Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/18/2021 in all areas

  1. I don’t think so. I’ve been flying my F in the southwest for 20 years. Just need to understand it’s a different plane when it’s hot.
    3 points
  2. Yes, we should all be careful and not gear up our airplanes. But the reason being that it might increase everyone else's insurance rates a few dollars... is so far down the list of reasons that it's a complete waste of an otherwise good brain cell to even think about it. #firstworldproblems
    3 points
  3. I have been reading the typical Cirrus cynical diatribes above with some mixture of amusement, disgust, and confusion. Here we are, as an ever diminishing GA population, bemoaning the lack of progress, stoic technology, and unwillingness for manufacturers to take a risk and better serve their markets. Yet, along comes Cirrus which has been successful beyond what any reasonable estimation would have been when they launched; they've bested all of their competitors...combined! But, rather than even a drip of praise we are regaled with denigrating comments such as, "thought like a scared spouse," and "pander to that irrational behavior". Maybe, just maybe, Cirrus actually analyzed, in an actual business sense (as opposed to wanton irrational speculation) as to what product would sell and grow the GA market...NAH, that couldn't be it <sarcasm> Then there's the barely veiled "no real pilot needs a chute (or now, the apparently popular slight, shute), and/or blaming bad decisions on the chute's presence. So, how many military pilots have one of these terrible devices strapped to their backs when they go flying (and, I'm not talking missions into battle)? It seems to me that common sense would say that if highly trained pilots, flying very well maintained aircraft, find that chutes provide a way to mitigate risk, then GA pilots in their machines might benefit as well. Ah, but THAT chute is strapped to their backs, not the plane's..and that makes all the difference, I guess <more sarcasm>. Let's throw in autopilots, GPS, and all glass for the ultimate in situational awareness and risk mitigation. Sure would think pilots with all that stuff may be making bad decisions because of having those items on board. Where's the Garmin bashing? But, that logic falls by the wayside, it would appear. Then we come to the plethora of 'statistics' where random unsupported numbers and speculative premises are tossed out as 'data', but only in the worst possible light; the unsupported nature of that speculation could just as easily be spun to support the use of chutes...but, you never are going to see that when Cirrus bashing is in full bloom! For equal hull values and pilot experience, I'd be curious how insurance rates for Cirrus weigh in. Oh, well. Cirrus keeps making money...and haters keep hating.
    3 points
  4. Me, too. But I'm not up for scratch building one. In keeping with Clint Eastwood's advice, I know my limits . . . .
    3 points
  5. From the POH there is only 0.6 knots margin on the stall speed for certification with the current 3368lbs. If you look at the overweight ferry SI (SIM20-133) you'll see the 15% over gross figure is 65KIAS which is not an insignificant speed to get back somehow. Whether the solution is VGs or modified flaps or something else will be up to Mooney. Also bear in mind the climb performance - particularly the Bravo with only 270bhp. You're going to use nearly 10hp just to carry up 400lbs at 500fpm, and that's before your consider the extra induced drag to overcome. From experience I can tell you that at gross and ISA+30 the climb is already rather anaemic! I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of temperature limits applied. For takeoff and landing performance, it will be whatever it is - unless there's a whole new wing or new (more powerful) engine, then the TORR and LDR are just going to be more (you've got to accelerate all that mass) - if that means you need a 10,000ft runway, then it is up to the PIC to determine if it can be done. From the same SI there is also the +2.5G limitation, but as the normal category requires 3.8 then it wouldn't surprise me if anything more than a couple of hundred pounds increase involved a number of very expensive and invasive modifications, also worth a look at the SI to see the resultant W&B envelope might look like. Regulations also specify that MLW can be a minimum of 95% of MTOW so there's the whole gear issue already mentioned - the existing 3368/3200 is using the full extent of the allowance. Tailplane limitations will be interesting - supposedly the long bodies are already close to the limit with a forward CofG and