Marc_B

@Meshach It would seem that if it’s truly a GTX335 it should have ADS-b out. The GTX325 is the Mode C only. Take a recent flight time and do a FAA performance request and see what’s being picked up… https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/paprrequest.aspx

Updated for future searches. I can’t find a drawing or parts list for the alternate static valve o-rings. So figured I’d add these for the Shaw Aero A1390 alternate static valve (M20K) and the parts for the pitot and static drains here. Highlighted o-rings are for the alt static valve. The other three are the for the drain buttons. There’s a clevis pin that gets corroded and an o-ring that can be replaced. Figured good to replace the springs for the drain as well.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/blockalls.php I use Blockalls. If the pressure on your headset is uncomfortable or breaks the seal of ANR, you can just rotate the legs up slightly just above the top of the headset muff and they still work fine. This is also typically what I do when I'm wearing sunglasses. For foggles, it doesn't seem that rotating the legs of the glasses up impairs anything or limits use.

+1. This is typically the Aera 760 on the yoke with the traffic page in the 2/6 ring for me. I find that it's easier to quickly reference the traffic page rather than an iPad with Foreflight showing traffic. The Aera traffic page is just cleaner, has only the pertinent info and seems like a quick glance gives you all the info that you need.

In flight weather is a distraction. There’s a lag and you get fixated. TIS-b and XM causes fixation. In all seriousness there is a time and place for an iPad and for me that’s mostly preflight. But my panel makes the iPad completely unnecessary for flight.

You can be target fixated on anything, and in an emergency that’s likely to happen without proper training. Fly with an intro Instrument student and see how effective that scan is. But you can’t point to unskilled or untrained pilots and use that as a bash to all technology. What you’re insinuating Vance is that all aviation should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. If that’s the case everyone should be flying a most basic 172 or Cherokee. But certainly you don’t start drivers Ed in a F1 race car… Perhaps your better argument is that technology and more capable flight equipment requires more training to use safely and effectively. 100% I’m sure we’d all agree. But poor pilot skills only points to poor pilot skills. A great instrument and traffic scan is part of the framework for safe flight. Solo student pilots are in the air alongside professional lifetime career pilots. We all start somewhere. One of the lessons we need to learn is what tools to use when.

When I went to a Garmin course I stayed downtown KC. I was walking distance to Jack Stacks and close to Messenger Coffee/Ibis Bakery in the morning for a 15-20 min drive to Garmin. it was more fun to check out KC than stay closer to Olathe. Joe’s is tasty and more casual. Jack Stacks was more upscale. There was an Italian place next door to Jack Stack that was good too, I think Lydia’s…also more upscale. I flew into KMKC and enjoy that airport every time I’ve been there. Right next to downtown. City park tie down is free; Avis (816) 931-1039 is the place to call for a rental and they’ll have it waiting at the FBO next door even if you’re tied down at the city parking.

I've heard two trains of thought with this...on one hand, thieves are looking for an easy target and when they have difficulty they move to the next aircraft. VS. a determined thief will just tear up more things to get what they want. In my mind, I'd rather make someone work for it. But 100% on there is no reason to have a separate key for each door...if I could get all three keyed the same I would! In my case I settle on 2 keys as my Janco ignition key is much different than the door cylinders.

What about the scenario where you're turning final and either you don't have visual but are faster than the aircraft in front of you, or you turn final and someone descends into you? Both are the blind spots that have resulted in accidents. Also from the standpoint of one aircraft on the DME arc for an approach while another is on the straight in on the same approach going slower. These are things that I've seen routinely at my home field. I guess what I'm saying is that the difference in traffic deconfliction and midair collision is sometimes blurry at best; but they're on the same continuum. You'll never have statistics on how frequently ADS-b contributed to safe deconfliction. But you're right in the sense that when aircraft are on the verge of touching my eyes are out the window and not on a screen of any sort.

