cliffy

The exact answers can be found in AC 43.13-1B at the end of Chapter 9 paragraphs 9-60 through 9-64 It specifically delineates what is required for older Mooneys certified under CAR-3 and the later ones under Part 91.

4-cylinder, in-line diesel cycle engine, DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, common rail direct injection, system turbo charged, liquid cooled, FADEC, wet sump oil system and reduction gear (ratio i = 1:1.69) FADEC controls and slow prop speed (2,000 rpm, should be quiet though). 170 kts may be max speed with slower normal cruise but all in all, if it does 155 to 160 normal cruise at something around 5.5 to 6.0 gph, not bad. Something was mentioned about it being a 3 seater (1 in back) Might fit in well considering the normal pax load most fly with is 2 on board. "Competitive" pricing? $350,000 ? But it will come with all the TV screens instead of good ol' steam gauges !

Just curious but it would be real interesting if this could combine with Aces High http://www.hitechcreations.com/ for WWII action flights Kind of a dual role set up. Mooney trainer PLUS an evening of flying WWII aircraft on realistic missions in real time with pilots from all over the world. .

You can go here and find the correct type after you determine the aircraft s/n. This is the FAAs TCDS sheet for Mooney airplanes (Type Certificate Data Sheet) http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/d7b88102105d30e786257d7b00489777/$FILE/2A3_Rev_54.pdf Vacuuum pumps for J models are listed on page 33 and go by serial number of the airplane. There may be other models that have been approved under an STC that are direct cross reference to these so check carefully. As to pricing and/or "overhauled" units, that may be a personal choice after research. Thus my OP here. To change these one really needs the special tool that Rapco sells for removing and tightening the bottom nuts on the vac pump. It's less than $30 bucks I think. Get it! You'll be glad you did. I carry mine on board in case I have to do one on the road and the A&P doesn't have one. Saves lots of shop time. A lot can be learned by reading TCDS sheets. I've shown the pertinent data just below: 602. ……Vacuum pumps (see NOTE 24) (a) **Airborne, 200CC (24-0001 thru 24-2999) or ........................................... 3.5 lbs. ..................... -5.0 ( **Airborne, 211CC (24-0001 thru 24-2999)................................................ 2.5 lbs. .................... -5.0 © Airborne, 241CC-17 (alternate) S/N 24-3000 and ON................................. 3.4 lbs. .................... -5.0 (d) **Airborne, 241CC (alternate - all counter clockwise applications) (24-0001 thru 24-2999) or ...................................................... 3.4 lbs. .................... -5.0 (e) **Sigma Tek, IU128-003 and IU128-005 or -006 (alternate - all applications) (24-0001 thru 24-2999).......................................................... 3.4 lbs. .................... -5.0 NOTE 24: Aircraft models that originally were certified with vacuum powered attitude systems that have those systems replaced with a non-vacuum powered attitude system: If the Primary Attitude system has been replaced with an FAA Approved STC’d installation that meets the requirements of 14 CFR 23.1303(f)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi), 23.1311(a)(1)(2)(5)(6)(©, 23.1321(a)(©(d)(1), 23.1331(a)((1)(2)©, thereby leaving no operational systems dependent on a Primary or Standby (if equipped) Vacuum system, then the Primary and Standby (if equipped) Vacuum pumps and associated lines, manifolds, etc may be removed from the aircraft. Refer to engine manufacturer’s instructions of removal and capping off of engine driven vacuum pumps.

I have a Sigma-Tech vac pump that has been on for 900 hrs but works fine. I know, I know, lasted longer than it should have, it's only a matter of time. OK so, just curious if anyone has ACTUAL experience with an "overhauled" vac pump? I know all the "ol' wives tales" etc, I'm looking for actual experience with a 1 yr/400 hr ovrhaul unit Anyone. Anyone? :-)

WHAT A BEAUTIFUL AIRPLANE!

+1 with Ward It won't pass an annual without the required placards. If an IA signs it off that way he'll be seeing the Feds if they see it.

Looks like a nice airplane For a better answer with help, what is your flying background and experience? Speed control on landings seems to be the bigger issue in a lot of cases. Mooneys are not difficult, just slick, and need good speed control. 10 kts extra in the flare uses 1,000 more feet. Big deal is bounce or galloping on landing. On the third bounce you'll more than likely get the prop. Don't be afraid to push the knobs forward and go around after a bounce. They usually happen more often if you are fast on landing. It's really a good idea to get Mooney specific training with someone who knows how to do it. Welcome

Anyone have an update?

PM sent to you.

Looks good I saved a picture of it.

