Leaderboard

Andy95W above probably has the right solution for longevity. And it might be easier to install than replacing the original. So (of course) I didn’t do that. Aircraft Spruce sells 1/2” thick felt sheet. I think I ordered a 1’ x 2’ piece. Although the much of the original baffle seal was installed with staples, the felt can be installed with pop rivets and back-up washers with good success.

I am not joining any club with folks from Alabama.

Sounds good to me! As a fresh retiree, I find myself with gobs of free time but suspiciously little flying so far. Of course, it is kind of hot, and hurricane season is a-comin.

We made more progress today with a ferry permit to fix a few more minor details.

Just to expand on what Eric said. The octane number has no direct impact on how much power your engine makes. It does have an impact on how much power your engine can make. A higher octane fuel allows you to increase the cylinder pressures and temperatures without detonation. An engine which is tuned for a lower octane fuel will not make more power if you use a higher octane fuel. You have to re-tune the engine to use the higher octane. Most modern EFI and electronic ignitions will monitor the engine knock and advance the timing until it starts to knock, thus increasing its output power. If we had this type of ignition system on our engines, it wouldn't be able to make the same power with lower octane fuel, it would only be able to roll the timing back until it stopped knocking. So there is no real advantage to a modern electronic ignition system with regard to full power operation. It can't do any more than just retarding the fixed timing, which is set for full power operation. An electronic ignition can increase the efficiency of the engine at low power operation.

Okay. I’m calling BS on this one. There’s no way that plane was flying within the weight limits given the size of the pilot’s massive balls. Mad respect!

And, we should have asked which app you were using.

Ya got that poster up in your hangar as a confidence booster for passengers?

As a part-time resident of Lower Alabama (St. George Island, FL), I'd welcome such a group. The Florida lunch group gatherings are often too far for me. -dan

When I made mine, I just match drilled it with the one from the other side. It fit perfectly. The only difference is the direction of the bend.

Thanks everyone. Found this from Garmin: "From Garmin: Thank you for contacting Garmin International. The GTX 345 ADS-B weather and traffic data is only able to be displayed on the Garmin Pilot and Foreflight Mobile apps. AVARE does not currently hold a licensing agreement nor the capability to display Garmin data within their app. The only option you have for Android-based devices is the Garmin Pilot app (ForeFlight is not currently Android-capable). We provide you with a 1 month free trial upon download, then our app starts at $79.99 USD/year. Best Regards, Garmin Aviation Support" In this Google Group: https://groups.google.com/g/apps4av-forum/c/A6TlMrzjeRs So that may be that. Gotta love Google . . . even if it is monopolistic.

Procedures were improved after the previous incident... prior to that, participants did not have to demonstrate proficiency every year at a Caravan clinic, or equivalent, and an experienced Mooney owner & pilot was "vouched for" and allowed to join the group in Madison. Bottom line, he screwed up but fortunately nobody was hurt. After a thorough investigation, the rules for participation were changed for the better. Clinics were standardized, and I think overall the level of professionalism and thus safety has increased tremendously. Can something still happen, sure, but I would suggest the chances are much higher on the Fisk arrival or in the non-standard OSH VFR patterns than on the modern Caravan arrival. I think the Clinics will train to proficiency or weed-out those that are incapable of the airmanship required, or don't have the right attitude to do this safely before they get to Madison. I'd rather arrive with 50+ of my trained and proficient colleagues AND with the airport closed for our arrival than get in the random conga line and have line-jumpers, un-planned chaotic holds, very high performance base-to-final turns, runway incursions, etc. The basic element is a 3-ship in fingertip formation, and those are repeated down the line for as many as it takes, so no sloppy echelon or loose gaggle like the early days. Generally the elements are grouped with folks that have flown together in their own regions/clinics, but nowadays since the training is standardized, pretty much anyone can plug-in and be safe. The performance profile accommodates C's and G's with OSH loads, or TN's. It works. I won't fault anyone for their desire to keep their pride and joy away from the risks associated with taxiing and camping at OSH. We all know there have been prop strikes, thunderstorms and hail, etc. up there throughout the years. With some coordination, it might be possible to fly the Caravan arrival, and perhaps break-out for pre-arranged hard surface or hangar parking on the field, or simply taxi back and depart for FLD or elsewhere if you want to experience the camaraderie but minimize the risk once at OSH. So far I've been fortunate with my taxiing & camping experience, but I have left earlier than planned more than once to avoid predicted weather... For me, the risk is well worth the fun having a base camp full of Mooney people and planes in the N40. It makes the OSH experience 2x the fun.

