sailon

Flies straight as an arrow hands off with perfect coordination.  BUT speaking of rigging, I am starting to wonder if something is amiss or loosened up in the rigging of the autopilot.  Next time I am up, I'll take some photos or videos.  What is also interesting is that enroute while it flies to the left of the rhumb line, the actual track and desired track values line up.  Now that it is starting to cool off in the hangar, I may also take the inspection plate and take a look at the autopilot servo rigging.

Will keep all posted.

Ok starting to think something is out of whack.  Here is what I noticed on tonight's flight:

1.  in heading mode, when I enter course change of 90 degrees or greater, left turns are nearly at the standard rate.  Right turns are a bit less.  

2.  GPSS mode enroute I note that the autopilot stabilizes to the left of "the magenta line."

3  90 degree  left turn to the approach course was dead on.  This was a left turn, turns described in earlier post the hold and approaches were right hand turns

Whadda you think?  Servo shot?  Autopilot out of adjustment?  Note that the servo is a single unit on the pilot side aileron.  

Marauder, Thanks so much for the videos, they will really help.  I am looking forward to reviewing them and comparing with what my airplane does.  The GNSS came with the airplane.  I have over 75 hrs in it and I am still trying to figure out how to use the autopilot with the airplane.  Agree that the documentation is terrible.  Nice setup.  Same as mine except for the STEC 50 and I do not have the MFD.  Which GPS are you using?  I have the GTN 650.

Art

Thanks Cris.  I supplied some incomplete data.  The autopilot / Aspen is in GNSS mode, navigation mode is RNAV.  Where is the "high setting" that you are referring to?  Lastly, the turn coordinator is lining up with the Aspen and confirming that all of the turns were made at half rate.  When I disconnect the autopilot and hand fly the turns, the bank angle doubles.  Totally understand what it needs to intercept.  Fuller disclosure, the hold and approach were at totally different points.  The approach was an RNAV with "T" waypoints.  The entry to the IAF, and the 90 degree turn to line with the FAF were both at half rate.  I had to disconnect autopilot, turn airplane by manually, then reengage GNSS after turn to follow approach.  My Century III in my old Arrow did a better job of flying RNAV approaches!  Like they say, somethin' ain't right.

STUMPED!  In my F, I have the Aspen PRO 1000 glass, STEC 50 autopilot, and the GTN 650.  All turns associated with holding patterns, and RNAV approaches are only made at half of the standard rate, NOT full rate.  I have found discussions about this in some other forums, but I have yet to find the magic setting that determines the rate of turn.  Anyone else have this issue, and what solved it?  Gain setting on the Aspen? Defecting turn coordinator?  Setting on the STEC?  

Thanks

Thanks!  On further thought, I am going to check out the idea that the LNA has gone unstable.  If a electrical stability is found, it is a major AW issue which warrants a problem report to FAA copy Garmin.

On 11/5/2014 at 8:31 PM, philiplane said:

This phenomenon also happens from a combination XM/GPS antenna with a faulty XM portion. It is instantly cleared by pulling the XM device circuit breaker. This problem is not new and I discovered it in 2009 after opening a new Cirrus Service Center in Fort Lauderdale.

To reawaken an old thread, I just came across this exact problem.  GA35 antenna, GTN 650.  Noticed loss of signal when I banked the aircraft earlier, now antenna completely dead.  So are the other portable GPS systems in my airplane.  Just had 650 bench checked, was perfect, now airplane goes into shop on Thursday.  Assume no recourse from Garmin?

Just called Hangar Tool Box, apparently they are out of business due to illness!

Jesse, saw lots of comments regarding the engine.  Do not know how much time the engine has, but if the number is greater than 100, you may be lucky and skate.  I was looking at an aircraft that didn't run for 10 years.  I called a well established overhaul shop, and he stated that the engine should be fine.  Suggest that you and your mechanic boroscope the engine, (it is great that he is familiar with it by the way) and give a reputable OH shop a call.  It may be that the seals around the prop may be your biggest problem.  My bird was lightly used for a couple of years before I bought her, engine is immaculate, but I just had to do a prop reseal.  Prop was 81 hours since overhaul performed in 2014.  If there is no evidence of rodents or corrosion (check the tubing),  and you get good vibes from the shop, I wouldn't hesitate to go for it.

+1 for this great FBO/Airport.  KFMY Base OPS is THE great example for the rest of the airports in the country.  I fly there often.

Maybe Mooney left a few holes off of the rail.  I checked several times for the pedel extensions, they were not there.  With the seat in the last hole, I was uncomfortably close to the panel.  The K sits totally differently.  Also, I do not have vertical seat adjustment like the K does.  My inseam is 34 inches.  Mike, be careful with regards to downloading data for the seat rail mod.  The print that was downloaded previously from this website was exclusively for a specific tail number.  It takes an STC to modify the fleet from a single mod.  My mechanic and I looked at the print that I downloaded from here, saw the exclusivity paragraph, and we figured that the FSDO would not approve.

I just finished getting the paperwork done to modify my F to drill the extra hole required by my long legs.  My torso is short, but my sister says that I got all of the legs in the family.  Just to modify the print by the DER set me back 1 AMU.  NOT inexpensive, and the DER just updated the print to change the part number of the rail from the E model to the F.  I saw some discussion regarding various models.  I can fly the 252 model without any problem and no seat rail modifications required.  I suspect that the K version stretched the fuselage maybe 6 inches.  F's and shorter will likely require a seat rail mod if you are a long legged pilot.  Not sure about the J model, but it may require rail mods as well.

Never did 35, but plan on taking an instructor up to get used to 20 which is what I was comfortable with in my Arrow.  Just wanted to check with the Forum to make sure we won't break the airplane!