Haven't used one but might. Looks like they have a PMA approval and CofC with each light. It will need a Field Approval by your local FSDO to install. They do supply a couple of Field Approvals for reference for your A&P. Not a direct swap without the field approval. Can not be considered a "standard part" for this LED light as there is no "standard part" LED in existence. Here's a;ink to one of the Field Approvals http://www.aeroleds.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/piper-field-approval-2.pdf

I've had 3 RDs (rapid decompressions) in my career. 2 at altitude and one on climb out at 24000. None could be controlled by alternate or manual means so down we went. After each one as soon as we leveled out I made an announcement to the PAX as to what happened and what we were going to do, hoping to ease there concerns. In older planes (727) A/P off and push over, on newer (A320) the A/P does it. Once the masks go on for the pilots, the real emergency is over, now get down for the PAX. After you get down now you need a plan because if you are far from home you need an alternate because of gas limits down low. THAT is not an "emergency landing" by any measure, as it is usually reported. I've actually flown twice from LAS to SFO and back, non-pressurized in a 757, that had both A/C packs inop (legal MEL) No emergency landing there. No different from getting down with packs or pressurization dead and then landing unpressurized. Though it may be unnerving to PAX it is really a non-event.

The transition from steam gauges in a 727 to an "Aspen" like display in the 757 was very difficult for many old timers. Notably the FMC was a bigger issue than the glass but the glass had its issues with many also. Took some time to transition to being comfortable. All in all I preferred it to the Airbus 320 display. If I could I'd go Aspen.

i can tell you that after 30 mins at 12000' 0 degrees F and IMC the windshield ices up completely INSIDE the cabin on my C. Couldn't go lower due to MEA out here in the west. Cold as a well diggers *&^% for the wife.

Used to send new flight attendants to the rear lav with an air sick bag to get an air sample for maintenance before we landed.

Had a friend hit a deer at Grand Canyon Apt in Merlin. Bent the prop and engine mount. Didn't do the deer any good either.

Sabermech- now that I am retired and fly for fun I'm with you and I have been doing this for 54 years. I can remember flying over LAX in my C140 when there was no Class B, hell there wan't even a TCA. Just look at he TAC chart for LAX now! It's a zoo.

Just a note on the anonymous feature of ADS-B It is written into the regs that you can set up ADS-B for anonymous use but it has to be done on the initial install set up. It can't be changed afterwards in flight. If used, one can not receive ANY ATC services in that mode. Can't go Class B or C or A if you need ATC. No flight following, no pop-up IFR approaches, nothing that ATC has to respond to. Might as well not even have it. There will be NO anonymous flights anymore for corporate/executive aircraft period. THAT is BIG security issue for many companies. Think about oil companies or financial companies that fly all over the world that now have removed any identification from their airplanes (plain white paint jobs) and now block their N number from ATC. It's all about to stop for them. Full public disclosure is the official FAA mantra. Secondly, if anyone thinks that ADS-B will not be proposed for user fees in the future you'd better think twice. Absolute perfect records of airspace use is waaay too easy for some to gloom onto for money. As was said, precise identification (by N number)is not needed for ATC TIS services. Random codes would be just as useful for traffic depiction for all VFR traffic. IFR you have RADAR and you can be tracked that way for user fees if they ever want. A system proposed here a few posts back that just relays the satellite signals back to the ground for position processing would also work and be totally anonymous in nature. Can anyone say that this is not the start of user fees without Congressional action? Pay to play for everyone as the FAA dumps their upgrading costs onto the GA market. Again JMO

drapo- thanks for the correction to NavCanada Yes better service for Oceanic travelers hence only in the Hudson Bay area.

I once broke out at 200 feet on a rainy night and just as I was flaring the runway seemed to "lift up". Seems hundreds of seagulls has used the runway for a roost. The airport manager went out and picked up 22 of them. They were bouncing off the windshield like baseballs. I ducked below the panel as I was rolling out.

That doesn't mean I don't like YOUR system!

YOUR system would work IF the system worked that way but it doesn't. YOUR WAAS GPS takes the signal from many satellites compares the angles received from the base time mark and the variable time hack from each satellite (each satellite position is a known quantity) to compute a position in space of where the receiver is. That position is then displayed on your panel. A basic geometry problem to solve. All the angles when compared to the known position of the satellites converge on your airplane and from that your position is computed by your GPS receiver. Now with ADS-B they want us to re transmit that position to them for their ATC separation responsibility. They even have issues with has fast the re transmit function can happen. They have "latency" requirements for the signal to go from the WAAS motor to and through the transmitter and out the antenna. This is why ALL ADS-B equipment has to be certified with specific WAAS receivers, UATS or ES transponders as a complete system. We can't just take any WAAS motor and couple it to any UAT or ES xponder and hook it up. The timing of the signal through the entire system has to be certified to be within TSO limits.

If the satellites transmitted position to the airplane and the airplane re transmitted that signal to ground- Why not just have the satellite transmit the aircraft position to the ATC? Because it don't work that way

The GPS satellites transmit a signal with timing the receiver decodes the signal from numerous satellites to give a position in space, it doesn't just re transmit a position signal,