Skip, I don’t think this is true (although I believe you are correct about 105% of the time). At least in the G1000 I fly with a gtx345r, the BT connection is directly to the gtx. The g1000 doesn’t have bt. In your g3x, its a different story.

I think the Mooney Caravan is one of the most professionally run, most organized and safety conscious groups I have had the privilege of flying with. I've flown into Oshkosh with them a number of times. No one is permitted to participate without training. My main reason for not flying the Caravan the past few years has to do with my weekly logistics, the fact that I don't want to taxi on grass, and I want my airplane hangared for the week. As such, I land in Madison, rent a car for the week, and drive through some beautiful country for an hour and fifteen minutes on my way to Oshkosh.

There were 52 Mooneys in the mass arrival this year. It was a very smoothly done arrival by all and we had great weather! I've flown in the Caravan the past 3 years and have only seen professionalism and proficiency. Never have felt unsafe or uncomfortable at any time in the Mooney or Beech clinics or at the Caravan. It's an awesome way to spend Osh, meet other Mooney pilots and their familes, and explore the amazing craziness that is EAA Airventure! I joined MooneySpace shortly after the issues in 2019 (didn't purchase my Mooney until 2021). I think there was a few vocal MS posters that were very openly critical and at times provacative to some of the long term contributors here. I know it frustrated several of the guys I fly with to have criticism directed at them just because they were openly fans of formation flying and/or were a part of the Caravan. The unfortunate effect is that MS lost several amazing Mooney contributors in that process. Don't think they'll be back, sadly. But in my experience, formation flying has increased my proficiency, increased my flight discipline, improved my stick and rudder skills, and I've met many good friends in the process. ...and regarding Caravan vs Fisk arrival...no question the Mooney Caravan all day everyday and definitely on Saturday! DISCLAIMER: I am not on the Mooney Caravan board or any administrative role. But I've flown in the Caravan as a wing for the past 3 years and have attended formation clinics. The comments above are mine and reflect my personal impression.

So am I. And the warbirds guys are drooling for it, as it allows full rated power on those engines that were designed to run on 115/145.

Looks like he made it to Japan. Impressive.

If you're trying to use Garmin Pilot, you must first pair the Bluetooth devices in the phone settings, then go into the Garmin Pilot app, go to Connext settings, and select the GTX345R to connect to. If you don't do the second step in the app, the devices will show as paired but will never connect and show ADSB and traffic data. Took me longer than I'd care to admit to figure that out when we got our GTX345. Works the same way pairing with a GTN or other Garmin device, by the way. Hope that helps.

If the GTX is connected to the G1000 via HSDB, then the Bluetooth connection is controlled from the G1000. If it pairs and doesn't connect it could be a signal strength issue and I would try removing the tailcone access panel and holding the phone near the GTX and seeing if that works.

Unless there’s a newer model of the g1000, there’s no way to connect to it directly, at least bt or wifi that I know of? The g1000 meridian i fly has the gtx-345r as well, and my ipad connects directly to the gtx-345r. There’s no connection to the g1000.

In the southwest some of the places you fly to may not have other people, let alone bike rental.

They don’t have to be the original felt, actually the modern silicone baffle material is far superior but will take more time to make it right. Picture below is an example of how to seal around the starter.

Nice thanks for this info.

