All Activity

isnt this a month later Oct 15th now?

Avidyne: “GPS/SBAS based IFR enroute, oceanic, and terminal navigation is prohibited unless current Navigation and Procedure databases are installed.” The “debate” has two sides. Those who don’t read the POH and those who do

There was no fuss made by the DPE in that situation, the fuss was self-induced by the student. The DPE did no asked about the discrepancy, just wanted the applicant to fly the approach.

Best I remember I see 18.7gph on takeoff but that was summer temps and DA so may be a little higher in cooler air. 17gph would be low, but would not explain not making full RPM.

There’s a pretty good discussion over here:

As an update on this post, I had planned to get a second cylinder at some point to either cascade or just dual-stage fill the O2 in the plane. However, with the Mountain High 02D2 system I added about the same time, I go through the oxygen so slowly, I've found it unnecessary. I just refilled the supply cylinder for the first time. It still had 700 PSI left in it, but I wanted the plane topped up more for a long cross-country with 2 on board. So, if you're considering doing this, maybe start with one cylinder and see how long it lasts you before you invest in a second one. I have found having the setup in the hangar has greatly increased the percent of the time I fly on oxygen, and has also increased the average altitude I fly at. I'm in clear smooth air more often and feeling better and less fatigued when I land. All around worth it.

Which the plastic washers help to prevent the tendency to over-torque the screws. Tighten the screws to ‘snug’ (a technical term). And that’s it.

Why would you ever need the alternator put out 50 amps? I can think of only 2 reasons. 1. You have wing mounted taxi/landing incandescent lights, which 4 of them would require a lot of power. I had this issue. My plane was placarded to not turn on both lights. PO had installed a 130 amp alternator, but breaker was only for 70 amps. I fixed this by going back to a standard alternator and installing LEDs. 2. Battery is condition is mostly drained, unlikely to happen unless you prop started it. This can be mitigated by not allowing the engine to idle very fast till battery has been charging for a few minutes (you would start it with field breaker pulled until rpms is stabilized at a lower speed). Hopefully this doesn’t happen often.

Since the Mooney Summit is approaching, I want to give everyone a heads-up about recent changes affecting all Hillsborough County Aviation Authority (HCAA) run airports: KTPA, KTPF, KVDF, and KPCM. The county has implemented a new rule requiring any outside mechanic or service provider to submit an application to Hillsborough County for approval before being granted access to airport facilities. This will and already has negatively impacted the tenants of Tampa Exec. At Tampa Exec in particular, there is only one on-field mechanic. I’ve relied on a trusted mobile mechanic—formerly the manager of one of the local flight school shops—for most of my maintenance. However, under the new policy, any mechanic must now carry a $1 million dollar liability insurance policy as well as specific hangar liability coverage to even be considered for access. This restriction can cause significant problems. For example, tonight I noticed a Baron that had returned this Friday to the field. Unfortunately, it looks to have suffered a nose gear collapse on landing, damaging both engines and props. In that situation, the owner has no real options: he’s limited to the one on-field shop, which is already overwhelmed, and bringing in outside help has become so tedious who the hell would want to work with the FBO. This policy applies across all four HCAA airports. Two of them (KTPF and KPCM) are managed by Atlas Aviation, which although I don’t love, seems to be a bit more pro GA than Skyport, the FBO that currently runs Tampa Exec. Many tenants were hoping Atlas would take over Tampa Exec, but Skyport somehow won the contract for a second time. The impact on tenants has been overwhelmingly negative. The one existing mechanic on the field opened his shop only a few years ago and is very capable, but his space is shared with the largest flight school on the airport. With limited capacity, the workload ratio is easily one mechanic to 200 tenants. The county has restricted all maintenance activity to that single hangar, preventing new shops from opening. They have built one new bulk hangar and are planning to build another. Space is not an issue, it’s them not caring or willing to put the effort forth to keep GA going. They have yet to build any new shade or enclosed hangars in over a decade. They’ve sure as hell have been doing construction non stop for the last 4 years, mainly to benefit the high dollar jets coming in. That leaves mobile mechanics, like the one I’ve used, as the only practical alternative. He currently works for a large avionics and maintenance company but started his own mobile business with hopes of eventually opening a dedicated GA shop. He’d like to open a shop for airframe and avionics work, but despite months of requests, the FBO has refused to provide him even a small space. The opportunity for growth at KVDF is obvious to everyone except the FBO and county, who continue to push policies that work against GA. I’d hate for someone visiting Tampa to find themselves stranded over a minor maintenance issue, unable to get timely help. Aviation is supposed to be enjoyable, but dealing with an airport system that feels anti-GA and anti-business takes much of that enjoyment away. Finally, a word of advice: avoid the $7/gal avgas at the HCAA airports. Instead, stop at KZPH, just 15 minutes from KTPF, where fuel is closer to $5/gal and the atmosphere is much more welcoming.

