jlunseth

I have a little different take. I tried something like what the OP is anticipating for my instrument checkride. It was sort of forced on me. I took my early lessons in an Archer and then got the Mooney. I took some lessons in the Mooney and then it turned out the Mooney needed some work so we moved to a Skyhawk. The school had several different Skyhawks and they all had different instrumentation. With all the changes going on, learning to land and maneuver different planes with different speeds and then instruments with different buttonology it just did not go very well. Why not just finish your lessons in the Warrior. It is an easier plane to land. It is also considerably slower so you have more time to consider what you need to do. It’s not that the Mooney can’t fly slower, but most people don’t figure that out, and even then the Mooney’s “slow” speeds are faster than the Warrior’s. Think about it. You are going to have to learn to fly steep turns at a different, faster speed. Same with all the maneuvers. I don’t for a minute think you can’t get it done in a Mooney. It is not that hard. But why not just finish your PPL up in the Warrior you are familiar with. Then get your transition training and challenge yourself getting an Instrument Rating in the Mooney, and if you want to be a really good, safe pilot, do a Commercial in it also. The Commercial maneuvers are almost never used in real life, but you learn a ton about how to fly and control your plane, it is worth doing. Nerves are part of every checkride. Just go with the familiar, get it over with, become a certificated pilot, and then learn your Mooney.

I have had a GPS go Tango Uniform when it was the only Nav instrument in the aircraft, so I have two GPS’s now. Redundancy is the main purpose. I have also had the main receiver fail to display a glideslope, so I always set my second GPS to fly the same RNAV or ILS that I have on the main unit. I have a GTN750 as the main and a 430AW as the backup. The backup is a completely independent system, the 430 is connected to a CDI so if the main system fails for some reason I have the backup. Flying an approach in IMC is not a time to have an instrument failure without another instrument to immediately substitute. Other than redundancy, the second comm is always useful. I use that to get wx. There are some approaches where a VOR radial is used to determine location of a waypoint. I sometimes use it for that, although in today’s environment you can get that info from the main GPS as a waypoint. The GTN750 is very durable in a technical sense, in that I have not ever had it fail completely, and have not seen some of the mistakes in the unit such as failing to catch a glideslope that sometimes happened in earlier GPSs. Also, I get rare GPS outages that affect one system (the 750) but not the other. A have a few functions on the 430 that are helpful when separated from the 750. For example, if I am doing a long descent I will use the vertical descent function in the 430 and it then tracks the descent so I know I am going to make my desired altitude. The 750 has the same capability, but if I do it on the 430 then I don’t have to leave the main nav screen on the 750 that I am actually using. When I installed the 750 I already had had the 430 for nearly a decade so I just kept it for redundancy and set it up as a separate system. But you are right, had I done a 750/650 system it would have cost quite a bit and not added much if anything except redundancy, and on the redundancy issue I think it is a mistake to wire a second GPS into the same system as the first, which is the way it is usually done. If something causes that system to fail there is a pretty good chance you lose both GPSs, so why?

Thanks.

There is an AD that just came out on Continental engines. Apparently some counterweight pins were installed incorrectly. I was looking at it on a fellow pilot’s iPhone last night. It appears to affect mostly Cirrus engines. The problem is that there are quite a few and for me, the AD has slowed down delivery of my new engine for my 231. I will try to get ahold of the AD and post when I have better information.

I have the same concern. Why do I need more than one temp probe. However some of the instruments that have been installed in my panel to date (such as a GI 275) require a compatible temp probe in order to receive the information needed by the instrument to make its computations, such as airspeed. OK, I guess. I want my instruments to work correctly.

I don’t need 3,000 for takeoff, probably half that. If I am on a runway where a 737 is going to land it’s 6,000 at least. All kinds of room to taxi to the touchdown point of the preceding aircraft. I do this at my home airport anyway, but for a different reason. There is an intersecting rwy about a thousand feet down the west facing parallel. When they rebuilt it they put a crown in the intersecting runway. It is exactly at the right spot for the plane to be light on its feet but not really ready to fly so it will throw the aircraft in the air and it will come down again on the far side of the intersecting runway. So I just do a rapid taxi to the intersection and put in power from there. There is about 3,000 feet left, and I do lots of takeoffs and landings on runways that length or shorter at the rural airports in my area, so don’t have a problem starting my takeoff roll from that intersecting runway.

We sent the request in before doing the work. “We” was Lasar at my request. The FSDO was aware the request was coming. I am grateful for Lasar’s help but it got us nowhere. We had a prior 337 for the same change that Lasar had done several years ago. The work was never done because we could not get 337 approval.

On the 337 issue, the truth is you would probably not get a 337 for the conversion. I have direct, recent experience. The FSDOs recently are taking a harder stance on 337s, especially where an STC already exists. The one I tried to do was to put a backup alternator on my engine in place of the vacuum pump. It was not approved. In part, the FSDOs do not grant 337s where there is an STC because they are protecting the party that got the STC. In part, they are trying to move people towards the STC process.

