Vance Harral

I'm still flying with a mechanical AI and DG, I think that puts me in the grave.

I'll refrain from recommending any specific hardware. Just don't buy so much hardware that it eats into your budget for actually flying the airplane. I'd much rather ride along on a "bicycle" flown by a pilot with 100 hours in the last year, than a "Cadillac" with 10. Heck, I'd rather fly IMC with certain pilots in a non-GPS, steam gauge-only airplane, than others with a $100K panel, based completely on how often and how carefully they train. Due respect to Don, but he's an outlier. His (well-deserved) financial status allows him to make avionics spending decisions completely independent of hours flown. I admire and aspire to that, but most of us are more constrained.

Yes this initially confused me. But then I understood you were talking about the CDI *indicator* (and the waypoint sequence right above it) as opposed to the CDI *button*. This is one area where the extra screen real-estate of the 750 is an advantage. The Default Nav page you get by pressing and holding HOME on the 750 shows the CDI indicator and flight plan sequence, soft keys for Menu/CDI/OBS/Zoom/etc, and also a map. That means you're only one click away from the Flight Plan page using the "click the CDI" trick. On the 650, however, the Default Nav page doesn't have enough screen real-estate to show the map. So instead, Garmin gives you a soft key on the Default Nav page that takes you to the map, and a "Back" key on that map page that takes you back to the Default Nav page. Unfortunately, the CDI indicator and flight plan sequence isn't shown on the map page, so you can't use the trick. If you're looking at the moving map on a 650, the flight plan page is always at least two clicks away.

That is a great tip, thanks!

I think Paul has his pictures confused. That's some old, gray-bearded dude in the left seat. Couldn't possibly be me.

Because the GTX-327 can be configured to auto-switch between ALT and STANDBY based on GPS ground speed.

A lot of the discussion above centers around how to avoid reloading the approach, when you get a late clearance change you weren't expecting. The commonly-discussed case is when you thought you were getting vectors to final, then you get cleared to an IAF or IF instead. Hence the "Never load VTF" strategy to avoid that particular case. I have a contrarian position about this. I teach students to practice reloading approaches to select a different transition, until they can do it quickly and correctly with little anxiety or stress. Then the guidance on loading approaches becomes simply, "Load your best guess at a transition/VTF, change as needed". Using myself and my own airplane as an example, I don't consider it some kind of workload crisis if I've loaded one transition (VTF or otherwise), and then get cleared to a fix not in my flight plan. The HOME -> PROC -> Approach -> Transition -> Activate sequence on a GTN navigator is pretty ingrained, so just a few seconds and no big deal to change the plan. If I'm being cleared to an IF rather than an IAF, then the extra steps are HOME -> Flight Plan -> select fix -> Activate Leg. It's a little more involved on an "etch-a-sketch" GNS navigator, but I teach in some airplanes with those, and I still don't think it's too bad: reload with PROC -> big knob to Select Approach -> Enter -> Enter -> Big knob to select transition -> Enter -> Enter. If being cleared to an IF instead of an IAF, add FPL -> big knob to select fix -> Direct -> Enter -> Enter. My main problem with the "Always load this, never load that" strategy, is it primes the student to think switching to a different transition is somehow "scary" and/or an unfair request by ATC. That doesn't bode well for fairly common situations that require deft button-ology even without ever loading VTF. e.g. training/proficiency flights with multiple approaches in compressed time and space, and/or ATC reroutes to a different IAF/IF late in the sequence for legitimate operational reasons. I have a lot less instruction given than Mark, Gary Reeves, etc. You should weight their opinions more than mine. But I think it's fair to say that "Never load VTF" doesn't guarantee you'll never have to reload an approach late in the game. So just like you're expected to be able to hand-fly an approach without an autopilot, fly partial panel if an instrument fails, etc; so should you also be reasonably proficient at reloading approaches to select a different transition. As Don says above, it's just not that hard to change on-the-fly (literally in this case ).

Sure, but that's all part of the power equation. Everyone quotes max cruise numbers at the optimum altitude, and it takes a lot of power to get way up in the flight levels.

That's about right. As a practical example, if you replaced the 200hp engine on an M20E/F/J with an 800hp turbine, you'd get an airplane vaguely similar to a TBM 850. The TBM 850 cruises around 300 KTAS, about double the cruise speed of the E/F/J.

