AJ88V

Hope to dig into it today. I only looked from beneath the panel, not from the top through the avionics access panels on the cowling. Hopefully it will be way easier to get to from the top!!!

I was thinking of the orange solid silicone tubing from Gates, but had the exact same concern that it would slip off the hose barbs. FWIW, the Brittain manual calls out A-10 and A6 Corbin clamps, which are like the spring hose clamps Chrysler and other car makers use on water lines. Representative pic below from the Brittain service manual:

Thanks, Kevin. Very good of you. Just found the Gates tubing locally. Question: My tubes do NOT have clamps on them. Are they needed?

Anybody have thoughts on using silicone hosing?

I wonder if this also could be due to the servo valve 'favoring' on direction. When last working, I had a pretty strong knob setting to the right on mine. Will report back after replacing the hoses. Thanks all!

Thanks, gents. My A&P/IA wanted to get the right stuff, but thought the hard plastic Poly-Flow hose would be a PITA to work with under the panel. I did say I might go down to the auto parts store and get some regular vacuum hose, and now it sound like that is what I should do.

The hoses on the servovalve and related components of my Brittain positive control system are disintegrating. They look like regular black soft rubber vacuum line and are dry rotted. Looking at my Brittain manual (Mooney Positive Control Operation and Service Instructions, 11968, Issue C), all the hoses appear to be labeled as 3/8" OD Poly-Flo tubing or 3/16" OD plastic tubing. None of it appears to be soft rubber vacuum line that's been installed in my place ever since I've owned it. I'm thinking a prior owner or mechanic just swapped in the rubber tubing. Anybody have experience with this? Thanks, AJ

Here's good luck to you @MooneyMert. I just went through this and it took several years. Scheduling tests during/soon after covid didn't help. Don't delay with responses and any additional documents to the FAA. Keep calling. I kept getting the standard "We have your documents and it's under review" until one day I got someone else who actually looked at what was submitted and said something like "Well this doesn't look like an issue at all. Call back in two weeks." Was still a few months after that. Have faith!

I know Kaw makes a fine engine, but by the time this becomes real real, it won't be that much different from a Rotax if it's aimed at the GA market. It won't be able to spin motorcycle fast (e.g. 10,000+RPM) to make that much power for very long, so they'll end up increasing displacement and reducing RPM just to get.a sustainable gear reduction system. It would make more sense if they were targeting expendable military drones as @toto suggested. A 200hp engine in the $5000 range that could hold together for even 200 hours reliably would likely find a market. Recall that the best power to weight engines of WWII only had TBOs on the order of 500-800 hours for manned applications. A 200 hp / 200 hr service life engine would carry a significant payload for some sort of loitering munition. It doubly makes sense, as we should expect Japan to significantly ramp up defense spending re. CHN.

Lots of great discussion in this thread. One the subject of failures and redundancy, my vacuum pump crapped out on my last flight before losing my medical. Fortunately a decent VFR day, but unnerving nonetheless. Returning to flight, I bought the little Dynon D3 "pocket panel" https://dynonavionics.com/pocket-panel.php which is a nifty bit of solid state redundancy on the cheap. Sure, the airspeed, direction, and altitude are all GPS-derived, but the unit is completely self-contained (external GPS antenna works better in my Mooney), including hours of battery backup. I also bought it to start getting used to looking at a modern glass display. Biggest caveat is that my Mooney panel is so crowded that mounting options are practically nil for having it in good visual field. Really want a better mounting option for it. Your and @Vance Harral's points on proficiency are spot on. One thing that concerns me about glass panels is the sheer amount of flexibility and button-ology. While I'm very high-tech by career, I'm amazingly lazy when it comes to learning software. Steam gauges are kind of fixed in their operation. Learn their vagaries (precession in turns and acce/decel, errors setting barometric pressure, etc.) and they just become automatic. Even that Dynon D3 is pretty stone simple. But ForeFlight is a whole 'nother story. So much capability, but it takes a lot of study and experience to learn how to get the benefit. I hate the idea of scrolling menus in a high-workload situation (doubly so without an autopilot!). AOPA Pilot mag had an article in the past year - part of their Sweepstakes airplane coverage - about Garmin's 3 day training program. 3 DAYS! But I bet most of us just start using the stuff and never become proficient.

Not that I have a ton of experience using ForeFlight on my iPad, but I did/do find the traffic displays somewhat confusing. It took me a bit of digging, but I figured out how to turn off all the traffic way out of my altitude zone (say +/- 2000 ft, ok forgetting the details). Getting rid of the no-factor high altitude jet traffic in busy DC airspace really helped. Please post up if anybody has a link to a video or better discussion of this topic. Thanks

So, got some preliminary quotes back. Both include keeping a VOR in the form of a GNC-215. Haven't discussed keeping the KX155 instead, or just forgoing the VOR. A 'basic' Dynon 10" single setup without AP will run around $60K. The AP would add another $15K. A refit of the current panel using G5s, JPI monitor + an AeroCruz AP will run just over $52. I like the G5s, but am not thrilled with the placement of the bottom one places the knobs way low on the yoke, but the AP is a big deal. Dunno, really hate to throw in this kind of money and not have a big display. One unexpected cost driver was the cost of developing a new panel vice a retrofit. Next step is to just fly out to the shop next week and dig into more options.

I was actually thinking of doing exactly that (keeping one Kx155 and CDI). But you also make a good point that about the cost of the GNC 215 + GNC 355 being almost the same as a GTN 650xi. In fact, the 650 is only about $1K more with the current rebate, plus that would be simpler to install and it's a much more desirable unit. Really appreciate the discussion above. As a VFR pilot, a lot of it is going over my head, but some is sinking in. Also thinking of keeping the steam gauges. I was pretty good on aircraft control under the hood when I tried getting my IFR cert 15 years ago. Not sure there will be room for the old gauges in the Mooney panel, or if that will drive the cost unnecessarily. How hard was it for you to transition to a glass panel with tapes instead of dials?

I was actually thinking of doing exactly that (keeping one Kx155 and CDI). But you also make a good point that about the cost of the GNC 215 + GNC 355 being almost the same as a GTN 650xi. In fact, the 650 is only about $1K more with the current rebate, plus that would be simpler to install and it's a much more desirable unit.

I'm a VFR pilot just starting my IFR training, so I'm pretty ignorant and welcoming of advice. My current panel has a pair of King radios and indicators, one just VOR and a the other VOR/GS. I haven't really used them since I bought my first handheld GPS, although I always would tune in VORs as habit on long cross countries just for situational awareness, habit, and ready backup in case the GPS failed. I'm looking at replacing the entire panel with Dynon HDX glass and a Garmin GNC 355 or GPS 175. This leaves the plane without a VOR/GS receiver. Dynon's VHF radio is comms only. I could put in a GNC 215 as the second radio instead to get the VOR/GS, but is it even needed anymore? What am I realistically giving up by not having VOR/GS? I don't think most of the smaller airfields I'd be using would even have it. And if I went for a VOR/GS like the GNC 215, what's the utility of having only one, or do I really need two of them? I appreciate your input. Thanks!