AlexR

Quote: carusoam Alex, What kind of flying do you do? Your photo shows backups to everything accept the transponder. Best regards, -a-

Quote: maropers +1 - do the garmin and then get an audio panel that would combine the markers and intercom, put that where your markers are now, move your current garmin up to about were the top of your audio is now, that shift and the king removal should be enough for your new garmin. locatiion priority by use

Great minds think alike! A GMA 340, GNS 530, and a GTX 327 are going into the main stack as we speak. The 430 is going into the right side as there is no more room. Building the harness this weekend and not sure if I need an annuiciator...Most say no for a non-waas like I have...but want to make sure...thanks.

Folks, I am in the process of installing a non-WAAS Garmin GNS 430 in the right side stack of my Mooney (1970 M20C) as my number 2 Nav/Com. I know that a WAAS 430 would require an annuicator panel over by the pilot if the unit was that far to the right, but is that also the case with the non-WAAS unit installed under 337/field approval? I know the install criteria for the WAAS units was more strict. Anyone that have one to the right, would really appreciate your feedback. Thanks! -Alex ps. it is going to go where the transponder is in the picture attached below.

Quote: jetdriven Try identifying the dead engine in a centerline twin. I have flown a 337. It is worse that a Baron on one engine, and try doing a V1 cut on that plane. You wil crash every time because you must clean up, but when those big gear doors open, the plane cannot climb. The accident rate for that one is worse than a regular piston twin and even worse than the 210.

Quote: aviatoreb Perhaps - but I would rather have an engine failure in a twin than in a single engine. You are citing an economic reason - a very valid perspective for a company. And this drives popularity. Yes, a twin for its added complexity has a higher chance of being a hangar queen. But when she runs... Yes a twin is roughly twice as likely to have an engine failure than a single. But you are MUCH MUCH more likely to still have one engine running. That is the important part. Back of the envelope calculation says you square the (small number near zero) probability of failure to consider a double failure, assuming independence of events, which of course is a rough assumption since there can be correlated failures. Twins have full feathering props. If you use that correctly, there is no windmilling issue, right? Problem is then the pilot and the higher probability of a single engine failure upon take off. Which is roughly twice as likely as a single engine failure on a single engine airplane. I will work out the rough estimates for anyone that wishes. And a single engine failure is very dangerous in the hands of an unprepared not current-enough twin pilot - with quick hands and reactions to feather the bad engines prop. Without that the asymetric prop causes the airplane to roll over on its back - and in the runway environment - very bad thing. So as far as I understand it, the majority of the extra danger of a twin is concentrated all on the take off events. And furthermore concentrated on twin pilots who are not current enough on that single engine emergency procedure. In enroute phase, over hostile terrain, I would take a twin any day. At annual time, I will take a single. And for the fact that I am not sure I would be that current enough in twin procedures, I think in my hands a single engine mooney is safer for the bulk of my operations. Plus, I mitigate my over water risk by not flying over water, and I hardly fly at night - though I wish I had a twin for that.

Done! And posted on Facebook to get other to sign!

There seems to be some confusion... Alex - Sorry, I'm logged in as you. Post deleted. Ross

Folks, I am having a GTX-327 installed and put my fairly new GTX-320 and Narco adapter I planned to install up on Ebay per below. If your Narco AT50, AT50A, AT150, AT155, or AT165 is giving you trouble, here is the solution. Cheers. -Alex http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Garmin-GTX-320-transponder-8130-form-No-reserve-/160655943571?pt=Motors_Aviation_Parts_Gear&hash=item2567d72793 http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Garmin-GTX-320-320A-Transponder-adapter-Narco-No-Reserve-/160655959456?pt=Motors_Aviation_Parts_Gear&hash=item2567d765a0

Looks good but I would move the audio panel to the right aux radio stack and the suction by the AI. The idiot lights can also be moved. You could then get your EDM-930 above or below the GTN 750. You look at your engine instruments much more than the audio panel and gear lights. In the soup, on a 'to minimums approach', I don't want to be turning my head so far to set/monitor power. You want your scan as tight as possible during the critical approach and departure phases which require power changes and monitoring engine instrumentation. Helps to avoid the assoicated head movement vertigo. Just my 2 cents. Jealous, as I wish I could afford to bring my C model up to that level of modernity. I would be happy trading in my sandel for an Aspen PFD with the new SVT. Will have to start buttering up the better half! -A

BOUGHT! I am looking to buy a used but in good condition GMA 340. Must come with the tray and connectors. A form 8130 is preferred but not a deal killer. If you are getting rid of yours as part of an avionics upgrade, pls PM me. Thanks. -Alex BOUGHT!

I would be interested in a reply also. I did the rudder and elevator hinge covers and am happy with those. Don't know what they go on there own, speedwise, but I got about 4 knots at 4500ft and 25 square combined with the alieron and flap gap seals.

