cnoe

Here we go again.[emoji846] Either fly or drain a tank to zero usable fuel then make your proprietary dipstick filling 2-5 gallons at a time. It's a wonderful thing to know exactly how much fuel you have prior to departure. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm really glad this turned out well but I feel compelled to dispel the above-referenced mis-information. There is absolutely no need for alarm about an engine that normally consumes a quart of oil every 10 (or even 5) hours. There is even some evidence to suggest that an engine using only a quart in 30 hours may be detrimental to cylinder life. Oil consumption varies considerably from plane to plane, and this amount (1 quart in 10 hours) is perfectly normal. I would be concerned, though, about a sudden increase in oil consumed. For more on the subject check out: http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/192775-1.html https://generalaviationnews.com/2007/06/08/what-is-normal-oil-consumption/ http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182849-1.html Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've had ATC call me a Cirrus before. Ratbastards![emoji846] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Absolutely I'll give you a ride. But you may have to play safety pilot while I shoot a practice approach or two. I'll send you a PM to see if we can coordinate. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'd like to know specifically what both the older and newer POHs say about boost pump usage (fuel-injected, non-turbo only). Older manuals can be pretty sparse with info and I'm concerned that the newer ones are sometimes skewed towards mitigating liability concerns. I'm not trying to espouse an opinion on anybody else's operations; I'm just truly curious about this. My 1978 M20-J POH only states "Use of the fuel boost pump should be limited to starting, takeoff, switching fuel tanks, landing, and emergency situations." This statement is written as an operational limitation though, and not an operational procedure. In the operations section it specifically directs boost-pump usage for takeoff and landing but makes no mention of its usage during a tank-switch. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't believe any of these are 3-axis autopilots; that would involve yaw (rudder) control as well. Hence the 2 servos. In a Mooney all you really need is roll and pitch anyway.

Nice setup! I also see what appears to be a Castleberry electric backup attitude indicator in your panel. That's where I'm hoping the OP turns his attention as well. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, it's not a perfect solution as you don't get "autopilot" redundancy, but it does give him a non-vacuum AI that would at least help keep the shiny side up if the vac goes out in IMC. I can't imagine flying IFR without a backup AI. A backup vacuum source (either electric stand-by pump or PreciseFlight system) is better than nothing, but still you're betting a lot on that one gyro instrument (and relying on a turn-coordinator for attitude in turbulent IMC doesn't sound fun either). You're preaching to the choir here. I'm wary of thunderstorms when I can see them, and when in IMC I steer well clear of even the dark green blobs on Nexrad. I pulled out my WX8 stormscope since in my opinion the poor resolution gave me little better chance of avoiding embedded cells than the (time-delayed) Nexrad. Others may be more comfortable using a stormscope for tactical maneuvering, but I'd rather just use the 20 nm rule myself (squall lines notwithstanding).

Brad, are you flying IFR or VFR? If VFR you can forgo the stormscope and fly around storms (or not at all some days). But if you're mission critical and IFR then the stormscope might be nice to have. But for me flying IFR a certified backup AI is even more important. Maybe add a G5 and move your existing AI (necessary for the C2B) in place of the turn coordinator which is legal to remove. The FS210 would be nice, but not at the expense of truly vital instruments. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Alan is right, and to be clear, what I do in my NA "J" does not apply to the Conti/turbo planes. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Excellent point Bob! That's part of my routine as well. I have a verbal check I make at each switch that my wife is surely growing tired of hearing in her headset: "Fuel pressure good - fuel pressure steady".

