JimB

I have been in this same boat. VHF nav is going to be around for some time. We even have a few small airports that broadcast their AWOS over the VOR/Nav freq so without a Nav, I can't get that weather (there are other options though). A few questions for you in which I had to ask myself Are you only going to fly VFR? Yes you can fly it IFR but I can't complete my IR training without the VHF NAV Will you want to sell the aircraft any time soon? In my opinion it may be a real issue for some potential buyers Are you comfortable only having GPS for navigation? I don't sit up at n

Sort of...up to the F and G they were only CAR 3. Afterwards it was CAR but they also were certified to some regulations of Part 23. F Models J Models K Models

On my aircraft there is an Airworthiness Directive 85-24-03 mandating compliance with SB 20-229a and the SB specifies specific PNs for the O-rings, I use those O-rings. PNs MS29513-338 (small center o-ring) and MS29513-010 (outer larger o-ring). I'm sure the blue fluorosilicone are better and last longer https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/AOCADSearch/9C93312CAD9E7AAB86256A4D00490B41?OpenDocument https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4147179/technical_documents/service_bulletins/sbm20-229a.pdf

That's about what mine reads on my F with the sender in the factory location with an EDM 900.

I have 2 G5s and I am thinking about replacing my TC with a GI 275. It will function a MFD most of the time and I can overlay an HSI on it with input from both a VHF NAV and a GPS. It will also be a much better backup for attitude than a TC (not that I need it with 2 G5s). A GI 106 is around 2.5 AMU and the GI 275 is around 3. Can't see any reason in installing an old GI 106

Hank, I am working on my instrument as well and have access to a Diamond DA 40 NG simulator with the G1000 system. Doing partial panel with the G1000 air data computer and ahrs failed is interesting. There is no VSI or TC and you become very reliant on a timer for turns, climbs, etc along with flying the compass.

The anxiety issue is what I'm talking about! I spent a lot of time worrying about the weather before a trip. I understand and makes sense. I am just really looking forward to having more options that an instrument rating will provide.

So I am VFR only right now. I have wanted to get my instrument rating for a long time but it's a pretty big commitment in time and could never see how I would get it done. Well after having to back out of a couple trips this past summer due to marginal weather, I am starting my instrument training. Ground school and sim first and now we are in my airplane this weekend. However, I was reading another post on taking a long trip VFR only and it made me wonder how many Mooney pilots are VFR or IFR and how many really use the instrument rating. I always assumed that since the Mooney is really

Mine too!! I pulled all the Brittain stuff, the vacuum pump, etc and every left over wire there was and reweighed mine after a panel redo and gained about 10lbs! I was hoping to lose about 10 but at least now I know my W/B is accurate. Glad your happy with it. My Garmin CAM knows I am ready to order the kit today if he can give me the PN. Looking forward to it.

Very cool. How much useful load did you lose with the full 3axis 4 servo package? (I am assuming you got the electric trim)

Well....if you're installing it per an STC, you're supposed to have permission to use the STC to alter the aircraft....

Where in the world does this come from? Putting a different prop on, installing a JPI EDM 900 or a Garmin G5 via STC is a Major Alteration. That's how you "alter" a certificated aircraft using approved data and submitting the proper 337 paperwork. If it isn't via an STC, you can do it with an FAA field approval or other FAA Approved data. Experimental is different category of aircraft and has nothing to do with proper major alterations.

We all do understand that the purpose of this "article" is to sell a service, right? I could go inspect any 50 year old aircraft and provide a laundry list of items that if you were to have all of them corrected it would cost a lot of $$$. (....Rust on valve covers. $200....right....)

That was great! Thanks for sharing!!

Just in case anyone wants to know, I got some information from Mooney. Tube PN 915033 measures 18.99" from the center of the fixed rod end to the end of the tube up until 1976. In 1976 the rod dimension was increased to 19.18". However, the PN did not change. I guess Mooney eventually recognized the problem I am having today. That .2 inches would make all difference for what I am doing. Anyone know where I can find a late model tube? All the ones I found searching are from early models.