Jump to content

MV Aviation

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

About MV Aviation

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Munich, GERMANY
  • Reg #
  • Model

Recent Profile Visitors

2,768 profile views
  1. A 4 cyl engine will definitely not run smoothly on three cylinders, not even on 3.5 cylinders. On the last flight with a partially clogged injector, I managed to go approx. 50°F LOP on the faulty cylinder and about 100°F ROP on all other cylinders. That was sustainable in cruise, otherwise I would have aborted the flight. Going any leaner introduced vibrations on the clogged cylinder and "shutting it off" by going even leaner, would not have been pleasant at all. On a 6 cyl engine on the other hand, I can imagine running wit only 5 is ok.
  2. Thanks for all your reports. I will have a look at the screen next. I haven't had any problems like that in the past 4.5 years I owned the Mooney. And, as said, the bladders were freshly installed 1.5 years ago, so sealant cannot be the source of the issue. This incident taught me that a digital engine monitor is worth a lot. Troubleshooting would not have been as straight forward as it was without it. Also, watch EGTs during run-up! Although temps are not close to peak at 1700rpm and full rich, some issues can be identified while still on the ground.
  3. Hi everybody, I own a M20E, which has a fuel injected IO-360, with which I've recently experienced some recurring issues. It all started with an engine start on a relatively cold day (sub freezing). Not sure if that has something to do with the issue, but I mention it for completeness. Anyway, engine start and run-up went well. I took off and shortly after takeoff in about 300-400ft AGL experienced some extreme engine roughness. I immediately pitched down, pushed the mixture full forward, engaged the electrical fuel pump and after a few seconds with no changes in the symptoms, decide
  4. This is, what I ended up doing ... EDM830 goes in the top right (I did not do the rectangular cutout for the 830, because I might exchange it for a 900 at some point) and the six pack layout is mirrored left to right so that my TC goes in the bottom right, airspeed above and alt + VS on the left. And the USB ports go in the bottom left, below ignition and master. Let’s hope it all fits. thanks for your advices!
  5. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Why are some of you tending towards a standby AI? The whole purpose of the dual g5 is, to get rid of the vac system. With an electrical TC gyro that incorporates the autopilot, partial panel in an emergency should not be an issue.
  6. Hi Folks! I have a hard time deciding, which layout works best for me. Down below you'll find two CAD images with the pros and cons. Maybe you have some additional input for me to consider. From the arguments, you may notice that I favor version B, but it is a bit of a waste of space. Version A pros - makes the most out of the panel area and leaves some room for smaller add-ons in the future, although I don't know if I'll ever need that. - somewhat of a standard utilization of the panel with potentially eight instrument positions. cons - the G5s are not in
  7. Negative. What I've measured no is this: PIC panel angel SIC panel angel On ground 3° forward 11° forward In flight 6-7° forward 14-15° forward So, neither panel has 0°, neiter in flight nor on the ground. The left panel might reach 0° (and even negative °), when I pull up the nose on takeoff or flair on landing. That it is only 3-4° nose down from ground to level flight, surprised me a little. I expected a bit more. According to its PN, the STEC TC requires a 0° installa
  8. And another Update... I just found out that the S-TEC turn coordinator requires a certain panel tilt angle, which is designated in it's part number. It can be modified for different angles by the manufacturer, but the price tag is pretty steep. Meaning, I need to keep my angle.
  9. UPDATE I've measured the angles of the panel relative to the Earth with the aircraft sitting on ground. It's not a fully scientific approach, but it has some meaning. Ok, sitting on the ground with a "nose up" attitude, the PIC panel already has a foreward tilt of 3° from the vertical axis (of the Earth, not the aircraft). This might reduce by 1° or 2°, when the nose tire is pumped up a little more. The rest (avionics stack and co-pilot panel) have a 11° forward tilt in that attitude. So, there's that famouse 8° difference, which is stated everywhere else. What surprises me is
  10. Hi. I've placed an order for 2 G5s plus the other equipment (GAD13/GTP59/GAD29B/GMU11) end of last year. Unfortunately there seem to be delays at the moment. The order was originally supposed to arrive in Dec 20, but is now scheduled for Feb 21. Anyway, I got quotes from three avionic shops in Germany for the install. They range between 9300 and 13000 € including tax. They range from 35h to over 50h. However, I do not beliefe that the cheap one does cover everything. I've have now ordered the items myself from AirTeam (they have the most competitive prices in EU) and will install them tog
  11. Nice panel! How does it look from the right seat and from the top? Is there a gap between the new panel and the rest of the airframe (e.g. between the left panel and the GTN) or is it covered up with something. I'm curious how that is solved.
  12. Hi Andrea, can you elaborate a bit on the paperwork? What is the legal base for the install? The vintage Mooneys did not feature 3-point belts from factory, so it's hard to argue that it's only a replacement. Hence, one needs an STC (which does not exist for EASA aircraft to my knowledge) or minor/major change paperwork. Thanks for your help! Marco
  13. Thanks for all your comments! Since I'm getting rid of my mechanical gyros replacing them with G5s, I should not be forced to take care of such "old school" problems. The G5 installation manual allows up to 15° tilt. I'll have to check, how much the s-tec 30 turn coordinator can handle. Installation depth is a problem in the Mooney. Not all instrument positions are equal in therms of protrusion, since there are steel tubes crossing behind the panel. E.g. I cannot move the Narco NAV unit from the bottom to the top position, unfortunately.
  14. Hi Ned, thanks for your reply. I think you misunderstood my question. I know that my entire panel ist tilted forward, the same way all vintage Mooneys came from factory. And the pilot side of the panel is tilted backward (similar to your panel), towards the pilot, as can be seen on the first picture of my original post. My question now is: when I redo the pilot side panel only, do I have to keep the backward tilt, as it is shown in the picture (if yes, why?) or can I remove the light grey 3D panel construction in the picture and replace it with a 2D flat panel that is flush with
  15. Hi everyone, What’s the reason that on all Vintage Mooneys without a „one piece windshield“ conversion, the pic avionics panel is tilted towards the pilot at the top? That seems to be the case even after panel restorations. The panel in my 65’E was redone some time in the past and doesn’t look to bad. I’m just in the process of getting two G5’s installed and I’d like to get a standard six pack layout. However, before I start dumping money into one or the other panel solution, I’d like to evaluate the best option. I’ve opened the avionics top cover and looked behind the pane
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.