David_H

Perhaps this is why some have referred to their planes as being their "mistress." Just add money and presto... Stop adding money and no more suction...

It might be worth checking with Muncie Aviation. I've had good experiences with their Avionics work in the past.

Recall that Pressure = (Force/Area). The Manifold Pressure Gauge never "knows" what the cross-sectional area is upstream from the measurement... only the force applied to the calibrated surface area at the gauge. Diameter changes upstream from a Pressure Gauge have no effect on a static pressure source measurement.

A GOOD set of screwdrivers is helpful. Cheap screwdrivers and Mooneys do not go well together.

I completely overlooked the OAT feature on the GT-50.

A Davtron M803 is now on the way. It'll occupy the space that the M303 currently resides in. I probably would have selected the GT-50 if it wouldn't have been for the OAT. The GT-50 really looks to be the best deal of the bunch.

A Stratus USB Charging Port is also being installed in the panel. It seemed like it might be a good idea to keep the USB charging ports and the clock separated. I wouldn't want cables to be in the way if I were to want to time an approach.

A previous owner removed the original sweep clock from the panel. As such, I've been looking through threads to find opinions on clocks and haven't been able to find much that's recent. Feel free to let me know if I've overlooked a thread though. It would be nice to find a clock to go in the panel that will be IFR legal and usable. My current short-list is below. Any opinions, suggestions, or clocks to avoid? * Davtron M800: 800-14V, Illuminated Buttons, Battery Holder.... $300.00 * Flight Data GT-50.... $169.00 * EI SC-5 Superclock... $285.00 * EI ASC-5A Superclock... $580.00

Having a proprietary connector specified in an install manual... still makes it a connector. The type or brand of instrument is irrelevant. The installation manual is... an "Installation Manual" meant to provide installation instruction (not repair instruction.) An authorized instrument repair requires a different manual because it fulfills a different purpose. For IFR flight, a Pitot-Static check is required every 24 months. The Pitot-Static check requirement is not present for a return to service statement for VFR conditions. The fact that we are discussing IFR vs VFR Pitot-Static check requirements is also an indicator that a connector is part of the Pitot-Static system... not part of the instrument.

For a litmus test, one could ask a repair station if they need the fittings to repair a gyro instrument. Just to be completely certain, one might as well ask if they also need the Pitot tube as well. This could give some insight into what is considered an instrument repair. The instrument is connected to the pitot-static system via a fitting. The fitting is not a part of the instrument.

KTRI is just over the mountain from 0A9. The pilots likely had a compelling reason to land at 0A9 instead.

I'd be willing to supply the resources to generate a set of engineering data files that could be shared. A set of travel boards in good condition would be needed for measurement though.

The surrounding terrain at 0A9 can make a seemingly normal approach (or departure) challenging.

Did you use another set of Travel Boards to generate the CAD files? Any chance of you sharing the files? As you already know, this would be useful for others.

Very true. Would you be willing to share the data you have?

Just curious... Why would you want to make another set of Travel Boards if you already have a set?

^.... 100% accurate. It's disappointing to hear that Redline Aviation is passing the blame to Milwaukee instead of making things right.

I haven't personally checked the costs, but could easily see this being true. If so, that much of an "aviation maintenance tax" is appalling on every imaginable level. The engineering for the M20 series was done decades ago.

That's a less-than-useful support reply considering the less than pleasant "Aviation Markup" associated with the Milwaukee component.

In my mind, putting the files out there so others can make their own boards is the ideal scenario. Generating a set of engineering drawings so others can reproduce the boards isn't an issue. Either obtaining the data to generate the drawings or obtaining a set of travel boards for measurement purposes is required to make it happen. It's surprising that someone hasn't already posted the data needed to make a set. I can't imagine anyone making a fortune owning a set of travel boards.

The question wasn't likely missed. Unfortunately, there isn't one correct answer since every plane has it's own unique story. Some planes are overpriced, some are priced well, and others are simply misrepresented. Cutting through the chaff takes an enormous amount of willpower and effort. Finding the real story of a plane can prove to be an expensive educational undertaking consuming large amounts of both time and finances. One never knows the real story of a plane until they have to begin wrenching on it... or begin stroking the checkbook so someone else will wrench on it.

John... I sent you a message with my contact info.

I read several threads on travel boards and this one appears to be the most recent on the topic. Was anyone able to come across data that could be used to reproduce the boards? If not, does anyone have a set that could be used to produce a duplicate a set?

@Alan Fox : Are you certain you have the right thread? I've gotten threads crossed up in the past and replied to the wrong one as well. This one appears to be a post from a member looking for help... and other members trying to help get him back in the air.

Why would the local A&P not sign off on a battery box repair? It's a battery box. There are no moving parts.