JimB

I manage the maintenance on a fleet of 45 Garmin G1000 equipped flight school aircraft with almost 70,000 total fleet airtime hours and 90,000 hours of hobbs time (displays are on) over the last 3 1/2 years. Not a single display failure. Changed some PFDs/MFDs from knob/button mechanical failures and a couple of GMAs, but really that's it.

Three? Some guys I know have a really hard time with just one!

Ok thanks. That's what I thought and just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something.

So I'd like a little more info here. I am not instrument rated but have been working on my rating. As long as you remain VFR, is there something wrong with a non-instrument rated pilot practicing an approach or other instrument procedure not under the hood and not with a safety pilot/instructor? You can't file an instrument flight plan and of course you cannot be in actual instrument conditions or under the hood but I didn't think there was anything wrong with doing some practice.

How about central Indiana? Happy to help you out.

Obviously every job is different and maybe they ran in to some difficulty with the wiring or the connector or something. But I find it hard to believe a technician took an entire day (assuming 8 hours at $125/hr) to change out a TC. And yes, I am an A&P/IA and I have replaced mine in my Mooney... I would be embarrassed to hand an owner a bill like that. If for some reason it did take that long due to some complication, I would be sure to explain it to them.

I'm not sure what your asking. I can install a G5 and GFC 500 without a GPS unit. The G5 can certain determine GPS MSL altitude but it won't know if the ground elevation is 500 feet or 5000 feet so I still don't know how it can determine what AGL you are. You can be in a valley or on a mountain top.

Don, You are correct. That is what the AFM supplement states. However, I am struggling to understand how this is possible. With just a G5 and GFC 500 (minimum needed) installed there is no database to reference. How exactly does the system know where it is in relationship to the ground to be able to determine 200 feet AGL??? I get there is pretty neat PFM in these boxes but I don't get that. With that said, I have had it installed for about 6 months. No issues on flare. The lower limit of the ESP is set at 76 mph

It seems mine is never charged either. I don't mind writing with it, but in all honesty you are right. A notepad and pencil/pen is really easier.

I have my mini on the yoke in landscape mode and like it. I just got the newer generation that allows the use of the apply pen for writing down clearances and notes. I tried to get a larger iPad mounted in that area but it just seemed in the way.

Aaaaaa! I see what it is doing. I thought I copied the image. It just copied the link from my Google photos account. Let's try this!!

That's weird. I can see it just fine.

I don't have a great picture in my 69 F model. Here is a picture of the valve that was leaking a little before I removed it and replaced the o-rings. From what I remember, it goes thru the instrument panel and down to the bracket that holds the valve on the firewall. There is a clamp on this bracket and I believe there is a clamp further up where it clamps to one supports.

In my opinion 99% of the time a "dry wash" is used due to convenience and environmental concerns. It is much easier to wipe down an aircraft with Wash/Wax All then find a a place to do it, a hose, a bucket, soap etc to actually wash the aircraft. For airlines and big aircraft, a dry wash is used for the same convenience and due to concerns of washing the oil, dirt, grease, chemicals down a drain. All that said, nothing in the world wrong with washing an aircraft with soap and water.

You may be right but it sounds like it is actuating. Its a little hard to see exactly what it is doing until I take the covers off.

I have a 69 F with the pedestal throttle/prop/mixture controls. Anyone have the PN for the gear warning microswitch in there? It has stopped working. The overhead buzzer is good and I can hear it clicking lightly when I bring back the throttle but no warning. Possible it is wiring but before before I take apart the pedestal, I'd like to have one of these switches in hand. The AMM electrical diagrams show it as 20WM03A but the list in the back doesn't list it unless I am missing something. Thanks

I have a 69 F model. It has a little over 1000lb useful load, a 4 cylinder Lycoming engine and gets better gas mileage than my F-150 (plus it goes over 150 mph in a straight line ). I have had her for over 2 years now and on occasion looked around at other aircraft. I just can't find anything better, more efficient or more reliable that I can afford. I didn't buy her thinking she would be a "forever plane", but I am really beginning to think she will be.

I was taught full flaps as well and while doing instrument training started using takeoff flaps for landing and really like it. Doesn't increase landing speed that much at all and I like the pitch attitude better. Maybe try that if your going to change your landing technique.

Don, I have the same equipment in my F plus a GNX 375 but to be honest I am not sure either since all I have done are practice GPS approaches. I believe if you are monitoring the ILS/VOR approach with the GPS, you would push the TOGO button (commanding the nose up/wings level) and switch nav sources on the G5 and it would fly the missed per the established procedures loaded in the GPS. I could go try it tomorrow and let you know exactly what works if you don't get a better answer before then.

And according to this older post, it was a direct and easy swap.

From what I see in the IPC, the original pump is PN 610153-501 (Dukes 1499-00-19). If you go to the FAA PMA database, it appears the Weldon PMA pump is PN 18020-A. As a PMA part it is supposed to be an exact replacement. Not saying it is, but it's supposed to be... Weldon-Pump-Mooney-Aircraft-Application-List.pdf

I just changed my 20 year old pucks with new ones from Spruce. They were not cheap but I don't ever expect I will have to replace them again as long as I own the aircraft. Actually that is sort of my plan at the moment. I really want to keep this aircraft when I retire so I am trying replace or upgrade everything that I can anticipate needing changed over the next 20 years now. Then hopefully I won't have any big ticket expenses later. So if I kick the bucket in the next few years and you see that my widow puts my aircraft out there for sale, you should buy it!!

Mine is doing something similar with a JPI 900. Volts are rock steady at 14-14.1 volts and amps fluctuating. Mostly fluctuating negative but some positive as well. It is 100% an indication issue verified by using a clamp on Fluke amp meter. During a ground run, the clamp on meter was rock steady and the JPI started fluctuating after about 10 mins. The connections are good on the shunt so in my case it is either the shunt or wiring to the JPI. I guess it could be the JPI but I doubt that. It also gets worse the longer the flight or the run. Now that I know it is just indication, I'll get around to fixing it ....... sometime....

Pretty good article but it doesn't provide much in answers other than infrequent flying is not necessarily a cause for cam/tappet corrosion and wear... https://www.aviationconsumer.com/maintenance/the-cam-problem-corrosion-failures/ Weiss doesnt necessarily buy the standard explanation that infrequently flown engines are subject to corrosion and since flying hours are down, rust is up and thats whats causing the problem. “I just dont see a pattern here. We see cam failures in engines that are flown a lot, in engines that arent flown much, in airplanes that are hangared and not hangared. Even in some flight school airplanes,” Weiss told us

You are 100% right on all of that concerning the FAA. It does seem they are trying to loosen up a bit with their Non Required Safety Enhancing Equipment (NORSEE) policies but a lot of inspectors do feel they may be held personally responsible so they have zero interest in sticking their necks out. I do wonder if there have been any studies on experimental aircraft to determine how many accidents are caused by parts or products used that aren't FAA approved/accepted/authorized/certified. I am going to guess that if there is some data on that it would show that there is virtually no difference in the failure rate of FAA approved vs not approved parts.