Thanks all.

I know that all airplanes I have flown with a steering nosewheel, it will dart in the direction of rudder correction when the nosewheel touches down.  Something to be ready for.

Yes, the airplane will be pointing straight down the runway, however the crosswind correction applied by the rudder pedals will cock the nosegear.

I have read most (if not all) of the discussions on Mooneyspace about crosswind landings, and all have discussed pilot skill vs, aerodynamics.  However, I also have been studying the mechanics of the Johnson bar, especially its single point of failure (i.e., the weld of the bar to the linkages).  I was wondering if there is a correlation between the published / demonstrated low X-wind capabilities and the large side loads imposed on the J-bar during a perfect X-wind landing.  (Side loads will be imposed, at least due to the cocked nose wheel on nose wheel touchdown).  I know pilots can land in a 35 kt x-wind, however, it also makes me wonder if those same pilots are experiencing premature J-bar failures.

Thanks!

Nice pics.  Glad everybody got the colorscheme memo.  Didn't have time to repaint mine before that event!!

Hey CW, I started my Mooney career in my CFI's 252, and now own my own F.  Some things are easier in the 252.  Higher flap speeds and landing gear speeds for one.  Not to mention electric flaps, cowl flap, and landing gear. The speed brakes come in handy.  They fly and land the same, just watch the speeds. Here is an excellent reference for handling the numbers:  http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20K252_evaluation_report.htm.

Mandatory reading in my opinion.  If you like, I and my instructor are in the Melbourne FL, let me know if you would like to hookup.  I actually find speed control in the F a bit harder to get used to since the flap and gear speeds are much slower.

This has been an interesting topic of discussion that I have had with Flight Standards within the FAA.  If provanance can be shown between the electronic version of the operating manual and the manual origanally supplied, the electronic version can meet your ARROW requirements.  This topic of discussion came up when I purchased my airplane, and with the modern panel, I found that the flight manual supplements that would need to go into Chapter 9 of an Airplane Flight Manual weighed over 3 lbs!  So, if you can carry an electronic version of your operating manual, or AFM, and it can be shown that it is equivelant to the paper copy, the paper copy can stay home in your files.

Wow, I am amazed at all of the different techniques for hot starts.  I too have lots of experience with hot starts with IO engines, first the Arrow, and now my F.  The best procedure by far was found on this site.  When i shut down expecting to start hot, open the oil access in the cowl.  This lets alot of the heat vent off, and helps with the vapor locking issue.  Second, when I climb in, I push the throttle and mixture (and check prop)  to the wall while I get sorted out.  Then throttle back to 1/4 inch from idle, mixture to cutoff and it usually kicks after 6 to 10 blades.  If it doesn't, I give it a 1 second hit from the boost pump.  No more,  That does the trick. 

One piece windshield (not the 201), no other mods, 150 kts at 75% power, 2500 RPM at 4000 ft.  155 kts at 7000 feet at full throttle ( around 70%)  Sweet spot seems to be between 7 to 10000 ft.

16 minutes ago, Hector said:

I naturally evolved into this semi-two step process. I unlatch the bar and slow it down a bit as it comes up to the seat buckle and I push the buckle out of the way with my thumb as i guide the bar past it. All with my right hand. It's almost second nature and i don't even think about it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The "two step" sounds great for the pilots belt, what about the passengers?

On my 68F model with the J bar, I have the seatbelts with shoulder harnesses.  The issue is that when I drop the gear, the J-bar catches the latch and undoes the seatbelt on both the pilot and passenger sides.  I have found myself inadvertantly landing with my seatbelt undone in the first couple of flights.  I have thought about getting longer webbing on the latch side, however, that would move the shoulder harness away from the center of my torso.  Presently, I turn the buckle into my body after I fasten belt, but it is not the best solution.  Ideas?

Art

I thought they looked small too, until I pushed a Mooney into my hangar where I kept my old Arrow.  Significantly larger, and at 6'3" much more comfortable than the Piper.  Still have controllers talk about my little airplane tho.

On 7/7/2016 at 7:08 PM, Cruiser said:

The way I see it the new medical reform will do two major things.

1. Get pilots (afraid of losing their medicals) that should be receiving treatment for medical issues to their doctor for that treatment.

2. Fix current system that requires the pilot to get all kinds of additional tests (from their local medical professional) and send it to the FAA (who never actually perform any medical examination) for approval by eliminating the burdensome oversight of some far away people looking over the paperwork of the doctor that is actually doing the medical treatments. 

I never could understand how sending paperwork and test results from your local doctor to the FAA makes a pilot safe to fly. Now you can deal directly with your local doctor and get the same result.

Cruiser stated the major benefit.  Unfortunately, I also share Don's liability concern.  Funny thing is that i wrote AOPA on this subject, they said they sampled some doctors and those doctors were not concerned about liability issues.  I think I agree with Don more than I agree with AOPA.  OTOH, if this reform can fix the medical waiver issue, than that is a good thing.  Unfortunately, all congressional action has stalled, so this still may not go thru!  (Surprised?)

1 hour ago, Hyett6420 said:

I fly ifr nearly always and the one thing my KFC150 does not have but i would love is vertical speed control and altitiude preselect.   If when choosing an autopilot you can afford it, SERIOUSLY consider adding this capability, it will make your life so much eaiser and almost airliner like.  

Note the KFC150 does fly a glideslope and i love this feature also and would not be without.  The other feature i would not be without is a flight director, if you can get one, get one.  You can then handfly everything but the AI tells you what to do, it makes hand approaches a lot easier.

Actually the KFC 150 does have a crude vertical speed capability.  Depress and Hold the down button and it will maintain a nice 500 ft per minute descent.  Used one on the 252 I fly occasionally.