BDS is real… I don’t think 100LL is a significant environmental issue. However, the writing is on the wall… 100LL’s days/years are numbered, especially since those who seek to ban it will be minimally affected by its absence (e.g. non flying public and politicians who prefer to burn tax payer purchased jet-A). It’s not GAMI’s fault that they have what appears to be the only currently viable “drop in” thus far. I am sure George had his reasons for going the STC route. I don’t know what they were, but my guess is it had to do with politics and process. Why else would he bother to go through the STC certification process twice rather than work within the PAFI framework. Good for him for going his own way. He still has a tough row to hoe. I won’t be buying an STC unless/until G100UL is readily available in my geographic area. Do remember that any company that crossed the finish line 1st would be in GAMI’s situation. It’s not like some dark, insidious force is pushing for their monopoly. It’s simply a function of a small, agile, firm grabbing the ring first. I’m all for competition. Unfortunately, UL94 clearly has issues…unless you think George Braly and his evil minions sabotaged the UND trial. Given that 94 UL has failed to meet expectations. I’m pretty dubious that they’re going to get to 100 in the near future. Being that you’re in “Kalifornia”, as you’re fond of saying, I hope you have alternative plans for your airplane because there’s more pressure in your area than anywhere else in the country to prevent you from purchasing 100LL. It’s odd that you have no gratitude for the fact that someone has actually taken the risk, effort, investment and time required to develop an unleaded Aviation fuel that is likely turnkey in your current aircraft and also feel compelled to call those that do have gratitude, “fanboys”…

I've done some basic formation flying with another friend and a mega hour CFII (ATP, bla, bla, bla) guy doing the teaching. And I think I got pretty good at it. However... I would NEVER join any kind of large formation flying group going into OSH (or anywhere else). Sorry, I know a lot of guys get excited about it and the group doing it thinks they're doing the needed training and are covering their bases..... But with that many GA pilots of varying skills, the potential for something happening is VERY high. I'm somewhere around 2,600 hours and I still don't think I have the skills to partake in something like that. I'm not a military pilot and I don't fly formation mega hours a year. Just trying to fly into OSH single file and getting instructions causes many a pilot to blow it. Then you put them in a situation where they may not be able to turn left, right or either way.

Yes, I’d agree with that! I sat there while they configured the gtx-345 in the g1000. There’s no “page” for it on the normal g1000 pages unless you’re in the configuration/maint mode. After you’ve connected, there are some things you can control through GP app (like setting connection priorities, deleting old connected devices, etc). It is weird when you can’t get to all the menus like on a regular gtx345 (which I have in my personal airplane), but it does work pretty well. So I guess id say there really isn’t a user interface!?

The BT is in the GTX, but the user interface to operate the BT has to be in either a G1000 or a GTN since the GTX 345R has no user interface. Garmin doesn’t explain this very well. (And, I'm right way less than 105%).

If the women don't find ya handsome, they should at least find ya handy.

And this from the website of the developer of Avare: "Compatibility Below is an incomplete list of external GPS & ADSB devices known to be compatible with Avare. Most standardized devices work well with Avare, but this list of tested devices may be helpful to review for choosing a device. Many other devices beyond those listed below that are designed using industry standards might work perfectly with Avare but have not yet been reported or tested. Please contact us if you’d like us to add to the list a device you know is compatible. OEMs are also invited to contact us about adding their devices. Note that this list may be out of date, and vendors may change their hardware designs making them incompatible. External GPS/ADSB known to Compatible with Avare Stratux open source receiver (Port 4000) Stratus (Recent) receivers may work Dual XGPS-170 & XGPS-150 iLevil SW Lynx NGT-9000 Freeflight Systems FDL-978-XVR (Panel installed) Freeflight Systems Explorer- Skyradar DX" Guess I could have done a better job of researching before I started this thread. Thanks anyway for all of the useful suggestions.

I'm a hick so I just put aluminum tape around there.

That probably won't work as Garmin Connext is not listed on their compatibility: https://www.apps4av.com/compatibility.html

This is absolutely not the case for the Caravan arrival. Perhaps next year you might consider joining a weekend training clinic and seeing for yourself? You might end up having a lot of fun learning some new skills and making some new friends, and maybe even see how it really makes for a much better OSH arrival versus Fisk in a single ship with converging traffic, line-jumpers, and people that don't follow the NOTAM. Not to mention if you have to go into the chaotic holds if the field closes...