full flap, with extra limitations if icing has been encountered. Unless a significant CofG limit is applied, then this might require a new tail and elevators, maybe even a whole empennage? The price continues to go up.... I'm not in any rush, but would probably be interested in a 200lb increase. If there was a 400lb option for $$$$ and a 200lb option for $$, I wouldn't look at the 400lb option, on the basis I already have near as dammit 1000lbs available, and: a) If I'm going somewhere with four 200lbs adults, you can pretty much bet that after 3 hours one is going to need to pee, and everyone will be ready to stretch their legs (unless you are four masochists). In any case, you wouldn't pile four large adults in a mini to drive cross country for hours and hours without a break so why do it in a Mooney? At 90lbs/hr of fuel, then 1200lbs usable even gives a small amount of baggage! b) A couple of my regular routes go near super cheap fuel - 1200lbs usable means I can pickup full (Monroy LRT) fuel (730lbs) with two adults and long weekend bags
    3 points
  6. There was a recent thread on DA that I was browsing here on Mooney Space, and I felt compelled to start a new one. We're quickly moving into the season where density altitude will become an issue to contend with. Please note that I am not a CFI, but a pilot based at a high altitude airfield in mountainous terrain who has flown thousands of hours in my Mooney in these conditions. Density Altitude is the silent, invisible killer. I have seen many an accident caused by DA. The #1 way to ensure that you're not one of those statistics is avoidance. The #2 way is to get a mountain checkride BEFORE you head into the mountains on your own. Don Kaye out here on the west coast can do that for you. I am based at TRK. Every single airport in this region has it's unique attributes, but Truckee is by and large the most challenging. We deal with updrafts, downdrafts, wind shear, high winds, crosswinds, terrain, thermals and all of that mixed in with density altitude. I took off this morning to practice some landings. At 0830 the DA was in excess of 7,000' Other airports in this region are easier to deal with, but each has its challenges. The Nevada side of the state line is notorious for turbulence. Lake Tahoe Airport is probably the easiest to operate out of, and it has the most runway outside of Reno. But the terrain spooks a lot of people there. Here are some pointers for those who venture into the mountains and have to deal with density altitude. Fly early morning when it's coolest; don't load up on fuel; don't go out at maximum gross weight; fly your airspeeds, plus a few knots for safety's sake; expect to land long; expect to use more runway on departure; fly over the terrain as high as possible; you're speed over ground will be faster than you are accustomed to on the runway and in the pattern - fly your airspeeds, don't be fooled by visual clues; watch your temps - with less "air" you're oil & CHT temps will rise quicker and won't fall so easily; lean your mixture for best performance (normally aspirated engines); don't make shallow or steep approaches, stablized approaches on or slight above speed are best; don't try a short field landing in a density altitude environment. One of the things I noticed years ago is that your airspeed will bleed off quicker than normal and your stall will occur faster than usual - you have less lift and less air density, so this makes perfect sense. Do NOT fly behind the power curve under any circumstances; we had a couple of airline pilots we lost a few years back who did that, we couldn't find them, but eventually spotted the plane short of the runway about 1500' from the threshold in the scrub. The suspicion is that they were low, slow and behind the power curve, just flew it into the ground as the aircraft caught the downside of a thermal on short final. Mountain flying is very rewarding, and it can be a new challenge for many to overcome. When you head up into the mountains, we want you to visit again and visit often. The best way to do that in your Mooney is to have a mountain checkride before you load up the bird and fly up the hill.
    2 points
  7. In searching online for an Excel version of the KOCH chart I came across this website. You can put the information in or just put in the Airport Identifier. I don't know how it works on an iPhone but on an Android you can go to it in Chrome and pin it to one of your home screens. https://www.takeofflanding.com/ Example of what you see on the website:
    2 points
  8. He wasn't a real flatlander. He was DPE in CRW and Commander of WV Air National Guard. Not flat, but not as high as W. CO.
