Mooney Dog

Dam thats a nice set up. I wish i was in the NY area. Id gladly fly and help you out. Im surprised you're running into problems with people only wanting to train with paper. Thats just not how things are done these days. I understand the need for understanding how the old methods work but thats a bit far.

Cant say ive wired an old radio up to listen, but i do have a handheld that ive used for the exact thing sometimes. Cost me about $160 from shortys and i believe they also have an air band scanner home radio as well.

Im surprised you didnt get a follow up for your first one. Sheet metal in a jammed aileron sounds lot a violation of 830.5

I can promise you from experience, if you have an engine failure and declare, you're going to get a follow up. Its not a "ton of paper work", but there are some question to answer and its mostly straight forward stuff. Nothing that would make you not want to declare in the future, mostly checking to make sure you're okay and things where handled. Now if you declare cause someone's sick. Yeah you're probably not going to have anything to do afterwards. Possible pilot deviation is an "implication" that someone is about to "get you in trouble" that normally results in a "its no big deal, just be careful next time."

Asking for a number to talk about something on the ground rather in the air is largely considered a safer option. It general alerts people to the "hey i might be doing something wrong" mentality as well and things go one of two ways from that point. They double down, or they try and help. I have had a few controllers thank me for calling later and talking rather than taking up their radio with my fight. At the end of the day, the controllers work for the pilots, not the other way around. As to the original post, I don't agree with it fully, but the pilot did what he was in a legal right to do. Could he be nicer about it? sure. He could also be a big jerk about it too. Yes, and I'm willing to bet it was likely due to the fact FL180 was unavailable at that time. Whos to say, I don't know. I would imagine controllers in Cali and Florida are probably some of the most overworked in the country, so simple changes may get brushed off with "I'm busy" a lot. There is almost ALWAYS a follow up to someone declaring an emergency. Ah yes, a IFR pilots dream

Just out of curiosity, did you tell him the reason you needed higher? You may not have been able to get higher due to fl180 being unavailable as well. Its any number of things really.

It just has to do with the viscosity more than anything. 10w-30 and 5w-30 in theory work the same when hot, but in realty they're not. Those weights being for my car, not plane, but the same should apply. If someone knows better please correct me. Well its more so if air has another path to go, it will go that path instead. And if the air can flow, it will flow, but if its restricted, it wont flow as much.

Have you checked your internal baffling at all? Ive been working with a fleet of 172N with 180hp upgrade, o-360 variants and this summer we've watched them all hit 400-430f consistently. We ended up adding vents into the engine cowling to increase airflow which has brought temps down another 20F on average at the cost what appears to be 1kt of speed. Granted i havnt done any XC in them. 1- Keeping CHT below 400 is good for life of the engine. Should be relatively easy to keep those temps on an average day with good airspeed. I wouldnt be surprised to see 420 or greater in the climb. Higher if its Texas or Florida summers. More so this year with the triple digest in the Midwest. 2- I would set you alarm to in the warning zones for the engine personally. the 400 range isnt great, but its not "bad" for the engine, and isnt cause for heavy alarm. You should still strive to be below it though. 3- The risks are close to the same as any risk would be during a "full power" operation, maybe with a slightly higher chance of engine failure. I wouldnt put money on this though, i honestly do not know. All in all, CHT is a GREAT resource to help you get a full life out of your engine, but there's many many factors that can play into why you have a "hot" cht. I Believe Mike's point on having proper CHT and EGT measurements should be on every new aircraft (and i think they are these day). Remember most of our engine in aviation are air cooled, thus the faster the air moving around the engine, the cooler they will be most of the time, and that still relies that the air is actually moving around the engine, and not sneaking out someplace else.

So wait you're looking for someone to fly out in the next 2 days to help you ferry your plane back to cali? Thats some pretty short notice. Go any information about the plane? where in cali you want to ferry it too? how long you have? What insurance wants you to have before you can fly solo?

My understanding is the G5 can only directly replace the DG or artificial horizon, not the actual airspeed or altimeter. If you're looking for that, the GI275 would be your next option in line.

under basic point to point use, probably no real situation. If you're going out to practice slow flight or stalls and falls, you might run into those areas from time to time, but YMMV. Its not that you'll never get to those points per say, its that if you do find yourself in those ranges, adjust what you're doing or dont stay in that situation for long.

So for reference My 6 pack single nav/com is being upgraded to 2 g5s, a 375, and 2 255a nav/coms right now. I do not have an AP but its set up so i can pop in the GFC500 in 2 years or whever i want to pay the extra money for it. At that time im also going to go for the EIS as well. My plane did not have a gps so upgrading for me was just going what i wanted vs price. Had i your panel when i got my airplane. I would have just added G5s and called it a day most likely.

My understanding is that you cant easily remove and reattach the wings of a mooney. I would think finding or building an RV might be better for your situation, but i would need to do more research to make a real call on it.