Thanks for the post. The interpretation in the opinion letter is not unreasonable. But as you note, it doesn't seem to be published anywhere definitive, which makes it of dubious legal value. Even if it were, it only addresses the case where a "pilot, not appropriately rated" is the sole manipulator. I'm not sure what that's intended to mean. If it means "whoever is holding the controls, regardless of their certificate/ratings, or lack thereof", then it covers all bases. If it actually means "a person who holds a pilot certificate, but is not appropriately rated", then it doesn't cover the most common case I use as an example: a pilot who is not an instructor may legally allow a non-pilot passenger who doesn't even hold a student pilot certificate, to try their hand at flying the airplane. Probably happens dozens of times a day every single day across the country. I know of no mechanism which permits the acting PIC to log PIC time in that scenario. Most acting PICs in that scenario incorrectly log the time anyway, and I don't really have any heartburn about it. It's just an interesting thing to point out, and fills out the complete set of logging permutations I use when discussing PIC logging. Namely that: you can act as PIC and be entitled to log PIC (makes sense) you can not act as PIC and not be entitled to log PIC (seems obvious) you can not act as PIC and still be entitled to log PIC (as sole manipulator, most common case being under the hood with the pilot monitoring acts as PIC) you can act as PIC and not be entitled to log PIC (the case we're discussing here)

Which leads to the interesting situations where even though a flight is legal and there is an acting PIC, no one may log PIC time.

I second glbtrottr's recommendation to just use a mobile power brick. Problems with cigarette-lighter chargers are ubiquitous on Mooneyspace and other aviation forums: some chargers don't push enough current, others generate noise in the audio system, sometimes the lighter or the wire connection to it gets really hot because it's carrying more constant current than it was designed for, etc. For about $30 you can buy a power brick that will keep your iPad fully charged for an entire day. Spend 0.1 AMU and buy two or three - keep one in your flight bag, one on charge at the hangar, one on charge at home, etc. No worries about routing charging cables from the cigarette lighter past yoke shafts and across the panel, just put the brick on your lap or in a side pocket. I haven't used a cigarette charger in an airplane in several years, and haven't missed it.

Same experience here. Our partnership bought an airplane with original sealant, which had been patched by the prior owner a few years before we bought it. We've owned it another 16 years since, and have taken it to a nearby MSC three times for patching, i.e. about every 5-6 years. Total amount shelled out for the 3 patches is in the neighborhood of $3-4K, spread across those 16 years. The alternative would have been a full strip-and-reseal to the tune of $8-10K (including travel expenses) at the first sign of trouble. The shops that do this work are good, and they stand behind their long warranties. But even the best warranty on a full strip-and-reseal would have expired about a decade ago, and who's to say we wouldn't have needed a patch or two since? We still have some issues at the top of the tanks, which seep a little with full fuel. But they meet airworthiness requirements, and we generally fill to the tabs only. Our airplane is also a "workhorse" rather than "show plane", so the top-side seeps are not an issue in practice. The point of saying all this is not to pooh-pooh people who have a full strip and reseal done, or who negotiate down the purchase price of a wet wing airplane with old sealant. Both of those things are reasonable. But I also think some people get a little carried away about tank sealant concerns. There are a lot more shops that do decent patch work than there are shops that do full strip/reseal, and patch work can keep wet wings in reasonable shape for a very long time at relatively low cost. Robert, out of curiosity, what convinced you to go the full strip/reseal in the end?

One cause of this is finding a tire a little low on preflight, adding some air, and having the Schrader valve not quite close on removing the chuck. An hour or more later, you land on an unexpectedly flat tire. Ask me how I know. I no longer air up tires immediately before a flight. If a tire is slightly low, I fly as-is, and air it up at the end of the flight.

For those of you who recently installed or plan to install GI-275s, what specific features or differences led you to prefer that unit over the less expensive G5? Our mechanical AI is going south, we'll be replacing with an electronic ADI, and we're considering both options. I've read the marketing blurbs, I think I understand the differences (form factor, touch screen, interface capabilities, etc.) and I can see why the GI-275 has more "value". But between the price difference of the hardware itself, and the considerably more expensive installation quotes we're getting, I'm having a hard time feeling the additional features are worth the premium cost vs. the G5, especially after having seen them side-by-side. Would love to hear other Mooneyspacers' opinions, just to make sure I'm not missing something.

I've never seen a fuel O-ring like that. Not disputing that it "works", but it seems unusual/non-standard. The main reason I'm chiming in here is to point out that you can remove that cotter pin, and turn the nut, to adjust the spacing between the "stator" and "rotor" of the fuel cap. I'd bet if you turn the nut a few threads counter-clockwise, you'll find you can twist the cap to close it when the standard O-ring is installed. Keep adjusting until you get the desired feel, then re-install the cotter pin. If you're swapping O-rings, make sure you swap the little one in the center of the shaft, not just the big one being discussed here.

In 16 years of ownership, we've chased several popping/crackling/whining noises. Looked at alternators, voltage regulators, etc. In the end, every single one of these gremlins turned out to be a loose ground connection, fixed by tightening or replacing a screw. It's a pain to look "everywhere" and chase them down, but it's inexpensive/free to look. So I strongly concur with Andy95W's advice. Check the grounds first. If you don't find anything, check again before pursuing other ideas.

Not regulatory to do it every 100 hours, agreed. However, while maintainers are not obligated to follow the schedule in a Service manual, they are obligated to follow the techniques in the service manual any time a service is performed. So if you ever lubricate a post-J airframe (and note that doing so is required by they annual inspection guide), you must follow the rod-end lubrication guidance.

