M016576

Quote: DaV8or If I were do the Sandel, I would need all the parts because I have no HSI now. I would also have to get the whole deal used like you did to make it work. I saw a used 3308 on the Bennett used avionics site for about $3300, but wasn't clear that it included all the supporting instruments. Is it realistic to think I could get the whole kit and kaboodle for $3500? Also, what about this projector bulb that needs to be replaced every year? Does your's have that?

Quote: DaV8or I've gotten sort of interested in a used Sandel 3308 after reading this thread, but what I'm not clear on is, does it still require a mechanical gyro to get it's heading information? I can only budget for used and I'm not that thrilled with buying used gyros. However, if I feel better about buying used electronics, is a flux gate all electronic, or does it have moving parts as well?

Quote: Vref Hi Job,very nice, I will have my EDM800 in exact the same location, replaced by the color LCD. I have a gtx 330 but in Europe no weather . Was the SG102 pin to pin compatibel with the old gyro compass system. How much re-wiring had to be done from the gyro compass and inside the panel..? Thanks, I find it an intereresting set-up..a good mix of existing and new technology.. Do you have the software installed for revisionary mode if the ATT fails? Luc

Almost forgot the panel pic. Here's my set up....

Quote: KSMooniac What is the fully-installed cost of the Sandel option vs. an Aspen today?

Quote: Mitch Job, '80 M20J, 3891H You are in Lemoore now? We do fly through the Lemoore A and B areas quite a bit, so we'll be on the lookout for you and please, be on the lookout for us too! How't that beautiful new paint job? Take care.

Quote: peter Agreed, it is hard to argue against the NTSB recommendations to improve training requirements since this will help pilots keep pace with the changing technological landscape. Yes, there are disagreements between ASF and the NTSB on the methods used in Nall. However, Nall’s conclusions about relative accident rates between different flight profiles are not affected by this disagreement. The historical accident data for GA predicts that accidents during IFR cross country flight will have the highest fatality rates, and that accidents flying around the pattern with an instructor will have the lowest. It turns out that in the NTSB study the glass aircraft were used mainly on IFR cross country flights, and the non-glass aircraft were used mostly for local training flights. My opinion is that it would have been more meaningful for the NTSB to evaluate the fatality rate of the glass equipped aircraft on an IFR cross country flight versus non-glass equipped aircraft operated the same way, but the NTSB stopped short and did not do that analysis. The bottom line is that their observations that the glass equipped aircraft had a higher fatality rate doesn’t tell the whole story since it didn’t consider differing mission profiles among the accident aircraft.

Quote: GeorgePerry Personlly if I were going to spend that kind of money on an F, I'd pass and look for a decent J. Avionics are nice, but they don't make you go any faster.

Quote: peter There are many who believe that the NTSB fell short in their analysis, primarily because their conclusions did not consider the mission profile differences between glass and non-glass aircraft. See Max Trescott's excellent analysis of the NTSB study for additional insight. In his analysis, Trescott compared the accident statistics of the NTSB cohort aircraft to those of the broader general aviation population, as documented in the Nall report, and he concluded that the data suggested that "glass cockpit aircraft, when matched against aircraft used for a similar purpose, are actually safer than the overall GA fleet, which is predominantly non-glass"

For those that want "glass" HSI functionality (ie courselines, waypoints, map view, airspace, etc) but don't want to pay the G500 pricetag, take a look at the Sandel SN3308 or SN3500. I picked one up on ebay for just over 3k, had it installed for a few k more, and it is a VERY capable unit. I have it tied into my Garmin 430W, KNS-80, ADF and my century 41 A/P. Don't need a GPSS and the A/P tracks nice and smooth! BREAK BREAK- I wrote my Master's capstone on this very subject: Safety in General Aviation with glass cockpits. The NTSB released a study from the past 10 years on safety and fatality rates in general aviation aircraft equipped with glass vs. conventional. Turns out that while the overall mishap rates dropped in glass cockpit equipped aircraft, fatality rates went up significantly. The report is on the NTSB website (about 80 pages of information, broken down by age, aircraft type, IMC vs VMC, etc). I highly recommend checking it out. The conclusions of the report state that the FAA should consider more training or qualifications for part 91 pilots prior to using glass. -Job

Quote: tbrickey I recently purchased a 1979 M20J that is in excellent condition. I would like to post a few questions on some behaviors I was not expecting. My expectations are based on prior M20C experience. First the cowl flaps work fine on the ground. They fully open and fully close. However, in flight, I am only able to half close them. Is this normal? Second, as I climb to 10,000 feet, the manifold pressure is still showing 29 -30 inches. I see expected values when the engine is not running and when the engine is at idle. I have a new powerflow exhaust but don't think that is making the difference.

If I was looking for an instructor to get teach me instrument flying- I'd rather have an instructor that is solid in his instrument procedures, and knows the equipment I intend to use backwards and forwards (big difference between shooting a backcourse localizer vs. NDB vs. a WAAS GPS approach... even between equipment), but has no mooney experience rather than an "average" CFII with a bit of mooney time. Obviously, the ideal situation would be a CFII that is an expert on both... but I think you'll probably find more expert CFII's that don't have mooney time, than the other way around. Just a hunch on that, though.... Ultimatley- find someone you feel comfortable learning IFR with... don't let mooney experience keep you from an awesome CFII. (just my opinion). -Job

Quote: Jeff_S I have to admit I'm on the fence on this one. There is not only the initial price to pay, but periodic maintenance and upkeep of the system which is significant dollars as well. At some point you have to decide the trade-off between economics and utility. I know David (the OP) flies a lot at night and in that situation, where you can't easily find a good landing spot, the airbags would provide some additional peace of mind. But for mostly day flying, I believe the old adage of "fly it all the way to the crash site" is still pretty good advice.