You have to understand Octane ratings. AVGAS is rated with two numbers, a Lean Rating and a Rich rating. Thus 80/87. 100LL replaced 100/130 AVGAS. With the LL added, they dropped the Rich rating number from the name. MOGAS also has two ratings that differ with the test conditions (air temp, oil temp, etc). They are Motor Octane Number (MON) and Research Octane Number (RON). In the US up until the early 70s (IIRC) the number on the pump was RON. And it is still today in most of the world. So you will see 97 or 98 octane pump gas in Europe. But the US switched to AKI (Anti Knock Index). It is the average of RON and MON ((RON+MON)/2). FYI, MON is the more stringent test, yielding a lower number. There is no specific relationship between RON and MON, so you could have two fuels with a 90 AKI, one with 80/100 and the other with 85/95. But, the high performance German car makers found an issue with engine damage even though the RON met or exceeded the requirements. This occurred in long high speed runs. They found it was due to too low of MON. So they required drivers to use fuel where the MON was no more than 10 points lower than the RON. Most MOGAS meets the requirement. So, from the example above, you won't fine 90 AKI that is 100 RON and 80 MON. It would be 95/85 or tighter. That means that 97 or 98 Euro gas is actually around 92 - 93 AKI. Hmmm, sound familiar? It turns out that the tests for MON and Aviation Lean rating are pretty much the same. So we can compare fuels with assuming they are the same. So a 100 US pump MOGAS is 100 AKI. Which means it is 95 or so MON. We need a minimum of 100 MON (so that would be 105 AKI) fuel, but most is blended to a slightly higher 104 to be sure it is not too low. One interesting thing with G100UL is that it is rated at something like 104/154. So the Rich rating is higher than even the 115/145 AVGAS, which is only available for things like the Reno Air Races. But used to be used in the piston airliners.

Alaska rules

I think it was roughly 3-4 weeks for me. The lead times were longer. Two things about Jesse: - he will give you upfront estimates and won’t move them - very helpful for budgeting - he will work with you on optimal setup for your needs

Very true. But in this case the issue is if you connect to the Remote GTX, which I do not believe you can in a lot of installations. (Sure there are some where you do connect directly to the GTX.)

it isn’t rpm that causes ring flutter damage so much as very low MAP; especially such as a closed throttle idle power descent. The issue comes from allowing the prop to turn the engine rather than engine to turn the prop. In so doing it reverses the normal stress on rings and there isn’t sufficient combustion to seal the rings. A long closed throttle descent can and has damaged engines in the past. But any MAP below 15” will put you into the territory of the prop driving the engine. This is why both engine manufacturers say not to reduce MAP below 15”. To further clarify the misconception that RPM is damaging to the rings, the reason why we pull back RPM in order to make a faster/steeper than normal descent is to slow down or come down faster without having to pull the MAP to lower than 15” where we have the prop driving the engine - which is the damaging cause. First symptom is usually very high oil consumption. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I recall an issue with getting enough signal from the tail through the metal panel. Based on others' experience, I had a plastic panel installed. Maybe a red herring if you had an identical model in the same location before. But if you relocated it, maybe an explanation...

Avidyne 540 or 550

Lot's of good bike rental shops in the places I take the Mooney! Also, I don't have to load a bike into an airplane!

From an old "FLYING" magazine I have, apparently the claimed 201mph top speed was achieved by a prototype with the step removed.

No it was in response to auto racing (follow the thread), don’t be obtuse. That being said till I am guessing about 10K you could get away with E85 in an airplane. I could probably get another 20-30HP in the MG shifting to E85 but I am lazy.