My personal opinion, and what i am currently having done to mine, is do go dual G5s. The Gi275 is an amazing unit as well, the G5s are just a tad cheaper. I believe the g5 also works with the Stec. If you're happy with the 430, absolutely keep it. It is by far on of the best GPS ive used in airplanes. If you do want to upgrade maybe look for the 650 instead of a 750. It will be closer to the size of the 430 while having a few more features as well and give you 2 nav/com/gps units. For an engine monitor, thats up to you. If you're going the GI275 route, and extra one can be your EIS as well. I hope to upgrade to a CGR30 at some point for mine. Edit: I forgot to mention wifi/Bluetooth ADSB and flight planning. If you down have a flight stream, some of the smaller GPS 175 units from garmin are built in flight plan sharing for ipads. I think the gi275 can do it as well but im not sure. All in all its how much you wanna spend on the upgrade.

Absolutely so and IFR would help. A CPL would be even better. The magic number is normally 500 hours.

The 172 to a M20E is a pretty big jump! I would like to hear some of the backstory in your choice and purchase of that airplane. I am down in the Houston area, CFII, though i am fairly new to mooney flying so i dont have a ton of experience on all the super in depth stuff, but the airplane is still an airplane. I do know there are 2 club within the dallas area that have a M20C and M20F, which you may be able to ask if their CFI's would be able to help you out with learning the plane. That said, if you are a student pilot, you're going to have a longer, possibly harder, time getting you license in the M20. Its just a lot more aircraft than a 172, even if it doesnt seem like it. Either way, best of luck, and would love to see some pictures!

It would depend on your total time more than anything if they insure you or not on a grass strip i would think, and even then it just comes down to money. I do instruction out of a private neighborhood runways that is grass, also 3500ft long. There are 2 mooney's i know of based there. I will attempt to ask them next chance i get if you havnt gotten a better answer till then. I do know there's a slight stigma about grass runways and mooney's on the insurance side though.

Not exactly what i was going for but its a possibility.

I feel like this is the "do rotax engines have a higher failure rate than others" debate. It still boils down to how experience the pilot is and what the situation has become.

These days, you can have a single WAAS GPS for IFR, no NAV system at all. Now I think thats kind of silly, but its doable. Having a VOR as a backup is really nice. Having 2 GPS units is just failsafe is one fails or the military wants to do jam testing again. My dream setup used to be dual 430w, but now ive changed my mind to a 375 with 255a set up. Your second point should be reworked. In the GA realm, people just fly RNAV/GPS 99% of the time. In the airline world, its a mix with 90% of it being GPS and landing almost always being some ils/ground based if the weather requires it. Not that you couldnt go out and jam an ILS, but i still trust the ILS to get me down to the runway a little more than an LPV. Midwest panel builders also has a video that explains some about picking a navigator for IFR.

In aviation, is anything ever going to be cheaper than what its replacing? Oh well at least there's a "solution" to the 100LL "issue" now. Now if only the mooney could get mogas...

I thought a lot about upgrades getting my E set up. It really comes down to what you have in the plane and what you want to upgrade/compromise in. There will be some compromise when trying to save money. I personally think dual G5s, which go for around 10 grand installed, are a great upgrade if you have a good gps/com set up already. You can also go the GI 275 for ~14 installed. I dont know if the G5 supports the kfc200, but im pretty sure the GI275 would. Having flown a kap200, i can tell you they're lacking in terms of features compared to modern day autopilots, but not enough that i would upgrade if trying to save money. altitude and heading/nav holds are all i really care about. I hand fly everything else anyways, though it would be nice to have an ap that shoots the ils to mins.... I personally went from a 6 pack with VOR/ADF to dual G5s, 375/255a and another standalone VOR. I plan to upgrade to a EIS such as the JPI 800 or CGR30 some point later when i bite the bullet and say the gfc500 was worth the 10grand i was quoted for install, which at that point itll be 2 grand more.

The real answer is you push the nose over and fly the airplane. The fly the airplane part depends on any number of situations. Have i gotten the gear up yet? are the flaps out? How high did i get? Am i taking off from the NASA shuttle facility and have 3 more miles of runway to put the plane down on? etc... There is also normally a published Vg speed, and i dont think ive ever seen a minimum sink speed published. The key is to really dont stall the aircraft so you have a chance at landing and walking away. My self and student brief is normally the following as well. Abnormality on the runway? Pull power and bring it to a stop. Engine failure on takeoff? nose forward, best glide, left or right max 30 degrees. Reach 1000 feet. You can attempt to return to the field.

I believe he's referring to the speed. From the POH of an E model, it says for best glide, 105MPH for a windmilling prop, or 100 if the prop stopped.

Other than one trip thats going to take me above 10, i rarely go up to 6 as it is. Texas and towards the east is pretty flat.