    2 points
  9. And change all 3 at each annual. Its slightly safer and if you can't afford it take up boating. -Robert
    2 points
  10. Not all 345s gave integrated GPS. If you have a compatible GPS source, such as the 530, it'll use that instead, so when you turn the 530 off, the 345 has no location information to give you traffic. That's my guess.
    2 points
  11. I’ve done it in my F as well. Just don’t pull back to your usually pitch attitude on take off. Give it some time but it flys.
    2 points
  12. it’s Going to be a great event! Special parking for the V-tails though... Best regards, -a-
    2 points
  13. That's correct, but neither would 23"/2700 rpm at take off. It only stimulates the loss of power. Anyway. High altitude stalls and slow flight have been an eye opener my students... So I wanted to share that with the group...
    2 points
  14. One of my goals with this thread is to do a COMPLETE and reasonably high QUALITY overhaul and illustrate what that involves and the costs associated with doing it right. It certainly has been an educational experience for me so far, as I hope it will be for everyone following along. The project is in limbo as I am still waiting for an update from AWI on my motor mount. They are backed up in their work due to their recent move and an increased demand for their services. Additionally, the engine overhaul itself is still in the first half of the quoted “ten to twelve weeks” process. Who knows if the crankcase or crankshaft will pass or need to be replaced? Some potentially large ticket surprises may still be lurking out there. Even though I am working on a multi-engine rating and dealing with multiple home maintenance and home improvement projects as well, I sure do miss flying my airplane. It leaves a hole in you when you want to fly your plane and you can’t.
    2 points
  15. I've been lucky. Learned to fly in New England. Then 20 years in Denver. Now in the southeast. It all seems normal to me,
    2 points
  16. When you send yours to McFarlane and ask them to duplicate it, it can fall under one of the processes that are accepted for Owner Produced Parts. You can make a log entry yourself regarding the OPP process (be sure to read, understand, and follow the regs/ACs on OPP), and then your A&P/IA can install it under a separate log entry. Nope, not FAA approved. See the disclaimer in the signature block of the drawing that 1964-M20E posted above. It gets installed as an Owner Produced Part, so the OPP process requirements should be followed. I've done two like this. Even as an A&P I can't produce the part, so I make a logbook entry for the OPP as owner/operator, and then a separate entry to install it as an A&P.
    2 points
  17. Thanks Carusoam & Rocket! Although my build has slowed to a crawl I'll do my best to keep this forum populated. My passion for Mooney's began last summer while visiting a local airport where an old Mooney is displayed out front of the main building. Legend has it, that it was "Acquired" from a hanger left unattended. The story seems to change depending on who you ask. Anyway, my initial thought was similar to many others; how could someone reverse the empennage on an aircraft and it actually flies?!? This was also during a time when my passion was running pretty high for the Beechcraft V35. But the Mooney has taken front & center. There have been many GA RC models manufactured, repeatedly, and in various sizes such as the Cessna 182. But it doesn't appear that the Mooney took hold, which is too sad. I periodically check various forums for RC builds for the Mooney and particularly, Mooney's for sale, and they're pretty sparse. However, I recently stumbled upon Christian's maiden flight N205ME plus his build of that aircraft. He did a great job building it and it was cool watching him maiden it. More later...
