DXB

Huh. I drank the BatteryMinder coolaid and thus find this bulletin from Concorde distressing. But do we know the BatteryMinder trickle charger /desulfator has this issue described with "maintenance chargers"? I don't know much about electrons so need some expert guidance...

The Surefly is sealed by an integral O-ring and doesn't require a gasket per manufacturer install manual.

Wish I could say the same. A couple of months after my Surefly was first installed, I started noticing a few drips of oil on my nosewheel tire after each flight without an obvious source. After 3 or 4 instances of this, I took a much closer look. Glad I didn't wait longer :/

Meh. I suspect WOT power difference is trivial here. 2600-2650 is about what I get since installing a new PCU-5000 governor a few years back. It behaves identically before and after an engine overhaul last year - so I don't think the engine is underperforming. The tight quarters to adjust the fine pitch stop screw on the governor have made it seem not worth the trouble. Also, if there's real evidence of that a 50-100rpm difference in pitch at WOT makes a more than trivial power difference for my O-360, I'm sure about to be corrected in great detail , and if so I'll fix it at annual...

@EarthX Inc It's good to see this technology advancing for our 12V system planes. I will consider it for my M20C when my currrent Concorde 35AXC warrants raplacement. However, the 15 amp-hr capacity of your battery vs. the 33 amp-hrs of my current battery still leaves me a bit wary. When the charging system fails on our planes (a common event), high battery capacity becomes a critical safety feature for us.

Honestly it was 7 years ago when it was put in - I don't recall my A&P mentioning any installation challenges but that is only modest assurance for you.

FWIW simply updating the Foreflight app on the ipad fixed a similar problem connecting to a portable ads-b receiver for me

the real benefit is having all route changes on your panel GPS automatically update on your ipad - try it and you won't ever want to go back!

Thanks - this detail lowered my BP a bit since I've gone the portable receiver route for ads-b in for the last 11 years and am perfectly happy doing it this way.

A few notes about foam plug passive headsets (Halo, Clarity Aloft, whatever) that have garnered praise in this thread: - Many folks, including me, find them more comfortable overall than an over the ear headset - I used one for years until my hearing started waning, and I took a deep dive into the data on noise attenuation by foam plugs. - Their high frequency noise attenuation is excellent, superior to over the ear passive headsets, on par with good active noise cancellation headsets - Their low frequency noise attenuation is poor, certainly no better than a cheap passive over the ear headset - In contrast to jets, the serious, hearing damaging noise made by our piston planes is in the lower part of the spectrum, which is protected poorly by foam plugs - The low frequency noise in our Mooneys is destructively loud and adds cumulative damage to hearing each time we fly with a passive headset, be it over the ear or foam plug-based. The decreased fatigue with a good ANR headset is also dramatic vs. any passive headset. I very much regret the 7 years or so that I spent flying with a foam plug headset. I recall seeing Phil McCandless, founder of Quiet Techologies (Halo headsets), at Oshkosh this year standing under a banner saying something like "ANR quality sound attenuation at a fraction of the cost." For piston planes, this is egregiously false advertisting that is contributing to lasting hearing damage for pilots like us. Dr. McCandless also has a doctorate in audiology and should certainly know better. His website also contains various related falsehoods. Here's an old thread that contains links to relevant data:

Adding a Powerflow produces a subtantial increase in power in the carb'd C, less so in the fuel injected birds. My experience after adding the Powerflow was that it puts it in E territory. As others mention, this comes with more heat - this has taken a while for me to sort. Ultimately, a careful rebuild of the baffling at time of overhaul did the trick for the most part, and I can now even run it hard with the Surefly advancing timing in cruise with temps under control. I'm pretty sure this setup will even outrun a stock E. Advantages of the E: There's no question the angled valve IOs are easier to keep running cool, and you can save some fuel by running deep lean of peak in a way that's impossible in a carb'd plane, no carb heat to mess with Advantages of the C: Slightly more bullet proof fuel system with no clogged injector or fuel servo drama, no hot start drama, and also substantially cheaper cylinder / overhaul costs As a rank amateur with no appetite for engine drama, I gotta give a (slight) edge to my carb'd C...

I agree regarding opinion of Rob at KOXC in Waterbury CT. But like you're based in NY, not New England...and I'm very close to both of you in Mooney travel time here Philly PA. Maybe it should be the mid Atlantic and New England forum....

Category includes losing mags, which I suspect comprise the vast majority.

Certification for the E-mag has been a year or two away for more than a decade. Maybe Hartzell's acquision of E-mag provides a real possibility of it now, but these timelines are always much slower than billed across aviation.

Interestingly I also trained in a Warrior II for my PPL 11 years ago, just before getting my M20C. Biggest difference I recall is that the Warrior pitches up upon applying flaps whereas the Mooney pitches down. In either case its helpful to get it back in trim at a safe airspeed before entering a turn. Then one can not apply any back pressure and simply let the nose sink in the turn so that AOA, airspeed, and stall speed all stay constant.