In reality in my J there are actually only 2 circumstances where the boost pump is truly necessary: 1) to provide pressure for priming before starting, and 2) to provide pressure in the event of a mechanical pump failure. On the other hand it seems prudent to use the boost for "redundancy" during the critical take-off phase. Many (most?) will also use it during the landing phase to reduce their workload during a possible go-around. Using the boost during tank-switching seems like nothing more than busy-work with little or no benefit and my POH doesn't specify doing so either. Neither do I look for an airport before switching tanks, but then I have no concerns about intentionally running a tank dry or conducting an in-flight mag check, etc. This is just me though and everybody should operate within their own comfort zone. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maybe so; until we see what goes into the certified planes I don't know. If the servos for certified planes require a clutch that the experimentals don't then we should pay a bit more for the added hardware. No problem there. It would just be refreshing to see GA become more affordable again. I'll never be able to afford a NEW plane, but I'm hopeful that I can continue to make improvements in my existing one. Still at some point it becomes senseless to keep throwing money at an airframe that will never be worth more than a fraction of the money invested in its upgrades. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It sure doesn't feel like it when the retail price on it is $3,000 (plus install kit) on Aircraft Spruce. With the new certification rules we shouldn't be paying significantly more than the experimental guys, particularly when the main unit and the servos have already been in production for a while. Like I said before, it makes more sense to sell 1,000 for $3,250 ($3.25 million in sales) than 100 for $5,000 ($500,000 in sales). Perhaps these small companies aren't well capitalized and simply can't afford to ramp up production?

Me too. I believe MANY of us would if it was coupled and didn't require a vacuum source. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why do the (newly reduced) certification costs have to be borne by the first few purchasers? After that it's nothing more than price gouging, and I guarantee the price won't drop. Here's what they SHOULD cost (and this is after A.S. makes a fair profit). It's smarter to sell 1,000 units at $3,250 than 100 at $5,000. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Paul, I would argue that "Multiple fuel stops" and "Multi-day travel to destination" are the same answer. I have the stock tanks and my no-wind range with hour reserves is 1,800 nm with one fuel stop. Anybody flying further than that in a single day is a bonafide masochist. But for those of you with thirstier birds I can see where a second stop MIGHT be needed. I bought a Mooney so I wouldn't HAVE to make multiple stops to reach my destination. If I could afford one I'd own a TBM to extend my range, after all it's STILL a Mooney, right?!!

Awesome! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Okay, I'll play.[emoji846] Still saving up for the pretty paint but she's still a beauty to me! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for that info; it may come in handy some day. In my experience with the Status units (first a Stratus 2 and now a Stratus 2S) the internal antennas work pretty well at moderate altitudes and above, particularly in areas with good tower coverage. But if you find yourself at a lower AGL dodging storms you'll wish you had an external antenna (or XM), particularly in areas without great coverage (like New Mexico). YMMV.

I'm not sure trivializing the Holocaust is supportive of your argument. This is merely a PR issue for a public corporation. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I heard from my wife's hairdresser's best-friend's cousin that she read on facebook that somebody told another passenger on a plane that landed at that same airport that she heard in the ladies' room that the guy who was dragged off the plane for refusing a lawful order from police had actually been murdered by rouge cops but then later was resurrected by an African witch doctor from Detroit before returning to the plane to recover his carry-on. I'm pretty sure that's how it all went down. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is an important concept in aviation that you'll learn about called "staying ahead of the airplane". Flying a Mooney, particularly in IMC, requires mastery of this. As the speed of your steed increases so does the necessary skill level. I can't even imagine what it's like to occupy the cockpit of a SR-71 (or any fighter for that matter). Still I can dream.

SERIOUSLY?!! Did my post REALLY show up FOUR TIMES?!! I'll work on that. Edited: Removed duplicate posts. JEEZ!

Nope, that's a "recreational pilot" limitation. I believe that the Sport Pilot rating is misunderstood by many (if not most) private pilots. Don't worry about the naysayers FloridaPilots; I hope to see you in your M20J very soon! For me pursuing the Sport Pilot certificate on my way to becoming a Private and then Instrument rated pilot worked very well. As others have said you simply want to be sure that as much of your flight time is applicable to the PPL rating. The upsides are: 1) Going for the Sport Pilot rating gives you a more palpable goal. In less than four months (it took me 36 hours) I had a "license to fly" and could go rent a plane anytime I wanted. I could fly my wife, friends, or family anywhere within the range of a 120 knot plane. 2) I could log cross-country time with a passenger while working on my PPL. 3) I learned to fly a "stick" as opposed to a C150/C172. Flying a stick is AWESOME! Four more months after getting my Sport Pilot certificate I'd passed my PPL (with 60 hours total time logged) and was checked out in the Arrow and working towards my Instrument Rating. Finished that after partnering in an E for a year and then purchasing my J. Now my wife and canine-son fly all over the country logging about 175 hours a year. No regrets.