@Vance Harral The wrinkle in this logic is that it's driven by the thought that "if an accident didn't happen and someone didn't die, then I don't need to consider it." Of course everyone makes up their own mind how much time, energy and money to invest in their own safety and enjoyment. But just because it's not a statistic that results in fatality does not mean it is meaningless. If it prevents even one fatality it's meaningful. Of course there's always more spinoffs in capability and utility, and these don't get "credit" in the myopic view of only accidents count. Certainly you have made your point clear that you think technology adds workload/distraction, and that you don't feel the average pilot puts enough education into their equipment. But you can't paint technology in the broad brushstroke of bad solely because you've flown with students that don't demonstrate mastery or capability. It doesn't remotely address the fault, and only suggests that your mindset is "it's over your head, don't bother with it." The simple solution is fly more, fly often, fly with others, and fly with instructors...and that's universal regardless for what your flying and what equipment it has. But we're talking nuance of equipment. In discussing nuance, polarity and extreme isn't helpful. Stay ahead of the aircraft and always be ready for a change. Listen to the CTAF after you start up to start building situational awareness. Look ahead at your destination to have an idea of approaches and runways in use. To suggest that you don't start to build S.A. solely because things may change sounds horribly misguided.

Given that Nav lights have FAA regulations, seems like the best option would be either stay with current type of bulb vs spend the money on an approved LED solution like the WAT Orion series. Otherwise the good person to ask would be your IA doing your annuals; they may feel strongly one way or the other about LED bulbs in a standard fixture. https://flywat.com/collections/mooney-products

For me, I find that typically my eyes can mostly pick up traffic within a 2-3nm range...good lights/reflection from the sun/etc can sometimes increase that...glare from direct sun, poor lighting, looking down at the traffic over the ground can decrease it. So typically my traffic page is at the 2nm (inner) /6nm (outer) rings on the Aera traffic page. At 6 nm this is someone that I might need to deal with, and at 2nm this is someone that I should see. But anything on that page might be an issue. Of course this is with a typical GA airport with limited jet traffic. In the pattern I sometimes zoom in one more setting. On my iPad I find that having traffic painted on this is helpful to help gather information regarding how saturated an area may be, can give a sense of touch and go traffic and traffic pattern direction, and can paint a rough picture of aircraft around the area on possible instrument approaches. I don't find that traffic on the iPad/Foreflight is as helpful for immediate traffic mitigation as the PFD targets on my G500 + my Aera 760 traffic page; but I find FF/iPad much better for "seeing the big picture" with situational awareness overview. In the terminal environment we have more threats, but we have a few more tools (position reporting, towers, radar, ADS-b, predictable patterns, etc.). When you're away enroute you typically have no way to talk to traffic outside of indirectly on flight following, and might not see an aircraft until the last minute with your eyeballs if they are heading towards you or climbing/descending into your path. Most aircraft have huge 3-dimensional blind spots, plus most eyeballs probably won't pick up traffic until within 1-2nm routinely. THIS is the reason that midair collisions still occur. Outside of TCAS and dual directed flight maneuvering, ADS-b can narrow this blind spot, but can't remove it. This is where I feel ADS-b really can be a HUGE asset for GA. Not only can it show you trend vector, but it can show you altitude and if target is climbing or descending...all of this WELL before you could ever expect to acquire target visually. Good practice is to try to visually identify the aircraft on your screen with what you see outside your window. Then you get a better sense for where to look, what to expect, and how closely this mirrors your screens.

We should all keep in mind that a deficiency with a pilot/person shouldn't necessarily be blamed on the technology. The Technology is separate from the Interface which is separate from the Person. The broad brushstrokes in this thread discount the nuance for the extreme (all good vs all bad). Good technology with poor interface can have a bad response even with a good pilot. Good technology and solid interface can have a poor response from a pilot without sufficient training or ADM. All ADS-b solutions are not equal and shouldn't be lumped all together as we discuss where the fracture lines exist with technology. Proper training with any form of aircraft equipment is paramount. Poor training or education shouldn't immediately be blamed on the technology.

Seems like extreme stances either way are the issue here. There are times when you should be eyes outside (I.e. landing) and times when your eyes are helped inside on the instruments (I.e. IMC). Effective safe flight is a combination of the two at the right times. I use an Aera 760 on traffic page when I’m close to practice areas and the terminal environment. My iPad zoomed in to the airport shows a quick glimpse as to how many targets in the area to better predict the safest way for pattern entry, runways in use, and if now is a good time for that practice instrument approach. All things I wouldn’t have without ADS-b. But some aircraft don’t have ADS-b, and some that do, aren’t working. So it’s important to me to use all the tools in the bag and understand the benefits and limitations of the tools I use. Personally I find value in ADS-b in and out. I’m glad when other aircraft have it and wish more of those who don’t, would use it. But even if it was 100% adoption, nothing is perfect and neither are eyeballs. See and avoid isn’t using one tool…its wisely and timely using a combination of the all the tools available. The view out our windows are small and have huge blind spots. ADS-b can start to fill in some of the blanks in our eyeballs and blind spots, but it has never been an either or but rather both.

