eaglebkh

Following up on my comment about changes up to 1966... I know the windscreen changed to a 1-piece at some point (not a 201-style), but both of these birds already have 201-style. The rudder was extended to include the tailcone, yielding more rudder authority. Rear windows became rectangular instead of wedge-shapded. There are probably more, but you'll have to decide how important each one is to you.

The '62 has a 201 panel, which is a plus. Even though the gauges are not arranged in the normal configuration, this panel will have more value for the lowest dollar once GPS is installed, as apposed to the shotgun panel in the '68 with an added GPS. Both have similar speed mods, but the '62 has lower gear doors. The '68 has the 3-blade Hartzell, which results in a slight speed hit but avoids the recurring prop AD. Neither have autopilot, but the '68 has PC system. I personally don't care for the PC system and I'm glad mine doesn't have it, making more room for my S-tec 30 w/alt hold. It all depends on your preference on this issue. The cloth interior in the '68 is less appealling to me. I didn't see the cost on the '68, but I would go with the '62 based on my observations. I'm not aware of any "important updates" going through 1966, other than PC. Both birds seem like nice VHF-nav planes...

Quote: edgargravel Just passed my initial instrument check ride today. Given the weather forecast for this part of Canada, it will not make it any easier to get to Osh, but it sure feels good!!!!

I was 99% prepared (as much as I felt possible) after using the ASA Oral Test Preps for both private and instrument oral exams. Highly recommend them. Some advice: there is no way to cover every possible question that you will get asked and it's okay to tell the examiner that you don't know something, just be able reference the applicable document or publication where you would find the answer. Good luck on the checkride!

Looks like Rob (on this forum) recently put a 155 up for sale... http://mooneyspace.com/index.cfm?mainaction=posts&forumid=1&threadid=1371

$40 Timex Expedition that simultaneously shows Local time on the hands and Zulu time on the digital read-out. Has a nice, classic look and leather band, too.

Quote: allsmiles We need to keep what I am saying straight and in context. It makes no sense and, in my opinion, it is fiscally irresponsible, to remove solid proven equipment susc as KAP or as in my case KFC 150 for glass. Glass does NOTHING to improve the IFR capability of the airplane.

Had a lot of luck with the 3M stuff from Autozone and McGuire's PlasticX. Just be sure to use a slow speed drill and don't press to hard. I first used the stuff on my car headlights and it is easy to warp the plastic by pressing too hard or going too fast.

I agree 100% that Mooney does not convey the message of innovation - and desperately needs to. But things like BRS, FADEC, and side-stick are not innovative to me - more like features that just make the plane more appealing to the masses - make it more car-like in terms of operation. To me innovation is what drove the original Mooney design - laminar flow airfoil, backward tail, flush-mounted revits, rotating tail section, tubular frame, etc. In the vintage days, Mooney stood out because of the superior aerodynamic design and efficiency - properties targeted at making the plane better, not necessarily at being more appealing. Now a days, those same properties make a Mooney seem bland, and the market appears to be moving toward having flashy gadgets and car-like equipment. Mooney's main recent "innovations" have been things like glass cockpit, more powerful enging, and slight aerodynamic tweaks, which leads me to believe that they have been long clinging to the philosophy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's time for some new, bold innovations - targeted at making the plane better, not just more appealing to the masses. Then the more appealing part will naturally follow, as it did 40+ years ago. But, as my post is proof, not all consumers want the same thing - and that makes things difficult...

I guess since they aren't making any planes, there is no reason to invest much in advertising. Sad times...

Ditch the 250XL, as it is VFR only anyway - the KX-155 will be more useful in the event of VHF only nav, not to mention doing your own VOR checks. I got the Aspen for the same reasons you are. Trying to get plane IFR ready and needed additional CDI. For IFR, having 2 AI's is very comforting, and the GPSS will make the A/P seem much more effective. You're making a good choice!

Quote: N201MKTurbo I don’t see what the big deal is with de-rating the engine.

Quote: ProprAire Work with your installer to check the set up page. I had a slight deviation between level flight on my Attitude Indicator and my Aspen. A couple of clicks of adjustment and the Aspen PFD now matches the steam guages perfectly. Dan

I agree with Immelman - it's not a neuron drainer. And in the 2 events when I have reached for the wrong control, I was able to catch it quickly because I was watching the appropriate gauge - i.e. watching the RPM's while trying to adjust prop. If you don't see or hear the RPM's changing, then you're adjusting the wrong control. Same for mixture, if you start adjusting and the engine sound changes... Also, I think the vintage Mooney arrangement is better, since the 2 controls that are getting changed the most are on the outside. It's hard for me to adjust RPM's in a normal control layout, especially during turbulence, without bumping the other controls. It's easier for me to avoid the center control while adjusting the outer ones.

Good question - and the answer is actually no. As the air is leaving the unit, it is again cooled by the second exchanger. As you know, when air is cooled the moisture condenses, so all the moisture stays in the unit. I haven't noticed any fogging, even on the hottest, most humid alabama summer days. I have a Word write-up if anyone is interested. eaglebkh@bellsouth.net

The nice thing about the mooney cargo space is the logical placement of the door. You can fill up the entire cargo section through that door. On a cherokee-like door that is on the bottom, you can only load cargo until it reaches the top of the door, then you have to start passing stuff over the seats.

I'm really enjoying my Aspen, though I am on unit #2. The first one kept trying to use the backup battery. Some annoying tid-bits... The tapes don't always match the round gauges, which is most annoying with altitude (20-60ft diff). The auto-brightness is too bright at night and always has to be turned down manually. The glideslope indicator is up top in the AI instead of down low in the HSI, but that's just a matter of preference for me, as I'm used to it being down low. One note to anyone using a yoke mount of any kind: be sure not to push the yoke all the way forward while turning the ailerons, as this will cause the yoke mount to slam into the bezel of the Aspen display. Found that out on unit #1 - happened at run-up during control surface check. May only be an issue on vintage mooneys.

Quote: stevetuck Sorry, I meant to attach an image of the Aspen not two of the GMX-200. Here it is.

A few months ago I was just doing some pattern flying when the generator failed. Nice to know you can configure the plane for landing without drawing a sinlge milliAmp of precious battery power!

Same thing happened to me recently. 2 hours on a charger was enough to at least get it cranked (can't remember amperage). The following flight was 3 hours, and it seems to be fine now.

Quote: edgargravel My gear also comes down between the IF and the FAF (or in the downind). I have learned that dropping them as fast as 140 mph is not difficult and they are great as speed brakes too.

I have a different school of though on MP/RPM's for descent. I have a 3-blade, so I usually keep the RPM's at 2500 for descent to increase drag and keep the engine warm. Shock cooling or not, CHT's typically approach the bottom of green arc during descent. Manage airspeed with MP and landing gear. Also, do any of you keep your gear down throughout the entire approach phase, or just near the final approach? I drop the gear just before the first step-down fix and usually leave it down. I have problems keeping airspeed below 120kts during descents without the landing gear, and unless I am below 80kts, it's darn near impossible to retract the manual gear.

Cherry picker on the engine for me, since the cowling is usually all off at this point anyway. However, considering the tail holds the nose up during flight, I don't think it will cause an abnormal amount of stress on the ground either.

Quote: RJBrown Remove and Re-install is how I learned it

I've been meaning to get some of those "No Step" stickers for that and outline the area on the flap with thin white tape, following the shape of the textured walking area on the wing.