DXB

I have two CiES senders in my C with 27.4 gallon/side bladders. You need 2 senders.

I don't know what the QT guy has said, but it's hard to take anyone seriously who would make such a claim. It is simply a bald-faced lie if it's coming from someone with even basic understanding of sound physics and hearing physiology. The true believers blabbering on Youtube about this issue seem largely to be scientifically illiterate members the tin foil hat brigade. The kernel of truth in it is that ANR does not cancel sound perfectly, and a phase error in the cancellation could increase sound intensity under certain conditions - but in reality, this hardly ever happens with modern ANR tech in real world use conditions. As evidence of cancelling imperfection, one may also cite the faint hiss heard in ANR headphones in absence of external sound - but this very low sound level poses no risk. Some have also claimed discomfort experienced with ANR in quiet environment as evidence of it being dangerous. That discomfort largely arises from tinnitus becoming unmasked in very quiet environment - but experience of that high pitched "sound" is a byproduct of our out neural circuitry trying to compensate for high frequency hearing loss, not a result of a real noise reaching the ear. One could also legitimately argue that loud sounds outside the efficient ANR range pose greater threat with ANR headphones than passive ones. For instance, the Bose A20 ANR is so efficient at blocking lower frequency noise that they reduce the clamping force of the headset significantly in order to increase comfort. That reduced clamping force would make them inferior to a simple passive headset in a high frequency noise environment and far inferior to QT Halos and other passive ear canal insert headsets. It also means that if the batteries in your A20s die, they make for lousy passive hearing protection. But the simple fact is that our planes produce almost all their noise in the ANR range of the A20 and similar products, and so their inability to block high frequencies is irrelevant. I've read that they may be a suboptimal choice for turbines and radials because of their higher frequency sound spectrum, but I haven't delved into the details there.

This statement should be enshrined somewhere on Mooneyspace. It has been a perpetual source of confusion for folks, including me. The subjective severity of the strike might be a reasonable guide for how far one goes - some very minor contacts that don't trash the prop still meet the Lycoming definition of a strike: "Sudden RPM drop on impact to water, tall grass, or similar yielding medium where propeller damage does not usually occur." A strike that led to replacing the prop however may be severe enough to merit the full monty. And if someone else owned the plane when it happened, it could be very hard to figure out how bad it was.

If the departing traffic indicated he was staying in the pattern and was on the upwind before you were established on the downwind, I think it was your responsibility to give way to that traffic, which is already part of the pattern. I don’t think being on a long extended downwind at that point makes you of the pattern yet. Your direct downwind pattern entry is also nonstandard and would seem only to increase the onus on you to give way to any traffic already in the pattern. The warrior’s main deficiency seems to be not having made all the standard position reports.

(1) unfamiliar high performance plane (2) unfamiliar panel (3) unfamiliar topography (3) IFR in IMC (4) icing conditions. The additive effect of these factors could saturate the cognitive bandwidth for even an experienced and capable pilot. I would imagine CFIT has been made less common by all the terrain awareness tools we have in the cockpit these days, but task saturation can certainly keep one from using all the resources at hand. My comments are still highly speculative of course at this point. My sincere condolences to the family .

Thanks!! I think these are the main takeaways that were emerging from this thread, and having them reaffirmed by someone with ATC background is super helpful.

Another simple, elegant, elongating paint scheme on a short body, also owned by someone here. I'm now using this thread to collect paint schemes that I like in one place. My paint is starting to get kinda beat up

I'm as CB as the next guy, but I'd skip it unless you can get the measurements for the antenna pockets off of the cover for sale and confirm they match your plane exactly. When you order a new cover, it is custom made based on your measurements of antenna locations. The hassle of altering a cover from another plane to move these pockets probably isn't worth the savings.

Increased EGT on a single cylinder plus: - reduced CHT => fouled plug? - increased CHT => partly clogged injector? induction leak? - nothing else changes => possibly the probe

Great question - once heated, my oil in flight never seems to drop below about 178 even on the coldest day - I'd assumed that was the reason.