    2 points
  18. I finally had the time to adjust the configuration of the GTN750. I confirmed that the avionics shop left the GTN Terrain options on the TerrainProximity selection, and as we don't have any other display for Terrain Warnings, it was wrongly configurated and we weren't getting any terrain message at all. So, I reset the Terrain Options to TerrainAlerting, and now everything is working just fine! I finally get initial message "Terrain System OK", and also the Terrain Warnings, and the "500'" callout. On next flights I will try to get the warning message for steep descents. Thanks to all for your help, and specially to RMag that cleared gave the solution, avoiding me to spend time and money on a travel to avionics maintenance with a shop that should have left this working since day one. In attach you can see the videos of the reconfiguration, and the terrain alerts I now get as a renewed happy costumer of GTN750 IMG_3622.MP4 IMG_3729.MP4
    2 points
  19. Do change that tire right away. Do consider Desser Monster retreads on Goodyear Flight Custom cores for the mains- the best tread life, much lower cost without sacrificing anything. (Desser regular tread for the nose - otherwise creates an issue clearing wheel well). Don't change the other tire. Zero benefit. Pointless expense if it still has decent tread on it. Don't use nitrogen. Trivial benefit for small plane tires. https://www.aviationconsumer.com/maintenance/nitrogen-tires-unnecessary-for-small-aircraft/ Do change the tube at the same time. Consider Michelin airstop tubes - way more benefit in terms of holding pressure than using nitrogen. Do add "heels on the floor!" to your prelanding checklist on final and this will never happen again (I learned the hard way as a noob just like you)
    2 points
  20. Chris included a video of a flight at the end of the thread... and on YouTube.... (way cool!) -a-
    2 points
  21. For a while they were using a polyester sealant. It was supposed to last forever. It turns out that is is almost impossible to remove. How about a pic of the inside of your tank?
    1 point
  22. And once again, the infamous ASS U ME, raises it head!
    1 point
  23. I ran in to this literally just the other day. This past Saturday, I was flying back on the last leg of a flight, I had a 2 inch drop of manifold pressure in cruise followed by intense engine roughness. Look to the engine monitor, #1 Normal (29X CHT, 14XX EGT), #2 Normal (29X CHT, 14XX EGT), #3 Climbing (397 CHT, 1550 EGT), #4 Normal (29X CHT, 14XX EGT). Quickly looked outside for options, 60 foot pines as far as the eye can see. The engine monitor allowed me to safely work the problem. After landing, I knew it was cylinder #3 and I suspected due to the rise in temperature and the way it behaved with changes in mixture that it was a fuel related problem. Pulled the injector and found it to be clogged, which lead to this post Clogged injectors, amber colored particulate in fuel, no tank leaks - Vintage Mooneys (pre-J models) - Mooneyspace.com - A community for Mooney aircraft owners and enthusiasts I would say an engine monitor is a MUST HAVE on a new to you airplane that you may not trust. It also makes it far easier to diagnose issues that pop up that with out it you may spend weeks or months chasing. Will it make your engine last longer? Its debatable, but it will help you make more informed decisions about how you operate your engine and may prevent your engine from becoming an outlier. In short, find a good airplane, if it has an engine monitor, great. If it doesn't have one, just spend the money and install a primary. I am partial to the CGR-30 and GI-275 EIS but that is a different story.
    1 point
  24. The cylinders were borescoped in OCT 2020, and no observable abnormalities were evidenced. I'll keep you posted,
    1 point
  25. Haven’t finalized this just yet. I was asked by my brother if it was possible and I wasn’t sure. I knew this group would have the answers. Do you have any recommendations?
    1 point
  26. Yep still 280 but with the 3 blade top prop already. planning on 310 at some point, just need to dig around in the couch cushions for 7 AMU FF- of the top of my head 23-something. It has was checked/calibrated last summer when trying to track down a hot CHT issue, so it is spot on according to the spec. Departing Mammoth, Truckee and Bridgeport (3800 foot runway at 6.5k feet) on hot days always get off the ground with lots of runway left, and *could* climb at 1000fpm, I would just melt the engine so I have to keep it to 400ish fpm at least until in cooler air. Not sure if that is a limitation for other Mooneys M20R or otherwise. Would be interesting to know.
    1 point
  27. Pull the stall horn breaker AND the gear horn breaker to stop it. It is crazy but that is how the wiring is done. After that you likely need a new microswitch in the stall warning vane. They are a standard part available from Mouser for less than $10. Alternatively a new part from the manufacturer is around a grand. Use the forum search function. This has all been discussed before. You will find discussion and applicable part numbers.
    1 point
  28. Here's another "sounds like bacon frying" post:
    1 point
  29. Or loose plug wires. Check all the plugs. Id listen to it on a mag check to see if it changes, that should narrow it down if it’s mags or plugs.
