AndreiC

How deep do you guys leave the round holes? The ones on VPP are about 1/2" deep, which I think is too deep, but I also don't want to mess up with them if I don't need to...

I bought a couple of months ago a replacement panel cover from Vantage Plastics for my 1970 M20E. It seems to be a good reproduction of the old panel, but it seems that in the production process they made the edges much deeper (they are about 1/2", instead of about 1/8-1/4"). This issue also happens around each of the instruments. My question is -- what tool should I use to grind these edges uniformly all around? I don't want to end up with one side taller than another. Would a belt sander work? Also, what would you use to cut out openings in the areas where one would like an opening? (Like where the switches are.) Here is a picture of the underside of the panel. Thanks.

Or another explanation… on my plane the ammeter is the only piece of equipment that is inop. It is not required for flight, and so far I did not choose to repair since I have the JPI EDM which will alert me of low voltage.

I just made my flight, just without the belly inspection panel. I'll reinstall the panel in a day or two after hopefully all is dry.

My plane is normally hangared, but during a recent trip I left it outside for 4 days. Last night it rained really hard (3.5” overnight), and when I went today I found the carpet on the bottom of the baggage compartment wet in the area under the baggage door, and water slowly dripping from an inspection port on the belly of the plane. When I opened that inspection port, about 1/4 cup of water came out. I left the inspection port open and flew for an hour like that, in the hope that whatever water was there will drain out/get sucked out. Questions: 1) Is it possible that this will lead to corrosion from water being in the belly of the plane for a few hours? 2) How can I make sure all water has been drained out? I left the inspection cover off, and the baggage door half open, with the carpet out of the plane, hoping all water will dry off. (Plane is now in the hangar.) I will definitely have my mechanic look at the baggage door seal during the annual. It’s annoying that it leaks since it is less than 3 years old. Thanks.

My friend in the Bay Area recommends this club: http://wvfc.org They allow people with no PPL yet, but with an instructor.

You never mentioned the three most important numbers for the plane you are looking at: SMOH, TTAF, and how many hours it was flown per year in the last 4-5 years. Any of these can change substantially the estimates for yearly expenses. I would support @MikeOH's assessment from above. You are probably best off either renting a basic trainer or becoming a member in a club with some basic trainers available. Get to the point where you fly the C172 with no surprises. Then move up to a complex aircraft. Otherwise you'll certainly pay a boatload in insurance, possibly gear it up (main reason insurance will be expensive) and/or do many beginner's mistakes in managing the plane, both from a flying and a maintenance perspective. I have a friend who is in a club in the Bay Area, do you want me to ask for details for you? If you fly a lot, membership in a club is the cheapest way to fly without owning.

Oops, I think I confused the KX165 with the KX155A.

My understanding was that the KX-165 was only made in a 28v version. So unless you have a step up transformer (or plan to install one), I think the answer is no for a vintage Mooney.

I remember some of your earlier posts; my impression (correct me if I’m wrong) is that you are quite new to both flying and to owning an airplane. (Two very different aspects of aviation.) If this is correct, here is what I would recommend. Find yourself an A&P that you trust, and pay them for a serious inspection of the plane. Paint flaking off and fiberglass cracking may look bad from the perspective of owning a car that is <5 years old, but for a GA plane it means nothing in terms of airworthiness. Hidden corrosion may exist, but a paint job will not find it; a good A&P will. Then find yourself a good instructor and fly with them a fair amount. Once you are completely comfortable with the plane, fly the heck out of it, VFR, as it is. You don’t need glass for that, and if the 1500 hour engine is strong there is no good reason to ground the plane for who knows how long (and risk infant mortality) to do an overhaul. After flying the plane for 2-300 hours you’ll know a whole lot better what your ideal plane looks like. Everyone wants a beautiful plane, but planes are made for flying not for fixing up; for sure it is important to keep up with airworthiness issues, and to upgrade things as needed. But you don’t absolutely need a spic and span hangar queen that you fly once in a blue moon. If you have an airworthy Bravo you are well ahead of the curve already, a frequently flown plane is the best plane.

I am the OP so should report on my experience. I talked to the manufacturer a couple weeks after posting this thread. They asked me to send the unit to them, were unable to replicate the problem but said they changed the board in it under warranty as a precaution, no problems since, works flawlessly. Very helpful. Highly recommended, and very good customer service experience.

If the Switcheon is not sold I’d like to put myself second in line.

I get the theoretical argument for safety due to the higher redundancy of glass. But is it borne by data? How many lives were lost due to vacuum failure in hard IMC in recent years? I think it is a function of how much hard IFR people actually fly. Yes, if 50% of my flying was in IMC I would definitely want the added redundancy. But I calculated and only about 3% of my flying is in IMC. If my money was unlimited, sure, I'd spend the money on having triply redundant attitude and directional data. But given that I do have almost doubly redundant data (if vacuum fails, I have my Stratus AHRS + iphone mounted on the yoke straight in my line of vision, both with battery power if also have electrical failure), and knowing that 97% of the time a failure will be a non-event (in VMC), I can live with that. I'd much rather fly more and practice more with instructors, I think safety would be much better served that way for the money.

I don't doubt that a glass display is very nice and helps with situational awareness. My question is if it is $75k better. For that money I can fly 1000 hours' worth of fuel, or do a nice overhaul of a beat up engine, or fly for 4-500 hours with an instructor (way more than needed to increase my situational awareness better than the glass will ever do...) That's what I think was meant with the "entertainment value" comment.

Here is a more extreme version of this statement. @Vance Harral is there any situation in which you would not fly a well-equipped steam gauge piston-powered aircraft but would fly the same plane if equipped with glass? My impression was that *all* glass displays, big or small, were there largely for entertainment factor. I can maybe see the benefit of an HSI over a DG+ILS head. I can certainly see the benefit of an autopilot. But above that?