I have a 3-blade McCauley which the previous owner installed in 1990. Initially, he didn’t like the vibe at all. His final solution was to put a lens over the landing light to make the front of the cowling smooth. The recessed landing light well generated a weird harmonic (I guess?). In Aug ‘21, I had accumulated about 40 hrs on a prop overhaul (third overhaul on this prop) and thought it felt different. I had also replaced all the engine isolators. I got it dynamically balanced down to 0.1 IPS (Dynavibe GX-2), but wasn’t really sure if it felt any different. Then, a few months later, a buddy of mine got a MicroVibe II and we checked it again and it was dialed right in at both 2400 and 2000 rpm. I still think it’s a little smoother if I run it at 2500 rpm, though. I don’t have things perceptibly shaking. Some thoughts on things to check… The STC for the prop should give you information on the proper index on the crank flange and any red/yellow caution RPMs on the tach. (I had to remark my tach to match the STC, 20 years after the initial installation!) Do an inflight mag check to make sure all the cylinders/plugs are happy at altitude/cruise settings. There’s an AD for the engine mount, but not sure if it applies to later C serial numbers. Certainly verify the gussets mentioned in the AD are there, no cracks or broken tubes, and all the isolators and bolts to the firewall are good. The C isolators are indexed to the engine mount with a pin. If the pin is not aligned, the washers get misformed when torquing down the bolts. I’d think that could affect the performance of the isolator(s). Please let us know of your progress… and welcome to the fold!

I have been reading a lot of aviation history, particularly in the post-war era. Did you know the first 5 production 707s all crashed due to dutch roll problems? Heck, Braniff with a Boeing instructor pilot managed to tear off 3 out of 4 engines and crash the airplane. The L-188 Electra had 6 crashes in 31 months. The Boeing 377 StratoCruiser was crashing faster than Boeing could build them. By the time production ended, more crashed than had survived. I have not even covered the vertical stab problems on the B-52 or the fuel leaks on the B-36. If we applied the current standard for design integrity as in the B737Max, the 707, the 727, the L-188, 377 StartoCruiser, the DC-6, DC-7 and the 049 Constellation all would have been on the scrap heap of history. In GA terms, the C-177, Rockwell 112, Bonanza et al would also be in the same boat, scrapped designs. But their problems in fleet operations were noted and worked out. While I am not happy about it, George Braley was correct by not going ASTM because it is a "consensus standard" and there are too many people with axes to grind to get a consensus. There will never be a "consensus standard" 100UL fuel until there is a a fuel out in the fleet being flown and that is what Braley is trying to get done. Yeah, we are all going to be test pilots, but I dare say there will be fewer accidents for G100UL than from other forms of fuel contamination like water and crud in the fuel. The bottom line is GAMI's plan is using the inevitable ban on 100LL to force their fuel into the fleet for fleet operations. Because of their patents and testing ability they are the last man standing. I would be very surprised if the current formulation continues on without tweaks but the bottom line is we will never know without widespread use, and we will never get an ASTM "consensus" until those with axes to grind are left without a grinding wheel. We are left with two choices, having airplanes without a suitable fuel by those who wish us ill or we get on with fleet wide operations of the best options available and accept a small level of risk. I consider the risk eminently manageable. We may have a few material incompatibilities here and there, we may see some engines, not all but some have valve problems. I don't see anybody falling out of the air in any airplane given proper maintenance scrutiny operating with this fuel. I say, let's get on with it and solve the problem, sooner rather than later.

You are both correct in your assessments. I should’ve been more clear. I agree with. @EricJ that there is no leak in the tubing between the and the ASI. And I agree with you that the only other thing that could have failed is the sensing mechanism (springs, microswitch). If the diaphragm in the switch had failed, there would be a continuous leak, which would give you a low speed reading in the ASI. I have the old style sensor, which screws directly into the back of the ASI. The diaphragm in that looks like some kind of rubberized fabric. Over time and heat mine got brittle which affected its ability to flex and therefore the speed at which it tripped. My diaphragm also eventually developed a leak The newer switch looks like it’s made out of something much more durable.

Updated link for those like myself who weren't here in 2019 and are trying to understand what some people are still injecting into unrelated threads. https://www.mooneycaravan.com/web/Mooney/Pages/Safety/2019.asp