When I replaced my cylinders with Medeco locks I think they were both the same. Certainly use the same key. The interesting thing is that Aircraft Security shows 2 different numbers...ASM20CD - Cabin Door, ASM20BD - Baggage Door. But I think the cylinders were the same. Even if you don't order from them, I'm sure you could call and ask if any difference between BD and CD. https://aircraftsecurity.com/products/asm20?srsltid=AfmBOopGNz3p76FHl9bofRje33Wz0icm-t54B9vgaD88vaTbfQ1VSuTK No. The cabinet locks from the doors are different than my Medeco/Janco ignition key that is much longer. Completely different profile.

There’s single pilot IFR and then there’s Negative (256) pilot IFR! That’s nuts!

For a VFR aircraft that stays local and never sees inclement weather I can understand a thought to not pay for databases you don’t think you “need”. But for an IFR Mooney travel machine this just seems penny un-wise and pound foolish. Why gamble with the lives of yourself and others? I've rarely been on an IFR flight that I wasn’t rerouted or given an arrival or amended clearance fix coming in. No way that I’d be able to verify the validity of every fix I was using other than confirming updated database and fix name checks on chart. This discussion seems purely academic and practically impractical.

Long bodies have a larger engine/more HP and longer lever arm so would probably benefit more from YD in general. But for turn coordination and trimming rudder pressures, many more aircraft could benefit.

Mid-body with a GFC500 with 4 servo / YD. I find it keeps the AP rock solid with bumps and well coordinated with turns. It sorta acts as a rudder trim, but not exactly. I still use right rudder on take off, but it helps to relieve the rudder pressure and keep ball centered once I have it there. To decrease the work the YD servo has to do I turn off when I'm leveling off and coordinate manually; then reengage the YD. Do you absolutely need it...no. But is it nice and makes flying more effortless when using the autopilot...yes. For me it's like having electric pitch trim...something you can do without but is nice to have. The telling thing is that I haven't heard from anyone saying that they wish they hadn't gotten the YD if they installed it. As an aside, the Encore came with the S-tec combo YD/Rudder trim unit. In this case there was a rotary potentiometer on the panel that you could swivel to engage the servo "left" or "right". It worked great on takeoff to relieve all rudder pressure and you could completely ignore your right foot and stay coordinated. The S-tec was in the location that the GFC YD needed to be installed so came out with GFC install. The GFC YD works better as a yaw damper to keep coordinated with GPSS turn. The only time I miss the S-tec is on takeoff for about 30 seconds. Long body rudder trim is mounted differently than the S-tec so the long bodies can keep their rudder trim even with the GFC500 YD.

@Slick Nick I couldn't find any that showed the inside. Its currently at the shop so won't be able to get those for a bit.

Early bird gets the worm…but it goes down easier with some coffee!

@1980Mooney For some reason I was (incorrectly) thinking both the Missile and Rocket gave you a turbo. Ha. Nope.

You have to remove the seatbelt shoulder harnesses and sidewalls first then the screws are visible. The upper panels overlap the headliner. There are some screws that have barrel washers as an offset. The headliner is the first interior panel installed and the last to come off. Take plenty of pictures so you know how it all fits back together. It’s a game of Tetris and will be easier with a helper. The material that Mooney used for the overhead ducts is thin and with age can come unglued at the longitudinal seam. They also used zip ties instead of cable clamps to attach the hose to the wemac elbow. So it may have just come off. But if you find the duct material needs replacing, do it now when you have your headliner down and be done with it. Otherwise it’s a PITA to go back and pull it all down again.

@mike_elliott I didn't need a complete latch but rather wanted to replace the rusted springs. I'll see if the ebay order are the correct springs and will PM you if they aren't the right springs. But that does look like the same latch on my oil door.

If you look in the second picture down, your stop tab is ripped back 90 deg. probably has a hole in the truss there. I'd refuse to taxi it and let the shop assume the liability if the nose truss broke on taxi resulting in a prop strike. Certainly wouldn't fly it anywhere to repair. I can't remember where I saw it, but wasn't there a Mooney who had the welds break off resulting in a prop strike that looked like it had been oversteered while towing and was felt that was what weakened the truss...