MikeOH

I have the 430W (WASS). Garmin site is pretty clear you are buying Nav data for their 430W. But, I am beginning to think you are right that the Jep card is different and can't be programmed by the Garmin programmer. I'm trying to confirm that I'm now faced with buying a Garmin Nav data card, on top of all the money I've already spent!! I should have just updated the nav data with Jep, and left it at that.

I sure would appreciate help in understanding if I'm totally hosed... First time trying to update the data cards in my 430W. Previous owner used Jeppesen. I, perhaps stupidly, decided to buy the Garmin bundle with Terrain, Obstacles, and Nav. Bought the $70 Garmin Data Card programmer. Stumbled through all the software hurdles (I have an old Windows XP machine). Managed to get the Terrain Data card programmed with terrain and obstacles, but no joy with the Nav Data! While the Nav Data card has GARMIN molded into the plastic case, the SILVER label says Jeppesen at the very bottom (also has Garmin Corporation printed on it). Is that why I can't program it? If so, can I use the Jeppesen adaptor, or will that only work if I buy the data from Jep??? HELP!! Please!!

I believe the problem is solved. Pin U on the control box connector had low resistance to the chassis. Per the control box schemati that Marauder kindly supplied (Thank you!!) that should NOT be the case. In fact, if I made sure the control box did NOT touch the aircraft frame the CB no longer tripped. While coincidental to the shop working on the plane, the proble was unrelated to anything they did. It was a manufacturing defect that took nearly 50 years to manifest itself! As you can see (somewhat) in the attached photos, there is a rubber insulated Adel clamp holding a bundle of wires. Careful examination revelealed that a single wire, the one going to pin U, had been clamped between the metal portion of the Adel clamp and the control box' metal chassis rather than having been properly routed inside the insulated portion of the clamp. Vibration eventually wore through the insulation and caused pin U to be shorted to ground.... on the second flight after the shop worked on the plane! Thanks for everyone's input!

Looks like all the pins that are 'grounded' are connections to bulbs; so, the low resistance is expected. Tracing the gear warning circuit from the circuit breaker (20PB03E) on schematic WE-3 (page 9-102) ends up going to pin U on the control box. Next step is to see if that pin has a low resistance to ground. If so, that's likely the issue.

Today's progress: I removed the control box from the panel; not without some minor issues...the overlay has to be removed to access the mounting screws and the knob comes off with two set screws, and the push to test button unscrews. That still wasn't enough! The 1/4 turn panel fasteners had to be released and then the panel tipped finally provided clearance to remove the box. I also ohmed every pin of the mating connector (plane side, NOT the box side) to ground and wrote down the pins that showed close to zero ohms. Now, to the plane schematic to see if all of those pins should have a path to ground.

Thanks! But, to be accurate the Gear Warning CB trips when the gear is UP or DOWN; doesn't matter.

Thanks, Marauder, but that's somewhat different than my '70. Most significantly, your gear warning lights (gear up, gear down) are directly driven. In my '70 the lights are driven by the 'control box' whose schematic I seek.

I spent some time this afternoon troubleshooting. The breaker tripping goes away when I disconnect the connectors (20LP04A) to the "control box" (20LP05A). So, I'm pretty sure the issue is within the 'control box.' Further, when I took off and brought the gear up, I remember hearing a weird buzzing sound for a few seconds. Examination of the top of the 'control module' finds two 2N3055 transistors (TO-3 case) mounted. The collector (case) wires are loose! And, one has evidence of arcing! I'm thinking that was the buzzing I heard and, if so, it is likely that the associated 2N3055 is now shorted (collector to emitter) as the case is isolated from ground by a mica insulating washer. Does anyone have the schematic for the 20LP05A 'control box?' This is the item that has the panel light dimmer and light sensor right under the glare shield above the pilot's instruments.

HAH! It's getting to be my bedtime even here on the west coast. Thanks, again!

No. Unfortunately, the F's electrical gear has these kind of odd rectangular indicator lights arranged in a vertical stack. The light above the gear selector switch is amber illuminated when the gear is up, and the light just below the gear selector switch is the green gear down light. They are not at all like the twistable 'iris' type in the earlier planes. Yeah, time to start tracing wires....

Thanks! I suspect a bare wire somewhere; it's a pretty solid short given the breaker trips as fast as I take my finger off of it. I was thinking it was something behind the panel since the shop had just had the panel apart...but, that may well be an unwarranted assumption. I just don't believe in coincidences, I guess!

I'm probably not understanding, but it is NOT the landing gear actuator breaker tripping, it is the gear warning system breaker.

