Slick Nick

It's in the IPC. I originally ordered the A507's and came to find out my plane has the H35W28V. I'm 24-3222 J model 28V. There is a 14V version if that's applicable to your aircraft. Because they're so hard to find, I ordered a whole lot off the guy on eBay so I've got lots of spares now. I looked at converting to the A507's, but by the time you buy the bulbs and sockets, and install, I was okay with spending 1/3 of the price on a half dozen spare bulbs, even if it meant changing them more often, which is a bit of a pain in the rear with all the sealant used.

It's not "a few minutes" though. It's 8-10 minutes a flight, times that by tens of flights per year, and you've got hours and hours of overly rich engine operation. Who fed you the BS regarding detonation if you don't run full rich below 75%? You're doing more damage to your engine now than you'll ever do by properly leaning it. It's sloppy airmanship not to look after your engine, especially in a single it's basically your lifeline.

7000’ is insanely high to start leaning. You’ve been to Springbank, it’s only at 4000’. I have to lean my mixture for takeoff or I won’t get max rated power, already being down a couple inches of manifold compared to sea level. Taking off full rich I can feel a very noticeable decrease in performance. I continue to lean in the climb for best power. I can’t imagine going all the way to 7000’ at full rich mixture, you must be down to 55% power. How slow is your climb v/s at max weight? I can’t fathom a good reason against leaning in the climb, or for takeoff at a higher altitude airport. It’s bad for your engine not to. (Different story for turbo engines.) If it’s something you were taught, it’s bad practice and a little bit lazy on the part of the instructor not to explain it better.

Did you have any recourse with the shop who missed the corrosion?

It depends what you're after. If it's speed and efficiency, the Mooney will spank the Cardinal 7 days a week. If things like big doors, top mounted wings, and tiny cargo compartments are important to you, the Cardinal is the way to go.

The reason TKS was so effective on the Caravan compared to the boots, is because the Caravan boots barely extended up to the top of the leading edge. One of the reasons caravans were so dangerous in the ice was because even with the boots knocking ice off regularly, it would still build up behind them on the upper surface of the wing. Since the TKS fluid flows back over the wing, this problem was alleviated on the 208. Last month, I did a trip from Calgary to Victoria in my J. Up at 16,000 the OAT was -36*. On descent into YYJ, the OAT was 2*. I was vectored into some pretty puffy, thick cumulus clouds around 6000’. Within 60 seconds, I had about 3/8” of clear ice on the leading edge, and it ran back past the fuel gauges, damn near to the first row of rivets. You better believe I stuffed that nose over to about 170 knots and asked for an immediate descent. There was zero icing forecast in the GFA that day. I think what happened was my wings and fuel were so cold from being up at altitude for 3 hours, that the liquid water just froze instantly on contact with the airplane. When I got out of the plane on the ramp, the ice had melted, except for under the wing where the fuel tanks are. There were icicles about 1/2” thick streaking back almost to the gear wells. I should have taken a photo. I’ve got one of the top side of the wing. Point being, icing conditions are difficult to forecast and very dependant on a number of factors.

You're mentioning things like the big doors that make exit and entry easier, and high wings allowing great visibility in turns? You only use doors once a flight, and the Mooneys have excellent visibikity. Hardly seem like factors worth considering. You sound pretty set on a Cardinal, buy whatever makes you happiest.

How come all of the photos are of the engine? Who cares? This guy needs to post some of the rest of the airplane, including the interior if he wants to sell.

@AJ88V You're not alone. I run my takeoff trim setting about a half a block high as well. I find my plane usually wants to start flying right around 60 knots, that's about when I let it come up off the runway anyway, initial climb is easy with that trim setting, but yes, I must roll a bunch in when retracting the flaps.

It does add to the overall picture of situational awareness, but I also think there's one piece of equipment that's now in every pilot's flight bag, that bridges the gap between a G1000 style setup and steam gauges - the iPad. Before iPad's and things like ForeFlight were prevalent, I absolutely concur that the added situational awareness provided by a moving map GPS is priceless. Heck, even my old KLN-89B has a rudimentary top-down map page. The big "step" in avionics came with the introduction of the Garmin 400/500 series back in the early 2000's. A full color, moving map, with inputs for terrain, traffic, and of course GPS approaches. That's why they were so immensely popular. Recall, when GPS approaches first debuted, almost all of them were "overlay" approaches that allowed you to more easily fly a traditional navaid approach, like an NDB. Now, overlay approaches are hard to find, as standalone RNAV's have taken over. Before iPads, the value proposition for a giant glass panel was much different than it is today. I digress... Yes, I agree that a big display in the panel is sweet, but as tablet technology has progressed, having that iPad in your aircraft means that even the guy in a Piper Cub can have access to a full moving map, approach plates, traffic, terrain and even a rudimentary AHRS display. No longer do you need to spend $50K on avionics to get all of that same information displayed in two places at once. Disclaimer: I'm in no way suggesting that an iPad is a true replacement for a proper GPS for navigation, simply illustrating how it is another tool that aids in increasing situational awareness. For me, the steam gauges and early 2000's GPS get me where I need to go. The iPad helps my situational awareness immensely, but I'm careful not to be too reliant on it. If I forget it at home, I can still get to where I need to go.

What did you not like about the Ashby?

I wish I had a 430W! I’m still on a KLN89B! Thank goodness Honeywell still provides database updates!

I might be a bit of an outlier in this regard, but I actually prefer a steam gauge panel. My ‘91 still has the factory panel. It’s not 70’s vintage mind you, I’ve got an HSI, RMI, standby vacuum, dual nav comms, ADF, DME. Basically the bendix king catalog from 1991. I’ve looked at doing the G5 thing, but I always come back to “why”? Maybe my day job flying big jets for a living has me a little jaded on the whole glass display thing, but I love the visceral feel of a Mooney, I bought mine to fly it, not sit there and stare at the screen while the autopilot does everything. That’s just me, your mission and goals may differ. I fly IMC often, and the steam gauges ensure my scan stays sharp. Perhaps that’s no help to you, but it’s my viewpoint on it. You don’t “need” a glass panel. If you want one, that’s different and only you can decide if it’s really worth it. Me, I’m more than happy with my 90’s panel. Reminds me of when I started flying!

Wow that’s some pretty intense damage after such a short time!

Google “H35W28V” and see if that’s the one. Same as the wingtip white nav lights on certain models. The pins are cut to length.