it and lead-fouling is what gives me pause. I suspect that if you're set up to deposit lead on the plugs you're also likely to deposit lead on the valve stems. That's something I want to minimize. As for VERY low rpms consider; if you're generating 50% power (and feeling pretty safe about it) and running 50% RPM (I guess that would be 1300 RPM) you're generating the same power per stroke and probably the same temperatures and pressures inside the cylinder but with twice as much time for heat to transfer to the piston and cylinder walls instead of doing work for you. Sounds like a bad recipe to me, not that I imagine you're talking about running that low.

I've never "smoked" anyone with my 63 M20E. It never even occurred to me that I could. It just seems routine to me we don't waste much time on the runway and that once off, we CLIMB! One ground worker did comment that compared to the other plane that had just taken off my plane had really TAKEN OFF!! Wow. Good clean fun.

EI's technical help has helped me quickly and efficiently the two times I needed it. They work hard to satisfy their customers and I've never regretted staying with them. Microsoft irritates me often. Sorry to hear about your trouble.

Could you be describing preignition? The burn for detonation starts with the spark. Then you get detonation events ahead of the flame front. I'd bet there was at least light to moderate detonation going on. Just saying.

Were you using 91 octane fuel? That may have been part of the scenario that put it over the edge. I'm glad you have the improved fuel flow measurement; that will be a big help in staying on top of the situation. For maximum power situations like take-off and a high performance climb ROP is clearly indicated. I've heard/read either Deakins or Busch recommend you insist you get your mechanic to set the take off mixture even higher than many of them do, even fight with them over it. This advice coming from the guru's (hated in some circles) of LOP makes it clear to me that ROP has its place. Your experience appears to back that up. Excellent thread on an important subject.

I wonder that no one seems to be considering the possibility you might have had carburator ice. Running rough and then even rougher upon application of carburator heat sounds like the classic description. If droplets of water were getting into the combustion process it might have slowed the combustion down so that there was still some burning going on when it went to exhaust, making the EGT go up. I'm winging it a bit here but why not check out more details on carburator ice?

Thanks for this post. I've known that we should be careful to always land on the mains and also watch out who you let tow due to more limited nose gear travel than other planes (I try to always just pull it by hand). You've given me a better idea what and to look for and where to look for that insidious damage. David

While I've been looking into the possibility of getting an Android tablet with map software I decided to hold back for a while when I saw the price of recurring subscriptions. Charts work fine for me and help keep the cost down. I fly a lot in areas I know pretty well anyway. I use the skyvector online website a LOT for preliminary planning or just planning trips I may not actually make.