AndreiC

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?

My own experience has been that the T-9088 did not work for me, even though it was installed by an MSC. At first it was almost impossible to close the door (in fact I ended up ripping the leather door handle trying to close). The MSC said that this would get better after a few weeks, and surely over the summer. Well, it did not. 6 months later the door would still not close, and I would have to put various things in the cracks to stop the whistling noises. I then asked the advice of another MSC, the owner of which looked disapprovingly at my seal and said it is not the correct one (I guess the correct one being BA-189-139). He sold me (for $$$) the correct seal. I installed it myself following his instructions, and it has been great. It is the one with the foam core. Three years down the road and it is still working perfectly, sealing noise very well. Just my 2 cents.

On my 1970 E, the motor does not stall. It continues to turn, just that it sounds as if a winch-like mechanism is engaged which allows the motor to spin without moving the flaps. It is some sort of mechanical limiting device: while the flaps are in travel the motor runs with a smooth sound, and when they reach the limit the system starts making a "clack-clack-clack" sound, as if the motor axle is spinning but it does not engage the flap mechanism. It sounds like this is how it was designed to work, and everyone I talked to said the system is quite reliable.

Out of curiosity, why do you want to do this? I also have a limitless flap system in my ‘70 E and would be curious of the pros and cons of the two systems.

No, sorry. I don't even know if I have one (see below). The back story is that a year ago I ordered one boot to keep as a spare (my own one is in good shape). I received mine about 4 months ago. I did not know there are more people with this problem, sorry. I told @Hradec that I would be willing to sell him mine for the cost of what LASAR charges for a new one, since I do not expect to need to use mine for the next half a year or so. @varlajo and @Hradec -- What did Heather at LASAR tell you about the one you are on the waiting list for? How much are they charging for a new one, and when do they expect to ship new ones if you order one now? (I was going to call her on Monday.) If the answer is that they don't know when they are making new ones, I might end up holding on to the one I have.

Check your messages, I have one that I could “lend” to you.

As the OP, maybe I should give some background. I got my pilot license 30 years ago, and the instrument ticket 24 years ago. I have about 1500 hours, of which about 100 actual and 100 simulated IFR. My instrument rating was done in a Cherokee 140 with two VORs, one ILS, and nothing else. (Certainly no autopilot. A primitive handheld GPS on the yoke.) When I got my instrument ticket I was very gung ho, flew a lot in that Cherokee including in low instrument conditions, and managed to scare myself badly enough a few times to decide that this is not the way to go. Flying instruments single pilot, in hard IFR, by hand, on a regular basis was just beyond my risk level. So I quit flying instruments completely for about 15 years. Three years ago I sold another Cherokee and got the Mooney, and decided to give it a go again in the new environment with a WAAS navigator and an autopilot. I went with a very experienced CFII for about 5 hours of lessons, and at the end he said I did much better than was expected for someone who did not fly instruments in 20 years. He cleared me to fly again IFR. Since then I've used the instrument rating a fair bit (especially on a trip to CA and back, and for 4 months in CA a year ago). As I said, I feel that if the autopilot were to give up the ghost in the soup I'd be able to get the plane down safely, but treating it as an emergency. With job, kids, etc., I cannot find enough time to be at the level where I fly instruments often enough to feel I can do a good enough flying without the autopilot in the soup smoothly. It is just what it is. My question (and several people answered it, thanks) is if flying this way but maintaining the instrument rating is a reasonable thing to do. Seems that the consensus is that IFR-lite is ok, as long as you know your limitations.

Thanks all for the mix of comments, this is very helpful. Here is my main question. Given the type of flying I do -- about 100-150 hours per year, all of it recreational, I can cancel any flight if the weather does not seem right to me, probably 95% of it VFR, very rarely approaches to minima -- what is a good frequency with which to go up with an instructor to shoot approaches hand-flying? One option: with what I do I can stay current (barely) by going out once every couple of months when the weather is like yesterday and shooting 3-4 approaches in actual, with the autopilot on (to be safe), maybe shoot one approach by hand and call it a day. Since I don't ever plan to fly actual IFR when I don't need to without a functioning autopilot, this seemed (until yesterday) like a reasonable option. I prove to myself that if the autopilot kicks the bucket in hard IFR I can get myself on the ground by hand, treating it more like an emergency. I would ask ATC to divert to a place with the easiest approach possible (LPV or ILS, never anything without vertical guidance), with good weather well above minima, etc. Option two: go out regularly with an instructor, enough to stay current on instruments to be able to fly by hand confidently. Of course this would be better, though with the existing availability of instructors it seems hard to do. Also, I found that under the hood work does not feel the same way to me as actual IFR, and I am not confident that if I do everything right with an instructor under the hood, this will translate to perfect flying in actual. (And good IFR weather is not often happening here -- either it is good VFR, or bad TSRA or icing...) What do people do in situations like these? Should I call it a day on IFR flying, like @A64Pilot? That is very limiting... Is it ok to say I have an IFR-lite rating?

Today was a great IFR training day around here (ceilings 400'-800', no turbulence, solid IFR, good VFR weather nearby if ceilings were to go down more) so I went to do some IFR practice by myself. The first two approaches, flown with the help of the autopilot, were great, rock solid, very happy with them. (RNAVs; the A/P is STEC 30 coupled to GNS430W). Then I thought let's try a few flown by hand. Boy, was I in for a surprise. I felt behind the airplane most of the time, occasionally finding myself on a heading 20 degrees off what I wanted, etc. The 4 approaches I tried worked out eventually, but I was definitely not proud of myself. I felt all the time like a juggler who is at their limit because even one simple thing I was doing (turning a knob on the GPS or adjusting the DG) was bound to throw my scan off. I know what I am supposed to do, go back up under the hood with an instructor and shake off some rust. But is it just this, being rusty? I did an IPC maybe a year ago, and I did very well on it, all without an autopilot. I don't fly actual IFR all that much, probably just barely the 6 required approaches in 6 months, and mostly just going through a layer on my way up or down, almost always with the A/P on. Advice? How do others handle this?

I find this hilarious. Aren't we all discussing the Church of Mooney in these forums... Deeply religious

I ended up doing what was suggested and moved the sensor to the first forward outboard inspection panel past the wheel well. Running the wires through the front of the wing was more difficult, mainly because my forearm was too thick to fit through the inspection hole (to fish the wire out). Luckily my wife agreed to help. I have not test run the plane yet, but I suspect this is a good location for the sensor. (The JPI provided wire was just long enough for what I needed, in the end.)

The reason I asked is that I *think* in my plane there aren't any wires running through there, or at least I did not see them when I opened that access panel. I'll check again this evening. (In fact I've always wondered where the pitot tube heating and the wingtip light wires are routed through...)

@N201MKTurbo I understand now what you mean. Can you please confirm though that if I were to run the wires through the front of the wing, the wire would go behind that inspection panel you were talking about (for the aileron tube)? If so, how do you keep the wire from getting tangled with the aileron tube?