danb35

Because engines fueled with 100LL have never blown up. Seriously? Diesel may or may not be the answer, but a single engine failure really isn't relevant at all to answering the question.

13.8 is actually a little low (you want to be ~14.1), but that shouldn't be low enough to turn on the light.

An STC would not be necessary, as the factory drawing constitutes "approved data" to make the modification. As to whether a 337 is required, that would depend on whether this constitutes a "major alteration". I'd argue that changing the plane from one certified configuration to a different certified configuration would not be a major alteration, but I suppose some mechanics could disagree on that.

Alan, there's really no reason to reinstall a factory EGT gauge--your IA is dead wrong on this. If he can't show you a FAR or a listing in the TCDS that requires one, but still refuses to sign off the aircraft as airworthy, direct him to sign off the annual with discrepancies. The log entry will read like this: "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with an annual inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated mm/dd/yy has been provided to the owner or operator." Then get some other mechanic (who isn't suffering from an acute cranial-rectal inversion) to sign a log entry saying something like "EGT instrument not required on this aircraft." Problem solved. Oh, and don't go back to this IA for another annual.

Incorrect. If the IA has noted discrepancies, you must have those discrepancies corrected, or obtain a ferry permit, before further flight. A discrepancy means the aircraft is unairworthy, and it's a FAR violation to operate an unairworthy aircraft (and it'd be pretty hard for you to argue that it was inadvertent if your IA has specifically informed you of the squawk).

If the engine monitor is designed reasonably, there's no reason it needs to be on the avionics bus--that is, nothing going on on the master bus will harm it. The EI UBG-16 instructions specify that it be powered from the master bus, which is how mine is installed. I'd expect that would be a hard requirement for anything that's a primary instrument replacement.

Sure, filling out a 337 is easy. What can be difficult is finding a source of "approved data" to support your major alteration or repair.

Since the OP didn't identify which EI monitor he has installed, there's no way you could have checked "the EI stc". The MVP-50 is a primary replacement instrument for any required engine instrument, but the UBG-16 isn't. However, if there's no regulatory requirement for an EGT gauge on an M20J, there's no problem with removing the factory instrument. If it isn't in the FARs (which it isn't), and it isn't in the TCDS (which it also isn't), what would make it a required instrument?

Yes, it is. Talk with your preferred mechanic before you do the work to see what he's going to want as far as documentation, inspection, etc. I have a .dxf file of the left-side panel for my '67F if it would help--I had it cut on a water jet cutter from .090 sheet Al. It ended up being a pretty big job, but I'm happy with how it came out. My mechanic treated it as a minor alteration, so all it took was a log entry. If yours thinks it's a major alteration (and thus, needs a 337 and field approval), either find another mechanic or see how he'd go about getting that field approval.

Well, that figures--just in time to make this obsolete: http://www.interociter-enterprises.com/Interociter_Enterprises/Downloader.html Sounds very nice, though--I'll look forward to reading more about it when they get it posted to their website.

No need for a sign-off from the FSDO; it's a factory mod under drawing no. 950086. A 337 was filled out on my plane (probably not necessary), but it's doesn't go to the FSDO; it's straight to OKC for filing.

I was also going to suggest McFarlane, but make sure you have your A&P's concurrence first. McFarlane doesn't make certified throttle cables for Mooneys, so you'd be doing this as an "owner-produced part"--you send them your cable and tell them "make one just like it." Once it comes back, your A&P needs to agree that it conforms to the aircraft type design, and then he can put it in (and the log entry should state that it's an owner-produced part). This is all perfectly legal, but a bit out of the ordinary.

The BatteryMINDER is rainproof. I leave mine out in my shade hangar (i.e., sheltered, but not enclosed) regularly without any trouble.

If your caps are leaking, you should replace the O-rings. It's easy and cheap to do, and there's a "mandatory" Mooney SB that requires inspection of the O-rings annually (the AD that incorporates that SB does not require recurring inspection, but it's still a good idea). There are two per cap, and the small one on the inside is often neglected. Here's a write-up on how to change them: http://www.csobeech.com/files/O-RingChange.pdf ...and here's some information about sources, and replacing the factory parts with blue flourosilicone O-rings that look cool and last longer: http://www.csobeech.com/o-Rings.html As to locking caps, Norm Smith (RIP) had a mod out for the fuel caps to lock them; I'm not sure what happened to his stuff once he died.

Chemical solvents may cause paint damage (though I haven't seen any on my plane, after having had Paul do it a few months back). Hand scraping can damage the tank interior skins. You pays your money, you takes your chance.

My '67 F has an access door for ground power; I have the battery minder wires zip-tied to the ground power plug so I can access them through that door. Works great. If memory serves (don't have the logs handy) it was added after the plane was purchased, but using a factory drawing.

$30? Mine was more like $300, about 4 years ago. There was someone around here that was talking about making PMA'd replacements out of silicone, which sounds like a much better material. Anyone remember who that was?

Why is approved data so important? Installing an ELT isn't a major alteration, so it doesn't need approved data to support it. OTOH, the Mooney SI does indicate where a suitable mounting place would be.

What does he consider "high payload"? Depending on that answer, a Mooney may not be the best option--young, turbo, FIKI, and high payload don't go together very well in a Mooney.

I'm with Zane--if minima aren't a factor (either the LPV and ILS are the same, or either is plenty low for the weather), and there won't be an operational effect, I prefer the LPV for the reasons he mentioned, mostly the stable needles.

I believe the wire (singular) mounts to a threaded post on the outside of the sender assembly.

All IFR currency experience needs to be under actual or simulated instrument conditions.

Nobody knows, and it doesn't matter. Absolute EGT values are all but meaningless, and until people started using digital engine monitors, nobody knew or cared about the numbers. Congratulations on the new plane!

Had an IPC this morning, so now I've voted for the first option. Great day to be flying here!

Although the AccuTrak does indeed fly nice approaches, it isn't approved for approach use--or at least, mine isn't according to the AFMS. You can even use the Icarus SAM GPSS module with the AccuFlite for GPS steering. It really works quite well, especially for pretty old tech.