    1 point
  30. If you read the Service and Maintenance Manual, you are supposed to do a retract test after replacing the tires. I've never had a problem with standard tires, but I would check if using a retread. I usually replace my tires in pairs because they are generally worn about the same and I schedule maintenance around trips and would prefer fewer down days. But that's just me. Skip
    1 point
  31. I concur with your advice points. Just my 2c worth: Vx and Vy are not constant across all altitudes and weights. At the service ceiling, only 1 speed (somewhere between Vx and Vy, around best glide) keeps you afloat, 1 kn slower or 1kn faster, and you sink. POH has valuable info, and one can also experiment over flat states: take off from your home base with minimum safe fuel and at MTOW and once you reach 7000' do a stall. You won't recover in 150' per PPL PTS as you did at 3000'. Do slow flight, try climbing at Vx and Vy and learn your new speeds for those altitudes. It won't substitute for a mountain check out, but it'll be a good teaser
    1 point
  32. I’m sure he’s a good guy and I cant imagine it being anything other than a mistake that I’m sure he feels horrible about. The first thing I wrote was that I have empathy for him, but there has been a rash of Mooney gear ups that’s costing all of us. Let’s try to be careful okay!
    1 point
  33. I talked to them today so you might hear from them soon. Maybe I’ll come too because it looks like a good event!
    1 point
  34. Depending if you're trying to get there quickly or you've got some time. Maybe pick some places along the way that maybe you would go to otherwise. We stopped in KRAP and went to Mt Rushmore on a flight to Spokane one year. Worth seeing at least once and there's some good hiking around there. Also maybe Flathead Lake, MT or Coeur d'Alene, ID. This also gives you the "IFR" (I follow roads) option and you can follow I-90 through the mountains if you're going VFR.
    1 point
  35. Echoing @OSUAV8TER, I’d spend a bit extra, go with the Whelens, and don’t look back. Best thing I’ve done for my lighting arrangement…which is now all LED, save for the 70303…due out hopefully soon. BTW…my airplane is the first and third picture in @OSUAV8TER’s post above. ;-) Steve
    1 point
  36. I have a 231. As it comes from the factory, the six pack instruments are mainly (not all) vacuum driven and there is only one vacuum pump. The TC is electric and is part of the backup system. The HSI is also electric dependent, it functions best when the flux gate is operational. There is a backup method in the event the flux gate fails, (unslave the HSI, set it with the compass) but it is not very good. There is only one alternator and the alternator system is vulnerable to failure because of the coupler. So none of it is the greatest in terms of backup if the vacuum pump fails, and I have had a pump fail, just not in IMC. Lots of pilots seem to think that there is a big weight savings if the old avionics are removed and replaced with new electronics. I had my ADF, KNS80 and old King comm removed and replaced with a GTN750Xi and lost a pound in useful load. The vacuum system is still in, but the vacuum system is not very heavy it turns out, and the people who stand to gain useful load by having it removed are aircraft that already have two alternators and two batteries, so they have a backup alternator. One useful addition is a GI275 in place of the TC. The 275, with a temp probe, is certified primary for the TC, but better than that, it is an AI, so you have a very good backup AI if the vacuum AI craps out. In my own opinion, substituting electronics that have a half hour or one hour internal backup is not good enough. There are plenty of occasions in my K where I am up high and out west where the airports are spaced wide apart, and in the wrong circumstances, if I were above the tops, I would not have enough backup to get down. You need to take the rated backup and cut it in half as far as I am concerned, because that is what you would have when that backup battery has been in place for several years. The best solution is to have two alternators, then, with other internal backups, I would feel comfortable taking out the vacuum system. I would expect to lose useful load doing this, not gain it, but the difference would not be much. Then you could put in as much new electronic gear as you want and still be safe. Expect to lose useful load with new electronics, not gain it, the putative gains are way overblown. Covid backups in the FSDO system are impairing getting a quick answer on this, it requires FSDO approval (337) but seems possible. I don’t know what the solution would be for Lyc’s, but it seems to me there must be a way.
