M20S Driver

I have contacted a few avionic shops and it seems to me that they are not up to speed on this installation. I am moving away from KT74 and may consider Garmin 330es. I noticed Garmin price for 330es is around $3600 down from $4000+.

Wow. This was beautiful and beautifully done... You added visiting S Africa to my bucket list

Here is a copy and paste from an old posting. Forward slip in a long body is ok at higher speeds but not recommended. M20S Driver Original post: 12/2/2002 Bob Kromer was a factory test pilot at Mooney for many years. This is what he had to say on the subject of forward slips in Mooneys . . . By: Bob Kromer During development and certification on the M20K 252 at the factory, I encountered the aerodynamic buffeting while slipping on approach as described by Dan Eldridge in his posting on slips in his M20K 231. Obviously, this gets a test pilot's attention and we began an investigation. Thought you might be interested in what we found. For our slip tests, we flew the M20K, the M20J and the Mooney/Porsche engineering prototypes that were at the factory at the time. This gave us a good cross section of different aircraft configurations (short/long fuselage, different pitch trim requirements on approach, etc.) What we found was: 1) All airplanes were fine above 85 KIAS in full rudder deflection forward slips, flaps up and flaps down. 2) But somewhere between 80-85 KIAS and lower, AERODYNAMIC BUFFETING FROM THE HORIZONTAL TAIL/ELEVATOR occurred in the M20K and the Mooney/Porsche airframes ALONG WITH A SLIGHT LOSS OF ELEVATOR EFFECTIVENESS AND A SLIGHT NOSE DOWN PITCHING MOMENT. These conditions were worsened with flaps down compared to the flaps up. Aerodynamic tufting of the horizontal tail revealed what was happening. In the M20K and the Mooney/Porsche with their more forward CGs, almost full nose up pitch trim is required for a "hands off" approach at the target approach airspeed. This puts the horizontal stabilizer of the Mooney tail at a high negative angle of attack (to keep the nose up). With the horizontal tail at this high negative angle of attack and especially with flaps full down, the local airflow over the horizontal tail is getting pretty close to max alpha, the angle of attack where the tail will stall. I want to emphasize that IN NORMAL FLYING, THERE IS PLENTY OF MARGIN - no need to worry about the tail stalling in your M20K or long body Mooney. But start slipping the airplane at 85 KIAS and below or have a little ice on that stabilizer leading edge and those margins can get mighty thin. Combine a slip maneuver with some pretty good yanking on the control wheel in turbulence and you might get a partial tail stall. We did in flight test - in the M20K the result was buffeting felt in the control wheel and the slight nose down pitching moment. So my advice from the test pilot's seat is don't go there - especially if you fly a Mooney model that requires lots of nose up pitch trim on the approach. An aggressive forward slip in those airplanes with the speed low and the flaps down puts the tail in an extreme airflow condition. The airplane will warn you with buffeting and a slight pitch down, but who knows - add some ice and look out. This is not the way to fly your Mooney. My bottom line opinion -- keep the ball near center on the approach and you're flying the Mooney design correctly and safely with the safety margins it was meant to have. Best Regards, Bob Kromer

carusoam: Do you have any more info on the Shadowing accident??

Similar problem on my old C-182 turned out to be caused by a broken wire.

I have done it a few times and did not have any problems. The main challenge was speed control after the slip at low altitude. In most cases I used up a lot of runway since I kept the speed high (90-100 Knots)!!!

Looks great. I will go for the under the wing mount. Is it the GoPro tripod mount that is in the picture?

Speed Brakes shorten the landing roll but I don't use them in a short field approach since I may need every inch of the runway/climb rate to go around. I always use them if I am high for the approach and landing at a very long runway!!! Otherwise, the best plan is to go around

Not really. They don't do much at lower speeds. I was high and doing a 100+ knots downwind and base into KTCY so I left them on.

Done.. http://youtu.be/_HiQ8tEbHGY

I just bought a Gopro camera and decided to check on landing gear's function. I attached the camera with double sided tape and duct tape to the tail cone. I am new to editing with Gopro so bless the mess Here is the link to public folder on dropbox. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41259646/Palo%20Alto%20To%20Tracy%20and%20Back.mov Dropbox dropped the link due to high activity Here is a youtube link: http://youtu.be/_HiQ8tEbHGY

I looked into twins years ago and decided all that the second engine does is to take me to the crash site at double the cost If I lose an engine getting out of Truckee (usually 8000+ DA in the summer), the second engine does not do much in most of the smaller twins. If you are able to maintain currency and competency at all times, then a larger twin with 300+ HP on each side is not a bad option. of course, 100LL gas at 5 to 6 dollars a gallon may limit flight time and frequency for most of us.

Fortunately, this was not my plane. The shop that maintains my plane was working on this problem after a couple of other shops tried to fix it with no luck. The update that I got was that Lake Arrow MSC found the problem by starting over from the ground zero since my mechanic had already checked everything.

I called him last week and he seems very friendly and knowledgeable. I am waiting for a quotation from the shop.

The problem was found to be a faulty armature in the alternator. The alternator was one the first items that was overhauled and it seems like the shop that did it did not find the problem with the armature.

What is your fuel flow at that speed? My 280 HP Eagle burns 17.5 GPH at 85-100 ROP.

Hi thinwing, where was it done?

Does anyone know of an avionics shop in Northern California that has done this upgrade (KT74 and Garmin 430/530)?

I will keep the Mooney, but PC-12 is it for me too. (Of course if I have money left over for the fuel )

Last informaion that I have is that the no load test and switching the battery did not do much. The owner is taking it to Lake Arrow for the repair or he may end up going to the factory in Texas. This is pretty ugly and costly!

The regulator and the high voltage suppressant diode did not fix it either. This is a tough one!

I had the same experience on my Eagle. I washed it the night before and the next day was below freezing and speed brake only deployed half way.

My shop is estimating around $400-$600. The tray has to be replaced since the data cable to the Garmin 530 interferes with KT76C tray. In addition, the Garmin 530 and 430 need a software update. I think this is reasonable. Maybe

Has anyone upgraded a KT76C with KT74 and connected it to a Garmin 430 or 530 yet? Any insight would be appreciated. The STC is approved but I am not sure how easy/difficult it is to do! My shop ( with a very good reputation) is thinking of replacing the KT76C tray with the KT74 tray.

I used an ipad2 for a year and found it to be too large and ended up buying an ipad Mini with retina display. Last week I checked the iPhone 6+ and found it to be too small for my eyes in the cockpit I think I am done and Mini is it for me.