1970 M20F Just had the static system/transponder/encoder check done. Panel was pulled apart looking for static system leak (found & fixed). Short flight home, gear and gear down light worked fine. Next flight when I put the gear down the green gear down did NOT illuminate. I checked the CB and found it tripped; I reset and it immediately tripped again. (NOTE: I checked it at pre-flight and it was NOT tripped; when the master was turned on the green gear down light was illuminated). Tower said gear appeared down, floor indicator showed down, and I landed without problem. After landing I tried resetting the CB and again it tripped immediately. While I'm an electrical engineer, the Mooney schematic (page 9-102) is less than user friendly. Anyone had this happen, any ideas where the short could be? I'm afraid this could get time consuming.... Thanks! Mike

Sounds like you know which elves to hire

From the website you quoted: ** One serious problem is that of the COM kilohertz frequency selector dial jamming or slipping / skipping when the knob is turned. This is the end of the road for the KX170B. Your best option here would be to slide out the bad KX170B and slide in a good one.

Not a lawyer, but a copyright is an asset and would survive any bankruptcy/sale of assets. A quick Google search shows copyrights from 1964 through the end of 1977 (which would seem to cover the manuals in question) can be renewed for 67 years! Unless the copyright owner completely dropped the ball, it would seem to me there's a good chance the copyright could still be enforced.

As a new first time owner myself, here are some random comments: 1) If this is only the first or second plane you've looked at, I would move on. I don't think you are missing the 'deal of the century' by doing so. The engine COULD be fine, but with only 260 hours since 1990 I'd be really nervous. While the plane appears real clean, the panel is pretty dated ($$ to upgrade), unless you don't care. Price seems to reflect the low engine time; i.e., the seller is NOT going to treat it as a calendar run-out, and I don't necessarily blame him. BUT, the risk will be on you! You are PAYING for a low-time engine that MAY not make it very long. 2) How long have you been looking? Yeah, you hear of people buying after less than a month, but are they first time buyers? And, you rarely know how the story ended for them. It takes a while to "get educated" on buying in general, and a particular model, in particular. You don't want to take as long as I did (multiple years!), but I think you need to shop for 3 to 6 months as a first time buyer to get the "lay of the land." Or, hire a buyer's broker; I almost did that, but for the sub $50K market it looked to be around $5K, and a 10% premium was more than I was comfortable with. 3) I ended up being less concerned with the time on the engine, than how often the plane was flown. I ended up buying a high-time engine that had been flown 100 hours per year for the last decade. Time will tell, but the price I paid reflected a run-out engine, but if it needs an overhaul I won't be out much more than if I'd bought with a 'fresh' OH of unknown quality. 4) I shopped for a plane equipped with what I wanted, figuring it would cost a lot more in money, time, and hassle to add what I wanted later. I guess I'm trying to say, don't fall in love with the first girl you kiss:)

If there are already wires running through the grommet, then disconnect one of them, attach the new wire to the end, pull back through the grommet, then pull them both back. Just need enough extra length of the new wire to make this work.

Hmm, it's not nearly so much about the initial cost of the plane. What is your budget for actually FLYING whatever you buy? And, to that point, buying at the low end is going to increase your chances to spend more to keep it flying AFTER the initial purchase.

You aren't kidding! I installed mine about a month ago and it was ugly...the passenger side was worse than I expected, but I couldn't imagine the horror the pilot's side was! Honestly, when I finally got the clamp around the frame I have no idea how, but I sure was happy. Probably had 10 hours in the project by the time I was finished....maybe more.

Is that synonymous with the "Take-Off" setting?

Ok, interesting discussion. I'm going to be the heretic and suggest BOTH sets of numbers in the POH are correct! NOT an aeronautical engineer, but here's my reasoning: To state the obvious, it's excess horsepower over what is required to maintain level flight that allows the plane to climb. The IAS numbers that are decreasing are with the aircraft DIRTY, whereas the constant IAS figures are with a CLEAN configuration. My reasoning is that a lot of horsepower is being used to overcome the drag of the flaps and, especially, the gear. Drag depends linearly on the co-efficient of drag (Cd) but increases with the square of airspeed. I suspect the Cd of the gear is HUGE, compared to the Cd of a clean airframe alone. Thus, since you are already losing horsepower at higher density altitudes you don't want to waste all of it overcoming the drag of the gear, so a SLOWER IAS actually results in more 'leftover' horsepower for climb. To put it another way, if you tried to climb at 82 mph IAS when 'dirty' at high DA you might be using all the horsepower to overcome gear drag and would barely be climbing. Probably something flawed with my 'logic' here....Blast away!

Very nice of you to offer. I'll let you know if I need a ride.

Thanks for you post! Your details are a mirror of mine: when running cruise LOP #2 runs 330-340, and I've occasionally seen under 300 on the others, although they are usually around 310. I too, did the "Coke bottle test" with the same results; all flowed the same. A&P cleaned the injectors, too. But, made no difference. A couple of posters have indicated adjusting fuel flow at WOT; I'm at about 16.5 gph...maybe that should be higher an injected engine? I really need to try swapping probes...

Thanks guys! KFUL is real close to KPOC ...buying the pre-mix and doing it myself with my non-Mooney A&P to sign off is also tempting.