ZuluZulu

According to Bartschi, the two occupants of the plane turned off one of the plane’s engines to simulate an engine failure, but the engine wouldn’t start back up when the simulation was completed. Gotta love that twin-engine Mooney M20B. (The B stands for 'both engines')

Have you ever flown from Eclectic, AL, to Normal, IL?

Same here, but very occasionally I have to prompt it with a gentle “SoCal Approach, Mooney 12345 has Podunk Airport in sight.” And those words mean it’s a lot closer than 10 miles!

May not be what you're looking for, but my original J model visors are available after being replaced with Rosens.

What would it theoretically take to modify the system into a more LED bulb-friendly dimmer?

It seems to, but my plane was only on the ramp for a month until I was able to get a hangar so it didn't see many gusts. I give it a good tug to check, seems to hold it pretty well. You have to find somewhere to attach the little L-shaped bracket it snaps onto -- I just used one of the screws at the bottom of the radio stack. Can't speak to the leather wear; I've only had the leather for a couple months and the control lock even shorter than that.

I found this at Aircraft Spruce, but wasn’t sure of the right one to order due to additional options that were available then (I don’t see them now). They put me in touch with the vendor directly and I ordered from them, but I don’t remember their name now. Somewhere in the PNW. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/atcontrollocks-mooney.php?clickkey=466252

You guys are wasting Hector's talents on all these black-on-black-on-black control wheels! Add a little color, live a little.

Congrats!

My GFC 500 was installed this summer and they reused the KAP 150 trim switch. It works fine so far.

Plane is in Michigan now. Appears to have sold?

It doesn't seem like the Monroys would help him much. He'd have to leave them empty most of the time with the loads he's talking about. For the OP: Not all J's have useful loads greater than 950 lb, but almost all the F's do. At least the ones currently for sale on Controller. This 1976 F is listed for $79,500, with an advertised useful load of 1048 lb. Here's another '76 for the same price, useful load of 1004 lb. Jimmy has this '76 for $69,000, useful load 1003 lb. The '76 models are only one year before the J, making them very nearly J's. Meanwhile, the 201s in your price range have useful loads of 950 lb (1977; $86,900); 970 lb "approximate useful load", whatever that means (1979; $94,000); 993 lb (1981; $83,900); and 907 lb (1981; $89,900). That '81 with almost 1000 lb to carry looks like a good compromise, but it does not meet your stated preference for at least 500 hours left before TBO. And for the privilege of having a J to haul less than an F, you're paying nearly $20,000 more. Given your preferred budget and load-carrying priority, I would think an F makes the most sense for you. Use the savings to establish a reserve for maintenance and/or upgrades. But you might have to compromise your stance on buying a plane younger than you. Even if you increase your budget for a J, you're very likely giving up some useful load in the exchange.

I don't have the G3X (yet) but the GFC 500 has been great so far.

I'm not an electrical engineer but my rudimentary, Google-informed understanding is that LEDs don't respond to dimmers the same way because they already use such little power. Leaving an incandescent in the stream lets the dimmable LEDs recognize the lower power. I can't find the article where I read this though, so maybe an actual electrical engineer will come along and clean up my mess.

I just replaced my overhead interior lights with LEDs from Aero-Lites. Red up front, warm white for the backseats. They only work on the bright switch now, but I think if you leave an incandescent bulb in, the dim setting should work. It's a lot more pleasant than a red headlamp!

Along the lines of this discussion, is there a heater for the hangar that's a better choice than other types? Infrared, ceramic, quartz, etc.? I was browsing some of the options at my local Lowe's and I saw an infrared heater that had "Will Not Reduce Humidity!" on the box. Unfortunately none of the other boxes said they WOULD reduce humidity...