I have a modicum of professional background in hearing physiology, though I wouldn't call myself an expert. When I started flying, I was worried about hearing protection. Cockpit noise is certainly loud enough to cause noise-induced hearing loss in the long term, and I have a family history of severe hearing loss with aging (termed high frequency sensorineural hearing loss - what makes it harder to converse in a crowded room as we get older). I got a Clarity Aloft headset with foam plugs (same passive technology as Halo and a couple others). They were cheaper than high end ANR, and they were much more light and comfortable. I also believed from a shallow understanding of the topic that they provided equal or better speech intelligibility in flight and long term protection against noise-induced hearing loss. But my high frequency hearing is now on the decline, and parties are no longer fun. I have tinnitus, and I'm thinking about hearing aids while still in my 40s. I also sometimes struggle to understand ATC, and so I decided to dig deeper. My original reasoning behind headset selection was wrong! Six key background facts: (1) The audible frequency range for humans is 20-20,000 Hz. (2) Hearing in the1000-4000 Hz range is important for understanding speech. (3) Concurrent background noises, even if below 1000 Hz, still significantly degrade speech intelligibility. (4) Loud cockpit noise is almost entirely below 1000 Hz. (Figure 1). (5) Foam plug/earmold headsets provide superior protection vs. ANR in the high frequencies, but clearly inferior protection vs. ANR in the low frequency range where all the serious cockpit noise happens (Figure 2). (6) Noise induced hearing loss always starts in the high frequencies (save for a couple obscure diseases) - typically starting around 4000-8000 Hz and working its way lower across the human speech range (Figure 3). That is true whether the damaging noise exposure is in the range of speech or below that range. Even loud low frequency noise below the lowest audible frequency (20 Hz) is destructive. The takeaway: (1) If you want a light comfortable headset, Halos, Clarity Alofts, etc. are hard to beat. (2) If you want optimal speech intelligibility in the cockpit, the ability of high end ANR headsets to cancel low frequency background noise makes them superior. (3) If you want to protect your hearing from irreversibly damaging cockpit noise, the ANR headsets also seem superior to me.

@Jim Peace thanks for posting this - I have the identical issue on STEC30+GTN650 w/GPSS through Aspen PFD. I'd been too lazy to figure it out, but now I don't have to.

I agree and have all of the above, including a Stratus to drive FF - terrific battery life on that. I would add a connector for your handheld radio to ships antenna. Ultimate peace of mind however would be knowing your panel avionics will stay intact enough for 30+ minutes so you can shoot an RNAV approach if needed. To do that, you need your panel GPS, which doesn't have backup battery. Unfortunately your glass PFD etc is also going to draw down that same battery at the same time until voltage drops quite a bit and switches to backup - thus competing with a crucial component needed to get out of trouble if there's widespread IMC. I think there's no real substitute for obsessing about your ships battery life if you want the full freedom that the IR provides in our single battery, single alternator planes.

Load tests measure cold cranking amps - what is measured by a typical cheap automotive battery tester - basically current delivered in a short burst upon initial demand, not current delivered over a period of time (capacity). The CCA spec for our batteries are lower than for an automotive battery however. But if CCA is even mildly below spec for that particular battery, then it is in really bad shape and would dismally fail capacity testing. On researching further, a proper battery capacity tester seems to cost at least 2.5 amu, and I have as yet to work with a shop that had invested in one. Then there are makeshift versions out there of dubious accuracy, and I am not especially handy at putting such things together. For the cost of a real capacity tester, I could buy about 8 Concorde batteries for my bird. I think maybe keeping mine on a battery minder at all times and automatically replacing every 5 years or so may be a good compromise position.

I got my PPL and my Mooney at the tender age of 40. After 75 hours in a Piper Warrior for my PPL, the Mooney initially felt like fire breathing monster with uncontrollable speed when one wants to land. 10 hours later it becomes pretty manageable but still not really natural. 50-100 hours later it becomes mostly second nature, and one's zone of comfort with the plane continues to widen incrementally with effort after that. However, even from the first hour, the Mooney makes your trainer feel like a complete piece of junk in comparison. Mooney pilot friends don't let friends fly C172s!!

What the guys above said. Air that's picked up the carb/cabin heat air intake at the back right of the doghouse and pushed through the muffler shroud gets dumped overboard by the open butterfly valve when carb heat is not in use. It's a weird system that can be tricky to maintain, but it sounds like yours is working correctly. The system changed in '68 to take out the trouble-prone butterfly valve, as detailed in the article linked above.