Mooney Flyers, I seek consensus and feedback from Mooney operators regarding the new FAA rule change (MOSAIC) that allows Sport Pilots to fly four-seat complex aircraft, provided the aircraft’s clean stall speed is 59 KCAS or less. Are Sport Pilots allowed to fly the M20 with the MOSAIC final rule? Using the TCDS, Owners Manuals/Pilot Operating Handbooks (POH), FAA definitions, and the final rule as a reference, it looks like the answer is not no. The answer is more like, “It depends!” Because we are dealing with a stall speed limitation (VS) and VS is measured using Calibrated Air Speed (CAS), we must determine how to adjust the indicated speeds published in most Owners Manuals (vintage Mooneys) and POH (later Mooneys). The aerodynamic design factors that impact the stall characteristics of the M-20 have not changed substantially from the original type certificate. Structural enhancements over time have increased the load factors that newer aircraft can be exposed to, resulting in increased speed and gross weight limits. Aircraft maximum takeoff gross weight (MTGW) directly impacts the published clean stall speed (VS1). Therefore, VS1 for the Mooney M20 is a function of MTGW, and the highest published MTGW, which equates to a VS1 of 59 KCAS, is 2740 LBS. So, my position is that a Sport Pilot would be entitled to operate an M20J or earlier with a published MTGW of 2740 or less. The data to support this idea is published in the 1977 Mooney M20J POH Figure 2-2. Published airspeed indicator marking ranges in Figure 2-2 are in CAS MPH. Specifically, the green arc range is 68 - 200 CAS MPH. When 68 MPH CAS is converted to KCAS, the result is 59 KCAS, the limit that Sport Pilots can operate. Why is this important? Sport Pilots only need a valid driver's license to meet the medical requirements to fly; the lack of a flight physical is no longer a limitation to being legal to fly an older Mooney and many other certificated aircraft. Is my position correct? - Cheers

Makes sense. The AV30s are nice little units, the 172 I trained in a bit had a pair.

More likely to be Nomex. It was commercialized about 10 years earlier.

I really wanted to restore the original system but after a partial repair I decided to remove it. There were still many unknowns to be discovered in the PC, Accutrak and the rest of this project. I also found my AI and DG needed to be replaced. So I decided to remove the vacuum system and install a pair of AV30Cs. An AeroCruze 100 will probably be installed in a couple years after the wallet recovers from this resurrection project. [emoji1787]

If you can, why not, it's not costly at all. after fixing(taping) mine, i can't see why the pneumatic/vacuum servos aren't used everywhere, no way they aren't more reliable than the electrical servos. My next upgrade is most likely the trutrac

LOL! That makes way too much sense!

I don’t know. Somebody should ask Mooney.

IMHO, the issue is if G100UL was misrepresented in its advertising. Was there a false statement of fact? Claimed to be a "Drop in replacement". Is it? Was being a 'drop in replacement' a major reason people chose to buy the STC? By relying on that did buyers suffer damage/losses? While damage to your aircraft from using G100UL is certainly a loss, so is the cost for an STC that you cannot use because the product will not meet claims advertised. I see no reason you have to actually buy and use the misrepresented fuel to have a financial loss from the misrepresentation. Paying for a 'license' (the STC) to use a misrepresented product is still a loss due to relying upon a false statement of fact.

Did you get your PC system running? I have the same PC/B11 setup and it was a mess but I got it working great just recently and it's definitely worth it. The Accutrak seems to work but VOR navigation isn't particularly useful, I'm having it connected to the CDI/GPS that's going in soon. The PC allows for very straight flight once trimmed out and it's nice in light turbulence. I installed two aileron servos (previous owner removed them at some point and got rid of them, but it's not a bad job to put them in), and replaced a bunch of the vac lines, there were some unnecessary T's etc from someone fiddling with it before and the gyro wasn't connected to the vacuum source properly. Following the maintenance manual carefully gives you all the info you need. I'm not a fan of the disconnect button on the yoke though, the controls are way too stiff to leave it on in the pattern and annoying to hold the button while trying to make radio calls. Hopefully I can figure out a good panel mounted switch like I've seen Brittain put in some planes. If anyone has a part number or advice there I'm all ears.

Yeah, I was that cancellation. Life got in the way. Paul is amazing to work with.

Hmm, Kevlar was invented in 1965...57 year old M20C, ya think Mooney was that early an adopter?

You're probably right - it looks pretty much like this. Tacking this stuff with a stitch gun over the old materials in the foot wells shouldn't be too hard... https://www.soundassured.com/products/fire-retardant-acoustic-fabric?variant=45293361397918&utm_campaign=gs-2021-06-21&utm_source=google&utm_medium=smart_campaign&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=17518101047&gbraid=0AAAAADiZDVTaGw9_7gsEXMZ1EZygrZXWp&gclid=CjwKCAjwk7DFBhBAEiwAeYbJsTqyqokx5iicq23eDzEJTUH9uOOXqF1tZRB2MhmUO94pbxlgORVZFxoCDMUQAvD_BwE

That would be me. Thanks for the info!

It doesn’t look like asbestos to me. It looks more like Kevlar. The stuff behind is fiberglass.

I'm thinking of the ensuing pandemonium in the Vintage Mooney community that a positive result would bring, plus the airworthiness directive whose cost will total our planes I'll hold off for now unless someone has real info that asbestos might have been used

I can believe that. I won't be surprised if the hydraulic fluid in my brake and flap systems are all gummed up as well.