The Parts catalog Hank linked to won't have a reference for the PTT switch. For whatever reason, Mooney puts the electrical schematics and the part numbers for most electrical components in the Service Manual, not the Parts Manual. Worse yet, the schematics in the Service Manual don't cover any radio gear, including yoke-mounted PTT switches. I expect the best source for information is Mooney themselves. But note that you don't have to install the Mooney-specific part to be legal. Simple electrical switches are "standard parts" which can be replaced with a reasonable equivalent, just like standard bolts, nuts, etc. See https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-154.pdf Section 5.b(7)(b), which says: The FAA notified the public in the Federal Register on March 5, 1997 (62 FR 9923) that the interpretation of an acceptable U.S. Government- or industry-accepted specification may include specifications that may be limited to detailed performance criteria, complete testing procedures, and uniform marking criteria. These parts are best exemplified by discrete electrical and electronic parts, which include resistors, capacitors, diodes, transistors, and nonprogrammable integrated circuits (e.g., amplifiers, bridges, switches, gates, etc.).

A fair response, straight from the top. The fact that comments here were read and addressed, and some changes made as a result, matters a lot more than whether I agree with any particular decision. Thanks Jonny, I look forward to future posts here from MooneyTechSupport.

Your "before" photo on cylinder #4 looks like an intake valve, while the "after" photo looks like an exhaust valve. I've never seen an exhaust valve look as smooth and clean as your before #4, and I've never seen any kind of deposits on an intake valve like after #4. My WAG is you're looking at the two different valves in the cylinder.

0.6 L/H for me, like N201MKTurbo. But the number is skewed by sitting in the right seat monitoring other pilots' landings while instructing. I'm probably about 1 L/H in my personal flying.

Because the service manuals for the J and subsequent models were written after the AD was issued. Those service manuals have always required the lubrication in question, hence the issue is addressed for later models without the AD. Service manuals for the F and prior models were originally composed prior to the AD, and do not require the lubrication in question. The AD effectively modifies the lubrication guide of these service manuals. Note that later revisions of the service manual for the F and prior models do require the lubrication in question. One could argue the AD was made irrelevant when these revisions were published, but that assumes everyone has obtained and is following the later revisions. I don't think obtaining revision updates to service manuals is actually legally required, but compliance with ADs is.

I appreciate the effort that went into the new website, and much of it looks great. With that said, I have two constructive criticisms: 1) If strong support of existing customers is a primary goal, then access to technical documentation is the most important component of the web site. I share Mike's opinion on this - the current implementation gets a B- from me. I didn't have a lot of trouble finding the service bulletins, but it's a couple of clicks deep from the main page, and it's not searchable. I'm also not particularly happy with the icon grid layout you get once you select a model. It's slow to come up, hard to read, and requires more scrolling than necessary. This is a common mistake on the web: prioritizing the cosmetic appearance of data sets over their actual usability. A better approach would be a simple text table, instead of grid with icons. More readable, more usable, less scrolling. 2) I think the Air Traffic forum is a mistake. It's presence suggests Mooney thinks there should be an "official" Mooney discussion forum which they control, and the header introducing the forum confirms it: their terms, their login names, restricted only to owners, etc. I'm am trying to be amicable about this rather than being a Mooneyspace bigot; but I can't help but find it off-putting. If Mooney wants to support current owners with meaningful forum interaction, they should meet us where we are (which is here), rather than asking us to come to them. More importantly, setting up, administrating, and moderating a web forum is a skill set I would prefer that Mooney not spend energy on. It's a distraction from other things that are more important for the company. Why not just partner with Mooneyspace, at least informally? Setting up a whole different web forum strikes me as a solution in search of a problem, and something that is likely to sow discord and ill-will in the existing community.

Not as bad as you describe, but we have had occasional issues. Over the course of a decade, one sample was lost entirely, and another disappeared and was rediscovered by USPS after over a month. The complete loss occurred before tracking was added to the pre-paid labels, no idea what happened to it. The lost-and-found case was the result of a tenacious USPS employee who I interacted with via e-mail, who eventually convinced an employee at a distribution facility to look multiple times in the equivalent of the dead-letter office for packages. Said employee was familiar with oil samples, and said - as Blackstone themselves does - that mail which is obviously oil samples is sometimes incorrectly routed for hazmat handling. I think putting the container in a "normal" box has less to do with the little plastic container, and more to do with avoiding some misinformed-but-well-intentioned USPS employee from saying, "this looks like it contains oil, I better pull it out of the normal processing chain". In all other cases, I wouldn't call completion of the testing "rapid", but I always assumed this had as much to do with Blackstone's backlog as it did with shipping time. Perhaps I'm mistaken about that. The only time I've bothered to look at the tracking info in detail is the aforementioned disappearance.