What year is your F? Based on your avatar picture, it seems to me you should have a doghouse. Perhaps that is the problem; some previous owner changed out the doghouse to a baffle system that is not up to snuff... My doghouse 'seemed' fine but with just a little high temp RTV I was able to drop my CHTs by about 20-30 degrees.

Hi folks, Anybody have LASAR Wiser Visors in there pre-201? i.e. with the standard (non-extended) windshield? How do you like them? Do you have any pictures you could share? Thinking of getting a set but the only pictures I have seen have been 201s or later with the higher windshield. Thanks in advance. -A

Changing the sensors is no problem at all and has nothing to do with the chemical sealant in the tanks. The senders use a cork or rubber gasket which you should replace with new when you change the senders out. If the tanks have less than 3-4 gals in them you can make the switch. Instead of new, you can have your units overhauled for 1/3 the price. Try www.airpartsoflockhaven.com. The have done good work for me, less than 1 amu each.

Glad to hear some of you have had the Halos for a while now, as my only concern with them as durability since they are so light and small. Thanks for the tip on keeping the plugs warm in the winter...A

Quote: JimR I know of a C model owner who really did get a 4 knot speed increase from a PowerFlow installation at altitude. Fuel flows went up noticeably, too, at WOT power settings. More air flow requires more fuel flow, so unlike the aerodynamic mods the only way that you can have an efficiency increase as a result of a PowerFlow installation is to pull the power back to your previous WOT cruise speed. Not many pilots are willing to do that, so you'll be climbing and cruising a little faster and burning more fuel. What Gary is referring to is that many people claim less success with the PowerFlow in fuel injected Mooneys like the E,F, & J. I have no idea why but I've heard it enough to believe there must be some truth to it. To obtain maximum service life from a PowerFlow exhaust the company recommends that the slip joints in the exhaust be lubricated periodically. If you're not doing this already it would add a bit to your maintenance bills, but it's probably a good practice to do anyway. Personally I decided that the juice probably isn't worth the squeeze to me for my J model, but I feel that way about most modifications and "upgrades" when the OEM equipment has a long and well-established service history. Jim I actually got a slight (.4gph on average) fuel flow reduction at cruise. I think the reason why is the new exhaust helped to balance my EGTs (all over the place on carburated engines) which allowed me to lean a bit further (LOP in summer, and just one jug barely in the rich side in winter) than before. You are correct that fuel flow in the climb is higher. I agree that owners that seem to benefit the most are carburated. -Alex

Just got back from Oshkosh and decided to take Quiet Technologies up on their 30 day trail offer on the Halo headsets, after having read good things about them on the RV/VANs forums. Conclusion: WOW! Great sound quality, great mic, very good noise attenuation, and super comfortable. With my Bose X I would get a headache after 4hrs...not with the Halos. In conclusion, I am ordering another pair for the wife and the Bose are already up on ebay. I should get back 1/10-2/10AMU in the deal as the Halos are $350 each! Recommend you give them a try. BTW - Meet the owner of QT...he is an Audiologist and vintage Mooney owner...very nice guy. -A

I rigged up a ram mount under the throttle quadrant. Easy to see and accessible. I like to keep as little as gear as possible pointed at my heart and lungs....

Quote: N6719N Which model of Mooney do you have?

I got one in 2008. I noticed about 4 knots up high and a little less down low. The exhaust is tuned for wide open throttle and 10,000ft. I also got 150fpm more climb and fuel consumption went down about .4 gph. I was just at Oshkosh and Powerflow was offering a group buy discount....out the door between 3,500-3,100 for the stainless system. Annoying because I paid about 4k. Highly recommend.

I have an EDM-830 backed up by a FS-450, so no problems there...thanks to all for the info.

Folks, Thanks for all the feedback. Based on my mission profile, these will be mandatory for Mexico. As soon as my assignment is confirmed, I will place an order...will advise and post pictures of the install. My main tanks were resealed by Wilmar in 2008 and are still under warranty so that should help.

201er...many thanks for the timely reply...pm sent...again, much appreciated. -A

Greetings all, I may need to upgrade my M20C to long range tanks. Moving to Mexico for work were I will need to tanker fuel for the flights I gotta do (MMAN to MMCZ). Fuel stops are few and far between and landing midway will cost me 2-3hrs of filing out paperwork to refile as well as having the plane checked out by the Military, Customs, Immigration, etc. My only concern with the Monroy tanks is I have heard it is nearly impossible to just fill the mains as well as keep an accurate track of partial fuel loads. Would anyone that has them care to comment on this? What is the fill procedure for just the main? How about totally full? Do you have to go back and forth between the two tanks with the fuel nozzle to 'top off' as the fuel settles between both tanks? What does the flight manual supplement look like? Any limitations/restrictions? Any info would be most appreciated. I have an email in to Monroy on the topic, but no response yet. Cheers, -A