    1 point
  37. ‘65 E model with a Tail Beacon since August 2019. I chose that option since I already had LED nav/strobes on the wing tips. It worked fine after it was finally configured properly. The installer had some bad settings in the set up and it kept failing the proving flight. I had an avionics guy (not the original A&P) take a look and he immediately knew what the issue was. He made a software adjustment to the configuration and it has been great since. I originally had an AT150 and it worked with that. The transponder got a little weird ( sticking digits). I had a chance to change that out for a Garmin 327 and it has worked great with that transponder too.
    1 point
  38. All fuel hoses have been replaced over the last 5 years. Not ruling this out as a possibility but the particualte is in the tanks at the end of the flight. Their should not be enough back flow through the lines to bring it back to both tanks at the end of the flight. I just pulled the Gascolator screen, SB/AD filter and screen in the fuel servo at annual 4.3 hours ago. All of them had small amounts of the amber color particulate but also large amounts of black/gray proseal looking chunks in them but I was not sure what wing they were from. The back story on my airplane is last year the wing was replaced and that wing had pretty large leaks. My IA and I assumed the proseal looking chunks were from the old wing as the previous owner had never seen this amber colored particulate before. I am about to pull them all again and check, however, I suspect they are all going to be pretty contaminated. I also am going to pull all the lines from the fuel selector forward and blow them out. Update: My IA is going to drain and borescope the tanks. We plan on trying to flush the tanks to see if we can nock as much of the loose sealant off as possible and see where we end up.
    1 point
  39. Do you think Whelan Aerospace would want to join the elite group of industry leading sponsors of the Mooney Summit VIII this year? Our attendees and supporters have been known to reward handsomely our sponsors and donors! www.mooneysummit.com/sponsors if so, contact Rick.junkin@mooneysummit.com and he will make sure Whelen Aerospace gets maximum traction for supporting the Mooney community
    1 point
  40. Tapping generally frees up stuck brushes, as the brushes wear the produce dust, this causes the the brush to stick and not make contact....
    1 point
  41. Find the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) for your airplane. They are usually available for download for free if you search around. It has drawings showing the locations and part numbers for all parts, including the control cables. The correct part number may depend on the specific model and serial number of your airplane, so it's hard to say whether it is correct without that.
    1 point
  42. yeah , i’m likely incorrect in saying bluetooth, wifi is probably correct. Yes it somehow determines squawk through power line, I’m thinking it’s just an antenna.’ Did you contact them via email? They were very helpful to me.
    1 point
  43. I’ll go give that another try. I think I normally connect via WiFi, not Bluetooth and when I do it says it’s talking fine to my phone. Something is fishy. I think I’ll go through all my wires and clean up all grounds. From what I read, the tailbeacon “hears” the squawk code through small voltage fluctuations. Maybe if I don’t have really good grounds it is somewhat muffling the sound to the tailbeacon.
    1 point
  44. Seems to work as hoped. I flew at 12500 yesterday and sure enough the ring alarmed when my O2 dipped to 88. so I put on my cannula and you see my o2 is happy. It seems to read about 2 points higher than my thumb clip o2sat thing, but this one is nice since I don't need to look at it neurotically the whole time. It will buzz at me if I need to worry about o2 sat.
    1 point
  45. I bought a wingtip SkyBeacon, as I was planning on going south a lot more (F-U Covid). Also under the thought that UAvionix was working on a SkyLight for the starboard wingtip (due Spring 2020.... F-U... avionix). Figured this was my way to get strobes on my aircraft and make it look symmetrical..... And I wait. Now thinking I’ll switch to a tail Beacom when they release the TSO’d X and go another route for the wingtips.
    1 point
  46. Lycoming recommends the “wobble” test.
    1 point
  47. Dear Mooney Pilots l am finished with the 1:5 Mooney M20J model. In 2 or 3 weeks the maiden flight will be start. Thanks a lot for your help
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.