DXB

Just be glad you don't live in Philly- did my homework and thought I'd be paying the 6% Pennsylvania rate, then got the bill for 2% higher because I live in Philly. At least Pennsylvania did away with tax on maintenance and avionics recently.

Getting rid of the step is an interesting idea, given how low our planes sit. Mine has a fixed step. Has anyone done this and how do they like it? Also must be good for at least 10 kts I bet

Yeah I considered doing this and then getting a TSO'd digital AI to stay IFR cert., but I'm in it for too much money already. The unit cost plus $400 mandatory battery replacements every two years end up being much more than maintaining the vac for now, even though it will just drive the AI, which is recently overhauled. Maybe after the part 23 rewrite...

Sure- will let you know- not sure why it's inop when I bought it but servos were overhauled in 2011 so might be in decent shape.

My still fairly new to me '68C started life with an impressive useful load of 1050 lbs but is now old and obese, with only 888 lb officially (though the accounting is sketchy in parts). Previous additions that are here to stay are bladders, 201 wing tips, and cowl closure. I figure there's a good amount of added weight behind the panel , and it's about to get the panel redone this summer (STEC-30, G650, Aspen PFD among other stuff). I'd like to hear ideas and experience on how to maximize the useful load gains before it gets reweighed at the end of this. My current thoughts are: 1. removing all Brittain wing leveler components (nonfunctional) will help 2. obviously removing the rest of the old engine gauges and panel components, along with any orphaned wiring 3. headrests from the front/rear seats (these aren't all that comfortable anyway) 4. Maybe get rid of the overhead speaker and handheld mic input? Will I ever actually use these for anything?? 5. I should try to drop 10lbs myself- seems only fair given what I'm asking of my plane. Anything else likely to be hiding in this plane that should be torn out?

KT-74 is around 2500, and is plug and play for KT76A, plus 1 extra connection to existing GPS gives ADS-b out (could skip the connection for now but be set up to take care of ADS-b compliance easily later) . Might be an opportunity to kill a couple birds with one stone.

Thanks Chris. Great to meet you and always appreciate the input from the experienced folks here!

As far as I know, it's just me and my humble '68 C at KPNE. If there's another lurking in a hangar somewhere on the field please make yourself known.

Ok time to revive this thread. I replaced the door seals on my 68 'C recently- initially this made the door hard to close, but now it's settled down to something reasonable. However on two recent flights, the door popped open. I simply put up with the noise and cold for two hours (kinda opposite of what I was going for with the door seal replacement). The second time I had paid extra attention to securing the door, but it happened anyway. Both times it happened right after I leveled off for cruise and picked up speed. Yesterday, I examined the mechanism to the best of my ability and nothing was clearly damaged- I wondered if all the pressure required for the new seals initially hurt something, but I am not versed in the mechanics of it. And on my 30 minute flight yesterday it did not come open, after playing with it obsessively before the flight without figuring out what was wrong. Is there anything in particular I should look for here? It's bound to scare a passenger sometime soon.

Ha! And some other good feedback here from Hank, Bob-S50 and others that I will definitely refer back to.

I was thinking the same- I've been working to get the trim right on final with full flaps, and it is always significantly nose up relative to takeoff position. For go-around, I would expect to need to push the nose down until I have a chance to retrim.

I've also been working on my door seals, which were ancient and falling off on my C model. Also being a CB, I went with Jose's exact posted seal first- way too thick and stiff for my plane, and I could never get the door shut. Part of the problem is that my door doesn't exactly have the fit and finish of a modern day car- uneven gap widths all the way around. It's taken lots of trial and error, using different thicknesses of seal at different spots. Also the adhesion to the old, crusted glue on the door was poor, and I wasn't sure how to get it off safely and efficiently. Right now it is sealed with 2 different thicknesses of a thinner (3/8" wide), softer seal applied to the plane side, not the door itself. Even with that, required my door be left shut for a couple of weeks before the closing forces came down to something reasonable. At least I'm pretty sure the water will stay out. I'd like to swap out for a wider seal based on my initial experiences, cleaning off the glue on the door and matching the thickness of seal used at different spots to the width of the gap. I thought this would be easier than it has been, and I'm still not happy with it. Suggestions welcomed. At least the baggage door and pilot window seals were easy to redo.

Funniest lookin' Mooney I ever seen...

"Shock cooling (or the myth of) has been discussed ad nauseum. I will simply say that if you don't let your engine get hot, then how can it be shock cooled? Perhaps there's some merit to the theory for high strung turbos at 25,000 feet, but I have my doubts. I've done a number of "Stuka" approaches (some at ATCs request) in my bird with no evidence of damage from shock cooling" I wonder about this issue too. I think I heard Mike Busch say somewhere that as long as CHTs stay above 250, then definitely it's no big deal? I honestly haven't watched to see how low it goes in a steeper descent with low power.

Thank you Urs. I'll ask about the STEC 55X- Looks like cost with install around here is around 5000-7000 more. It would be nice but my budget has grown well beyond my initial intentions already. Did you get the Altitude arm/capture on yours? When I look on the Aspen website, they seem to offer it here only for the KFC-200 autopilot. You're probably right- I think I'll be able to get over losing my analog VSI for the Aspen one...

As a new 110 hr pilot who transitioned to the C model 20 hours ago, I feel now decently comfortable getting from point A to point B and planning my descents in a way that is specific to this plane (I plan 4mi/1000 ft, 135-160mph, 500 ft/min, or a bit steeper if ending up high toward the end). 1-3 miles before entering the pattern, I do have to pull throttle way back and level off to get speed to 120 so I can drop the gear. This feels like the most inelegant part of my descent, and I'm not sure how compatible it would be with an instrument approach, since I have no exposure to the latter. My overall question is what habits should I focus on breaking, developing, or retaining right now that might ease my eventual instrument training? I probably won't get to start until next year sometime, but I hope to do a decent amount of flying between now and then and hope to have the right airplane handling skills (Mooney specific ones or in general) when the time comes. I know holding accurate altitude and heading is key, but what else? Should I practice using VORs whenever I can?