I have a 12V system and a Concorde RG35A, which is always on battery minder when in the hangar. It's going strong I think after >5 years of Philly hot summers and cold winters. A caveat is that I don't do a formal capacity test, and I doubt one has ever been done at annual. I do use a cheap automotive battery tester that measures cold cranking amps. It's quick and easy and has some value in detecting a really weak battery but may not give much information before then. In an era of Sureflys, the Battery Minder has extra value because there is a slight draw from the Surefly even when the master is off. If your battery is not on a charger and you have a Surefly, it's a good idea to pull the 10A fuse from the Surefly system to prevent the draw if the plane has to sit for weeks. I think someone here mentioned that a Battery Minder may mask a dying battery by always having it topped off right before you start, and I think that is a good point. Before I do my annual automotive battery tester evaluation, I leave it off the minder for a week. I do think it's bonkers to try to milk a battery to the very end of its life, particularly for single battery/alternator planes. There is the risk of getting stranded, but more importantly, when the charging system dies in flight (and mine has), a battery with good capacity might save your life. I'm curious what's a good bus voltage for a 12V system - mine reads 14.0-14.1V on the JPI. Does the ideal voltage regulator setting depend slightly on the battery being used? Overcharging could certainly reduce life.

Just got my renewal quote - mine went down ~10% this year after ~40% increase last year. I think I'm maxed out for total hours, time in type, retract hours, IFR etc. so I agree it is mainly the market. Also changed brokers this year just to see what would happen, but I doubt that's a major contributor. Oddly Global continues to quote the lowest rate year after year for me - they may be the last insurance company that thinks our business is worth the trouble.

I use Va in turbulence that is unpleasant enough to make me wish I hadn't gone flying that day. I have no idea if that's the best approach. The rest of the time, I keep it under 175mph IAS in my '68C. The bottom of the yellow arc in my plane is 150mph but changed to 175mph in '69 without a related structural change to justify the increase, so I am partial to the higher limit.

There’s air in the system- you can bleed it which is a tricky chore - or just top off reservoir - then pump the handle about a million times quickly without the flap tab in the down position. Most of the air will come out of the system and it will take just 4 pumps. If you have significant leaks, deal with them after doing this.

Related thoughts: 1. Nothing matters more than the specific individual turning wrenches on the plane. After a couple of sketchy (albeit partly positive) MSC experiences, the non-MSC shop that I subsequently grew to trust for annuals did excellent, fairly priced work for me 4 years in a row. The 5th year, their work was complete trash, as was the subsequent customer service to remediate - turns out it was only a particular IA there who deserved my trust (BTW thanks Jeff Vamos), and he didn't do the annual the 5th year. 2. A shop that lets me talk to the actual person doing the work at every step is vastly preferable to a place that forces me to communicate with a service manager. I will flat out refuse to deal with outfits that do the latter going forward. 3. No matter how good the A&P doing the work is, there is no substitute for the customer developing a more than superficial understanding of the item being addressed and congenially engaging the A&P in discussion about it. 4. The landing gear, control rigging, and trim system deserve someone who knows the Mooney specific details intimately. There are people at some MSCs who are total nincompoops with this stuff. And there are some very knowledgeable people outside MSCs who do this Mooney-specific stuff well - e.g. @jetdriven who did my annual last year. 5. The people you need to do the stuff under #4 may sometimes not be the best people to do some other types of work, and there is no single individual who has stellar skills to address every possible issue with your plane. The very best A&Ps have idiosyncratic blind spots and misconceptions like the rest of us, and so it's worth changing up who does the annual periodically. Fresh eyes do make a big difference, and when they catch stuff, that doesn't mean the person who regularly works on your plane is bad necessarily.

I found MVA charts to be inscrutable when I did recently try to look at them - I doubt there are many pilots who know how to extract useful info from them when planning a flight. And I'm not sure I even knew about MIA, which seems like a similar or distinct concept - perhaps the more useful one in non terminal areas? In regard to icing risk, all I want to know is (1) the highest a controller might be forced to send me on my filed or assigned route (2) how to plan and effectively obtain a route that keeps me below at or below a safe altitude if feasible. I clearly got it wrong the other day, and it seems like several other folks are unclear on that definitions, concepts, and resources that are relevant to these goals as well. If you are ATC, your guidance might prove very helpful here.

My favorite short body vintage scheme, redone with a modern color aesthetic. I think it's owned by someone here...

FWIW I've had no wheel well clearance issues with Desser Monsters on my mains (I have an M20C though). The tread is so beefy that it might last for the rest of my flying days. I have standard tread on my nose wheel, which I think would have clearance issues with monsters.

FWIW, I have the fixed shoulder harness without the inertial reel and have never noticed an issue with working the J-bar - I don't need to lean forward to use it, and the harness keeping my upper body fixed actually provides nice stability while yanking the thing back. It does need to be unclipped for me to change tanks and to reach across to close the door prior to takeoff on a hot day, so the intertial reel might provide a bit of benefit there.