PT20J

Google M20K POH: http://www.sparrowflyingclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/M20K-POH-N654JB.pdf Load factors would be a limitation: Look in limitations section. (Hint: page 2-8) BTW, @RLCarter answered this correctly: It's a normal category airplane and they are ALL the same by regulation. Skip

Every time this comes up, the ultimate load for the Mooney wing seems to increase. We’ve got 22, do I hear 30?

Interesting. Mooney must have changed the design by the J. Perhaps @M20Doc knows.

I will merely note that if you look at the revision history at the end of FAR 61.57, you will find that this regulation has not changed since 1997. [Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40898, July 30, 1997] Skip

Hmmmm. In the M20J IPC, I see that the rudder control torque tube is installed on four bushings with bolts that have castle nuts and cotter pins. Is this what you are talking about? Maybe your installation is different, but I don’t see how these bolts could loosen. Skip

It's clear that the FAA wants a "always on if you have it" policy for transponders and ADS-B out. There is an inconsistency between the transponder rule 91.215 and the ADS-B rule 91.225; 91.215 requires operation if operable whereas 91.225 does not include that language. The latest revision to 91.225 is July 18, 2019. Comments were due by Sept. 16, 2019. AOPA commented on August 7, 2019 -- before the deadline. So, the process will be that the FAA will review all the comments received before the deadline and then decide what changes, if any, to incorporate in the next revision. Since 91.225 was adopted on May 28, 2010, it has already been amended five times. More likely to come. Revision history at bottom of text for 91.225: [Doc. No. FAA-2007-29305, 75 FR 30193, May 28, 2010; Amdt. 91-314-A, 75 FR 37712, June 30, 2010; Amdt. 91-316, 75 FR 37712, June 30, 2010; Amdt. 91-336, 80 FR 6900, Feb. 9, 2015; Amdt. 91-336A, 80 FR 11537, Mar. 4, 2015; Amdt. 91-355, 84 FR 34287, July 18, 2019] Final Interim Rule notice: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/18/2019-15248/revision-to-automatic-dependent-surveillance-broadcast-ads-b-out-equipment-and-use-requirements Skip

Similar situation for me. I think mine is in the safe deposit box. It’s still stapled to the piece of paper it was mailed with. I think they just send you one when you apply for a SS number.

Since this is a GFC 500 thread, could I respectfully request that we not turn it into a battling autopilots discussion. Don was an early adopter and finds the GFC 500 to be great. I’m sure he’s right and I greatly respect his opinion. Probably all of us would be very happy with it, but in some cases we would have to rip and replace too much to install it. I’m interested in the 230 for that reason. There’s a thread around somewhere for it and I’d really be interested in reviving it if people have information to share. Skip

BK never made 28V version of of the KT 74 and 76. Just remove it and include it when you update W&B.

Interesting. Yet another thing I didn’t know. But I cannot remember when I ever had to show it to anyone anyway. With all the security breaches, not to mention all the logbooks it’s written in from when it used to be my CFI number, I cannot imagine why the SSA is concerned about messing up the card’s security features. https://faq.ssa.gov/en-US/Topic/article/KA-02202 Skip

I’ve flown SVT on the G1000 and the Aspen. On either, I think the most useful feature is the flight path indicator. I did a lot of Part 135 scud running in SE Alaska in the past. The Otters had Chelton displays with SVT but the Beavers had only CNX 80s with planview terrain. The latter was much more useful. In my experience, none of the SVT PFDs have enough fidelity to fly terrain ( which you shouldn’t be doing anyway). So, what are they good for, besides looking cool? Skip

Go for it.