Can't wait for this STC... I'm already saving for this mod. You never know when something bad will happen... best be prepared!

Here's my plug for a non-turbo in the rockies.... it's doable, depending on where and how you fly.... I fly from China Lake to Sun Valley, Idaho on a fairly regular basis. it's a 3.5 hr flight in a M20J at 8500', LOP. The valley's through Nevada are parallel to my course, so I only have to cross two pretty small passes. The weather tends to hug the peaks, but you're so far below MEA, even at 9500' that picking up an IFR clearance would require major climbing + oxgyen. In the summer, it's a bit bumpy. In the winter, though, you've got icing to contend with.... If you're planning on heading to Colorado in the winter (ski season), then realize that any sort of legit IMC flight is probably going to be off the table (due to icing). With that in mind, you need to be flexible in terms of your travel dates. A turbo may be able to get you climbing over weather, but you can't decend back through it.... so in my books, if the weather is looking poor, it's best to not even try in a light civil in winter time in the mountains. A turbo will give you better performance at higher altitudes. If you really want to take advantage of the turbo, though, you kind of need to be up in the teens, which requires oxygen. When I made the decision to go NA, knowing that I'd be flying through the mountains for 50% of my flights, I weighed the following factors: A) I looked at my route: It doesn't require flight in the moronosphere (120-FL200) cost/benifit: did I need the turbo for the other 50% of my flights?- nope(coastal flights in SOCAL). C) would you rather hit some bumps a little lower in the summer, or have a bit smoother air but wear/use O2? (option A for me... we don't mind the bumps... my wife sleeps through them). D) realize that in the winter, the turbo may get you up and over weather, but you can't go back down into it (ice). Nov-Mar, they may be from the surface up past the FL's. The advantages of the turbo have been mentioned already: better T/O performance at higher altitudes. Ability to cross really tall passes. Faster. The disadvantages: a bit more expensive to operate (when you add in the O2 + extra fuel burn + potential turbo maintenance). I think the TN 20F is a great option. Right now, you can find some nice VFR barebones J's for mid-60's, too, though... they might be a good option as well. Whatever you pick, make sure you get one that's been flown regularly, with a great maintenance history! if you don't... then by the time it does have a great maintenance history, you'll have paid for it (trust me on this one: a lesson you don't need to learn!)!!!!!

My experience is similar to cruiser's... if I see any sort of appriciable difference in MP, then I know that it's time to swap out the filter element. I have yet to see a knot difference with the ram air open... and my GAMI spread is still at .4gph (same when it's closed... stock injectors, too).

Beautiful work! did you do it all yourself w/ an A&P or did you have a shop help?

Thanks... there's a M20M TLS without the engine mod for sale for a low low price on barnstormers, only 1400 hours total time and only 50hrs SMOH. Couple problems, though: leaky fuel tank, out of annual, doesn't have the -B mod and it's in Denmark (so would need repairs, then a ferry). Very cheap though, for a M20M.... would probably work out to be about the standard price with all the work/ferrying required....

Does anyone know how much it costs to upgrade an old M20M from the -A to the -B with oil cooled guidevanes? Thanks! -Job

Quote: scottfromiowa I hear you...I bought the EI digital fuel flow and had wire run to GPS. I am installing at annual with new tires/tubes, brake rotation, pads and brake cylinder and hydraullic gaskets a new...Looking forward to superior stopping power...again and knowing the exact fuel flow at different power settings...but NOT enough to rush fall. November in Iowa will come soon enough anyway!

I'm with you, George: that's quite possibly the WORST story I've ever heard about an FBO... It's a long ways from CA to NJ, but you can be sure I'll never be visiting LDJ.... Speaking of which, have you found a way to mount an AIM-9X on a M20F yet? I'm getting close to an STC, I think....

I do have a question regarding a single high CHT.. I have heard this multiple times before, too, not just here... I've heard people say that "well, I have one CHT in the 380's, the others are in the 340's... maybe it's just the probe location" or "it's the factory probe." I know that EGT probes are placed in a somewhat arbetrary location in the exhaust stack and that their exact value is somewhat trivial (it's the comparison to where it peaks that we care about, not the number it peaks at). But with CHT, we're looking at an actual number that determines the current strength of our cylinder head and how the wear cycle will effect it in the future. Wouldn't a probe located anywhere that shows a higher number be one to heed? or is there a specific location that is known to read higher than the actual cylinder head temp for some reason? Thanks in advance! -Job

Quote: allsmiles CHT rises with cold air in a normally-aspirated engine. More power is produced with cold air because cold air is denser requiring stoichiometrically more fuel flow. And depending how dense the air (how cold) the engine is producing higher power at a leaner mixture (more air, less fuel). More power and/or a leaner mixture equates to higher CHT.

another vote for the EDM-830. I have it, I love it, and I now consider it mandatory gear for me should I "upgrade" to a missile or rocket in the future!

Thanks for posting the lecture, I found it very informative. It's nice to see more of the physics behind LOP vs ROP operations and the actual meaning of the indications in our cockpit. Changed the way I look and lean on my JPI!