I have been on Mooneyspace for probably eleven or twelve years now. I remember this topic coming up way back then, and every two or three years since. Stories are all the same. I don't know Coy Jacobs so have nothing to say about the shop or the quality of work. What I can say is that many people have been looking for the STC's for a long time and no one has found them yet, or even a trail in the right direction. One of the things about STCs for better or worse is that in the case of things like the 261 (or 2) conversion, the work may be limited to the original STC owner. Not sure the STCs if they exist could be transferred any longer. Best of luck, let us all know if you find anything. But if you are thinking of the 261(2) conversion, my question would be why? The cost is probably so high today that you should just sell your 14v 231 and buy a 252 or Bravo. Don't get me wrong, I love my 231. But for my money the conversion today would not be worth it. You would still not have a 28V system.

I am not sure what a vacuum plug would do. The problem is not material entering the quick drain from outside. The problem is material swimming around in the oil that makes its way into the quick drain. Apparently it does not take much. I still have the piece that was found blocking my drain. It was some kind of plastic, long and thin. Say a quarter inch long and a sixteenth wide. As I understand it, material passes into the quick drain entrance hole, goes down the tube, and when the mechanic twists the drain to shut it, the material is captured in the seal mechanism, keeping the mechanism partially open. When the engine runs, the sump is pressurized and that blows oil out the drain that is blocked partially open. I am not sure a cap on the drain would help with that, probably the pressure would blow the cap off. In my case it took maybe two hours of flying for the engine to blow out most of the oil. As I have said before, I recommend that every once in awhile, the quick drain should be removed and the oil allowed to drain out through the big hole to remove as much of this debris as possible. There is a kit to refurbish the quick drain seal, that kit should be used to refresh the drain every few years. The cap would certainly be worth a try though. If it would stop the blowout, that would be a big deal.

I am pretty sure that is what I said. He has an intercooled 231. If he firewalls the throttle (WOT) at ground level, at least in my area where we are about 1,000 MSL for airport elevations, he will hit something over 40”. I have never done it, but I am pretty sure you could make it up to 45 or so inches. The limit in the nonintercooled 231 is about 37”, so hypothetically, if our OP were to firewall the throttle on takeoff, his MP would be about, say, 7 or 8” over max. At 37” at 1,000 MSL there is quite a bit of MP stick left to get to the firewall. The 231 is a different bird, it is capable of making well over max MP at ground level. It is up to the pilot to manage the throttle as the plane ascends, in order to keep the MP at a specific level. It is not like the automatic wastegate of the 252. Simple point. In the 231 (with Merlin) you don’t go WOT unless you are up around 22,000.

Yes, that’s an overboost. At ground level you would be well over 40 inches, which is the limit for the even the No intercooler 231 engine. You would be well over max HP. I don’t try to run at 36”, my feeling is that it just works the turbo too hard. Don’t have any hard evidence one way or the other, but back when I was experimenting I remember that temps start to climb pretty good at 35” (I.e. TIT and CHTs). We had one pilot on here from Europe that used higher MP settings though. Don’t know if he is still here and can add anything to the discussion. One problem I think you would have if you run all the time at 36” is that you would probably have to run at a fairly high power setting to keep the engine from getting too lean and running rough.

I guess I qualify as a frequent flyer. I fall into one of Delta’s upgrade categories. I also have watched airline service degrade, and for me it has been over a period of about 50 years now. A major issue is the reduction in seat sizes and the substantial increase in human sizes. If you look at a group picture in the 50s or 60s, and one today, you will see the problem. People are way larger in every sense, but particularly weight and width. I don’t usually wind up in coach but there have been a few trips where I have been in the center seat between two 280 pounders in coach, and it is just plain painful. With the shrinkage in seat size, we have become sardines in a can. That is typically what starts the problems, people are just flat uncomfortable and act out. We also don’t like the whole TSA dance where you have to wait in very long lines, take half your clothes off in public, and they put everything back together on the other side. However, what else are we going to do? I remember when the family could come down to the gate to see the passenger off, there were no long TSA lines, etc. But that was also before the World Trade Center, the shoe bomber, and several episodes of commercial aircraft blowing up in the air. We have not had that happen in quite awhile so I guess I am willing to put up with that hassle in exchange for some safety. As for the counter people, I seem to get treated with about the same level of courtesy as happened 30 or 40 years ago. If anything, those lines are faster than they used to be and since people can’t negotiate with the counter agent to get upgraded anymore, there are fewer people picking arguments with them. Yeah, it ain’t great. But I haven’t seen the fist fights that the news like to put up, not a single one, and I fly quite a bit. It has been probably fifteen years now since we have had a major accident involving a US crew and one of the major commercial airlines. Safety has definitely been upgraded. The airlines won’t do it of course, but they need to increase the size of the seat space. If you sit in coach, the person in front reclines, and you put your tray down it will be in your chest not to mention the elbows for the 280 pounders on each side.