I recall that way back around 1990 Hal Shevers (Sportys founder for those that don’t know) petitioned the FAA to allow the substitution of a backup attitude indicator for a T&B/turn coordinator. How many years did that take? Skip

I just scan mine before cutting it out and then I can print one if I ever need to. I've had to show it at FBOs to rent planes but it seldom comes out of my wallet. The only official that has ever asked to see it was Customs coming back into the US from Canada. The FAA asks them to check pilot and medical certificates. They don't seem particularly keen on it and they get testy if you don't have them readily available -- at least at Roche Harbor. Skip

I bought the Aircraft Door Seal/Knots 2U cabin door seal that glues to the door but I never installed it. It's probably fine, but it just didn't look right to me. It's an 'L' cross section rather than a 'D' or 'O'. If someone wants it, I'll sell it for $60 (I paid $129.95). I bought the stuff Mooney lists in the M20J IPC and I'm going to use that instead. http://www.brownaircraft.com/product-p/t-9088.htm Skip

The commercial 5 point harness I had in the Decathlon I used to rent was like that. The military style I’ve used in the BT-13, AT-6 and C-45 had a lock on the shoulder harness straps that you could release in flight and lock for takeoff and landing and aerobatics. They had big, wide green webbing and padded shoulders and were very comfortable but they looked, well, military. In a Mooney, they’d look more at home if you replaced the interior plastic with quilted olive drab padding Skip

I've always used a 5 point harness in the aerobatic planes I've flown. I really like them, though I'm sure my wife would complain. I don't know anything about seats other than I recall somewhere in my Cirrus training it was mentioned that the seat and landing gear are designed to crush to absorb impact. That is supposed to be the reason why the chute isn't recommended over water -- the gear can't do it's part of the shock absorption. All this just points out that the chute isn't a simple add on -- a lot of fundamental design decisions get driven by the chute like landing gear design, seat design, chute attach points, and probably a bunch more I don't know about. Skip

That's OK, I was just wondering if you were using massives or fine wires. Some have reported better operation with Surefly and fine wires. Sounds like you are doing well with the massives. Do you have the latest firmware that's supposed to help with the backfire issue? Skip

This would be better than airbags.

Clarence is correct -- of course But I think there is a larger point here: A maintenance professional should know more than pilots. But what happens when they don't? I've seen posts that start out with, "My A&P thinks..." On the rare occasions that this has occurred with me, we simply looked it up. There is precious little about maintaining an airplane that isn't documented somewhere, and I've never known a good technician that wasn't interested in reviewing the documentation. The beauty of Clarence's posts is not just his experience, but the fact that he separates opinion from fact by taking the time to post the relevant data. Skip

OK, I see that. The stops are depicted on the outside rails. Mine were installed on the inside rails, so I saw item 24 and thought that was it. So, what is item 24 for? Also the effectivity is a little strange: Cotter pins 24-0378 -- 24-3117, screws and bushings 24-3118 -- TBA. So what was before 24-0378? Skip

Clarence, That’s interesting. The IPC shows the AN3, but... my ‘94 J had the setup you describe. So, maybe the documentation didn’t reflect practice. I went to the hardware store and bought 8-32 screws and 1/4” long threaded bushings and installed those since they are easier to remove. In Cessnas, the stops are designed to restrict the seat travel so you can still reach the controls if the seat slides. In the Mooneys, the stops just keep the seat from sliding off the rails at the extreme end. Skip

Do you still have the Bell? I never missed Whirlybirds when I was a kid. I finally got to fly a 47D once. Pretty stable with the stabilizer bar, the the correlator could stand improvement. I met Arthur Young (creator of the Bell 47) once many, many years ago when he was living in Berkeley CA. He had long ago lost interest in helicopters and was into some sort of New Age cosmology I never understood. But I did read his early book on helicopter development. He built small tethered models and flew them by remote control to study and develop the rotor system. When he built the full size prototype, scaling effects he didn't take into account made it too stable and difficult to control. The simplest fix was to put the dampers in the stabilizer bar linkages to slightly decouple the stabilizer bar from the rotor. Skip

Most common low viz heli accident is hitting wires. But the pilot reported climbing to avoid clouds. Guess is that it entered the clouds and the pilot lost control. I read that it made an impact crater, so it must have hit hard which would be consistent with LOC. But this is pure speculation. I don’t know how good the Stability Augmentation System is in the Sikorsky. I flew an R-44 with HeliSAS a couple of times and it helped a lot, but the helicopter was still not as stable as an airplane.

Yes, we’ve all heard some variation of why Ralph Harmon overdesigned it (either he was afraid to be blamed for further wing failures after several failures in early Bonanzas, or the Mooney wing is the way he would have designed the Bonanza wing if Beech had let him). But did you ever think how much useful load the extra structure eats up? Skip