Congrats on the new panel, and it looks like your plane is rather fast for a C model! Despite the extra European regulatory challenges, it actually now appears that you will get relief from a CS-23 (FAR Part 23 equivalent) rewrite to cut avionics certification costs in Europe well before us in the States. BTW, I am about to dump a similar amount of money into the panel of my C model, and the change to the standard 6-pack panel that I'm considering is nearly identical to yours (excepting using the STEC-30 for turn coordinator). Have you been ok with losing your VSI spot to the backup AI? I have been hesitating on this.

IMG_0483.MOV This is an example of the float that >80 mph gives me (I think this one was closer to 85?). I guess I can live with it for strong gusts, but otherwise too much work. BTW, no need to critique my sloppy overcorrection of drift for the R crosswind here - will start another thread on it if I don't get better...

I just finished 10 hrs transition into a C model with a Mooney instructor, and I have 10 hrs solo subsequently, so the plane is still new to me. Being spot on 80mph at full flaps just before round-out always gave me good results during training. Since then I've played with the envelope around the 80mph POH number a bit more and had some bad landings. At least in my plane, the 70-75mph range creates very minimal float, and I'm scared of anything slower. It seems fine keep it above 75mph, as landing distance seems no issue in the 75-80 range. 85mph gave me a substantial but manageable float. I did one at 90, when I probably should have gone around. I couldn't hold it off accurately for long enough, had a single big bounce, recovered ok by adding some power, keeping the nose up, and waiting it out. I suspect 80mph carries the best all around compromise between reasonable landing distance and a safety margin for gusts. Doubt I'll ever be using a very short field, so probably no reason to approach slower than 75-80mph. Is there ever a time someone would consider approaching faster than 80mph intentionally?

I had assumed the Aspen just calculates from its digitized pressure altitude, not GPS altitude, and then filters out calculated values <100 to keep it from being too twitchy? In principle this would seem more accurate and responsive than a regular VSI or even an IVSI, but then also give up a bit of redundancy by making it subject to malfunction in the pressure altimeter.

Very nice- congrats! There are some details here that I hadn't considered until now, as I plan my own panel upgrade, including a panel mounted handheld radio input and a gear airspeed switch. It would be great to hear thoughts on these and other nice details. Is the latter an override for the gear position horn? [sorry- never mind on this, I just looked it up- not relevant to my manual gear]

Great input guys- the kind of feedback I want before I write an uncomfortably large check. The person I'm working with did seem to be able to do a left-sided JPI install, but I do see your point- most of the JPI functions belong further away. It's really just the power settings that I find too attention-diverting right now with the old analog gauges- this is what made me want to put it on the left. The RAD addresses this issue and also makes room to have the AI close and keep the VSI for now. Modified layout attached, and I welcome any further critique. Agree placing the nav2 CDI to the right of the radio stack is suboptimal, but it's really just a backup to the HSI on the Aspen? Maybe if I get used to using the Aspen VSI, the nav2 CDI can move left replace the old VSI without much expense.

Thanks for all the input- sounds like varied opinion from experienced Aspen users on whether to keep or ditch the old VSI. There is quite a bit of room to move the radio stack to the left before it interferes with the yoke, and it makes sense to me to move things that are used constantly as close as possible. But this means ditching the VSI. Can't say I looked at the VSI much in primary training, but learning to plan my descents carefully during the Mooney transition got me rather attached to it. I include two panel options below (with and without VSI), plus a panel of a friend who has moved his radio stack to the left, showing this to be a workable setup. In contrast to his setup, I do really want the JPI 900 monitor close by on the far left- I really dislike how far away the engine gauges are in the stock install. The vacuum driven backup AI will be the dinosaur in this otherwise modern panel unfortunately. I would love to tear out the vacuum pump, but the panel mount electronic backup AI options don't seem worth it until the regs catch up to make them cheaper, particularly as there are perfectly reliable and cheap non-panel mount AIs available as a real backup. For less than the cost of a battery replacement on a certified panel mount unit, I can keep the vacuum pump running for now. Hopefully the regs will change before my old AI needs overhaul.

I plan on putting in an Aspen PFD in an install that keeps my ASI, turn coordinator (STEC30 install), altimeter, and VSI in a basic 6 pack around it. My radio stack then moves to the immediate right of this configuration, and the required backup vacuum AI was going to be exiled to the right of the radio stack. I plan to use the AHRS off the Stratus 2 / yoke ipad as my real backup, so the vacuum AI is of minimal interest to me. So I met today with the avionics guy who will likely do my new panel install this summer to review plans. He says the regs for IFR cert don't let me have the AI so far away. He suggested instead dumping my VSI and putting the AI in its place. I'm rather fond of my VSI, and I hear the VSI on the Aspen isn't the best. Does anyone know about how far the AI can be from ones line of sight? Any other suggestions? I'm reading part 23 for the info but haven't found it - at least it's helping me get to sleep.

I've finally settled on JPI900 for my pending new panel install, after careful consideration of EI CGR30 also. The latter came very close to the functionality but was couple was short just a couple of primary instruments - would have had to find other TSO'd fuel gauges in addition. The larger JPI930 might be nice if further from line of site. I plan to mount the 900 close- vertical orientation at the far left of panel.