I asked the question of one of my A&Ps once. It was awhile ago so don’t quote me, and I don’t perform the tests so this is my second hand translation. I was told that the pressure test technique is different for Lyc’s than for Conti’s. The Lyc test is more of a peak pressure test and the Conti is more of a hold pressure test. I was also told that lots of mechanics don’t know the difference between the two test procedures. Maybe someone who knows can enlighten us.

What a great plan! When my best friend was alive we used to fly MSP to KRAP to flyfish, and once down to the Bahamas. He is gone unfortunately, but it was so much fun the family wanted to put some of his ashes in that river in RAP, so that is where my friend is today, or part of him anyway. He gets to fish full time. A few years into the flying and fishing deal he said, "You shoulda bought a plane 20 years ago so we could have done this." Every time we landed he said, "Snatched from the jaws of death one more time!," with a big grin on his face. Miss those days. Glad I bought the Mooney so we could enjoy some time together.

Frankly I don't find the flight director cue very helpful. That was the case with the cue in my old King analog display and now on my 275. The problem is that the thing is just plain wrong a good part of the time. The course is over there to the left and I am a little low but the FD is saying stay level or even turn right. It is fairly accurate on an approach, but on a missed or in cruise, well, you just need to know when it is telling the truth and you can use it, or when it is not and you should ignore it.

The bane of my existence. As everyone knows we need full rich in a turbo for takeoff power or the temps get up there pretty fast. Let’s say you pull up to the line, are ready to go, but there are three planes ahead of you, or one landing but a long way out and Tower won’t let you go. So you lean out just to keep the plugs clean. Then something happens in the pattern and they want you to go in a hurry. Too easy to forget to enrich again. I do it about once a year. If I lean before takeoff I generally leave my hand on the mixture as a reminder, but things happen, something else on the panel needs attention. But I have a habit of checking the engine monitor during takeoff so I usually see it quickly and push the mix in.

They are really good. Every two years, rather than do a BFR with a local instructor who does not know Mooneys and where I do most of the teaching, I go to a PPP. Always learn something new. Also fun to put a face to some of the names you see here on Mooneyspace. I have been to five and I haven’t gone to a single one yet where I thought any of my time was wasted, on the contrary it is a constant learning and testing experience. As I said, the instructors are all really good, fun to fly with. How would you like to sit in a cockpit, fly for a few hours, and trade stories with someone who has owned and flown your model for the last ten years?

I see this thread poked up from 13 years ago. My ADF left the panel about 5 years ago. There are no NDBs anywhere in my area that I have found. XM radio is better anyway.

My trusty Stratus 1 has just always worked. I don’t bother with the suction cup anymore, it was constantly falling off. I just lay it up on the glareshield in a corner where it won’t move around and isn’t far from the charger plug-in. The display on the iPad is really good. The wx display does not have the definition that my Sirius XM weather does on the GTN 750, nor can I “see” weather forward a few hundred miles to my destination, but the traffic is actually better than the Garmin panel solution. I use the iPad all the time as a check on the panel systems. I also don’t need the AHRS, I have backup AI’s now, on the panel.

I confess. But it would still be a fun thing to do other than sitting around on the ground. Come to think of it, it might be a great way to keep hours up and stay insurable. And, I would get to fly a Mooney. Since they are G1000’s, probably a model I have not flown yet!

I have an entirely different perspective. Being near retirement and over the age to stop flying for the airlines, a job like that might be fun if the equipment is decent and it’s not a rat race. Would be better than sitting around doing nothing. And it would be flying with someone else paying the bills for a change. Nothing better than being in the air, well, hardly anything.

Same here. No panels removed when I bought mine and we found corrosion on some of the tubes caused by the insulation. It was a wool or wool-type insulation that would hold moisture and the edges were up against the tubes. Wish I had known. The repairs were done by Willmar Aviation when Bruce Jaeger owned it and have not been a problem since.

I am told that the JPI probes need to be installed in a specific way with a specific set of washers in a specific order. Now, your panel is a G1000 I presume so don’t know if anything like that applies to your probes, I just know that probe installation needs to be done exactly correctly or the readings will be in error. If the readings are correct then the likely issue is unbalanced fuel flows, although you say you have swapped injectors and nothing changed. It just seems like a couple of the cylinders are running richer than the others. I have GAMI’s. I can tell you that mechanics who had worked on my plane before I got it had done a pretty good job of putting the wrong injectors on the wrong cylinders, and the injectors are supposed to be tagged with the cyl number and all the tagging was gone. My A&P had to re-arrange the injector order, and tag the injectors, then it has worked fine. Like GAMIs should. The CHT’s seem so well in line with each other it is hard to conclude there is something wrong with the fuel flows, more likely an instrument problem.

Got it, thanks.