Because an autopilot is integrated with other systems and if it fails, the results could be catastrophic. NORSEE is intended only for equipment whose failure condition is minor: "1.4 Safety Evaluation. The overall safety evaluation for non-required equipment assumes the equipment will fail, regardless of the system or subsystem and the probability of such a failure. The safety evaluation must show evidence that such failures do not reduce the capability of the aircraft or the ability of the pilot/flightcrew to cope with a failure condition worse than minor. "For integrated systems, the evaluation process also should take into account any additional interdependencies that may arise because of integration. In all cases involving integrated systems, the safety evaluation process is of fundamental importance in meeting the safety objective for the system. Design considerations may include, but are not limited to— "Separation from those systems that are considered primary (required by airworthiness standards or operating rules, or critical to the operation of the aircraft); "Independence in operation that does not require input, signal, or information acquired from a primary system to operate; and "Protection from adverse effects on the rest of the system during normal operating conditions or when failure occurs. "A more robust safety evaluation may be necessary if it concerns complex systems with a high degree of integration, unproven new technology, or systems that can directly control the aircraft. There are appropriate safety assessment tools (such as failure modes and effects analyses or functional hazard analyses) tailored specifically to evaluate these types of systems. The overall safety evaluation process should consider a system’s architecture, functionality, operational capabilities and limitations, human factors, and whether the system requires pilot training. Once the evaluation is completed, it should provide the necessary assurance that all foreseeable failure conditions (such as loss of function or misleading information) have been identified and assessed." If the failure mode is more than minor, a pretty robust evaluation process is contemplated, but the FAA says so little about above-minor failures in the March 31, 2016 Policy Statement (seriously, it's barely a page) that I think it's fair to assume they would push an applicant into full certification: "2 NORSEE APPROVAL WITH FAILURE CONDITIONS ABOVE MINOR. "2.1 The regulations applicable to NORSEE include 14 CFR xx.1301 and xx.1309 for parts 23, 27, and 29. NORSEE can improve safety when installed in aircraft, even though it is not required for certification or the rules under which the aircraft operates (such as 14 CFR parts 91, 133, 135, 136, and 137). The premise of these rules is that systems and equipment in aircraft must be appropriately designed, manufactured, and installed so each performs its intended function and does not present an unacceptable hazard to the aircraft because of malfunction or failure. "2.2 To show compliance with the requirements pursuant to § xx.1309, it is necessary to show that NORSEE installation will not cause unacceptable adverse effects and to verify that the aircraft is adequately protected against any hazards that could result from malfunctions or failures caused by NORSEE. If it is determined that failure or malfunction could result in a hazard to the aircraft, that hazard must be minimized through mitigating means to an acceptable level, or prevented altogether depending on the severity of the failure and its effect on the aircraft. Design features should be taken into account to prevent hazards either by ensuring the failure condition will not occur or by having redundancy or annunciation with acceptable corrective action by the associated flightcrew." Source (emphases added). That process would have to be so involved that you might as well pursue full certification. And I bet BK's lawyers wouldn't be thrilled by the lawsuits that will result if their NORSEE-approved equipment kills people, especially once the jury is told that BK cut corners and cheaped out, when all of their competitors (Garmin, Genesys, Dynon, etc.) obtained full certification, so that they could start selling units faster.

Pick Paul! His plane is in the Mother of all Annuals right now! #LetPaulFly

And, of course, email @jgarrison at Gmax American Aircraft and let him know what you're looking for in order to receive emails of upcoming listings.

That name is already taken! I guess there can be twins.

Will there be two versions -- one for models with cowl-mounted landing lights, and one for those with lights in the wings? @Jonny

And when hypertech's are gone, I still have a KAP 150 system for sale. It's in the classifieds already.

*cough cough shameless plug cough* Make me an offer!

Sorry to hear about your A&P.

Playing with OPM here, but if the budget is unlimited ... I would get a GTN 750(Xi) for #1, then move the 430W to #2. Nice, used 750's are going for, ballpark, $10-12k if you want to avoid paying full retail for the Xi. If the budget is REALLY unlimited, sell the 430W and replace with either a GTN 650(Xi), GNC 355, or -- if you just want a NAV/COMM -- GNC 255A. You could save a little money with a COMM-only GTR 225, but flying that much IFR, I would think you'd be better off with more functionality. If the budget is limited or you just want a 1:1 radio replacement, I would probably get a GNC 355. That will give you more robust MFD capability than the 430W offers, and you won't even need a Flight Stream to transfer flight plans from an iPad. If you pull the trigger on a GTN 750, look into the remote GMA 35c audio panel -- I love mine. Otherwise, I'm sure almost everyone here will point you toward a PMA450B.