kortopates

I hope your able to get the repairs moving soonest. You might be interested to note that Continental no longer uses those drilled bolts and castellated nuts with the cotter pins. Their obsolete and you may find the bolts and nuts are no longer available. The good news is that they now use a self locking Spiralock nut which does a much better job and supposedly holds it grip impervious to vibration. These are spec'd for your LB engine as well by Continental. So if I were you, I would be looking at my available options to get rid of the cotter pin arrangement entirely going with the new Spiralock nuts and bolts when the repairs are done. If you got a factory engine, that's what you would get. The problem is that this may likely require new connecting rods in that I suspect the new hardware is not compatible with the old rod's you have and new current production connecting are some like $1600 each. But if your only option was to pay out of pocket for the update, you might also be able to buy used serviceable ones for much less which would allow the new hardware. You'd have to do a little research to find out what connecting rods are on there now and then check with Continental to find out your options (they are very specific about what fasteners can be used with which rods). Secondly, if I was in your shoes, in an effort to expand my options, I would carefully wash the sump out with solvent and strain the contents with cheesecloth in an effort to find that one missing cotter pin - if I understand correctly that all that isn't accounted for. If you know all the pieces are accounted for, then I would go for the quick and efficient repair of R&R'ing the rods in situ, its not much more than a top overhaul in labor and it seems everybody wins. You get your plane back in the air and I bet even with the expense of new rods to get rid of the cotter pins (if necessary), you'll have an easier time collecting from the original engine builders insurance for paying for all your expenses since the cost should be far less than the current alternative and you'll be flying a lot sooner. Even if you can't find that one missing piece, I'd still seriously consider this option, although not risk free compared to if you can find it, I'd talk to some engine builders that don't have a stake in this for their thoughts before throwing in the towel on a complete engine disassembly. An engine rebuild may be the only safe thing to do without knowing where the missing piece - I am not an engine rebuilder and can't speak to that.

I think I used the same bulbs from Spruce for a few years, I thought they were plenty bright. But as Philip states, "compliant" technically means nothing to the FAA. They're definitely not approved but since they sure seemed adequate, I installed them with the clear lenses as a minor mod - a modification though is not something an owner can sign off on under preventative maintenance. But later when the Whelen Orions came out I upgraded all 3 of my lights to the Orions. But I didn't lose any sleep when I had them installed.

They normally do, since the engine manufacturer states a tear down should be done if there is any prop damage - not in those exact words. But that's reason #1 IMO, insurance is not going to argue it so why should we take the chance. But recall the recent damage that happened to Don Kaye's Mooney when the gear was retracted in the shop allowing the engine to come down very slowly (it was no longer on jacks) - didn't matter since it damaged the prop it could damage the engine - the only discussion was that Don wanted a new factory engine versus a tear down, since his engine was still very new and the shop caused the damage. Although insurance won't cover the full propeller cost, they usually pro-rate its value based on time since overhaul or new and charge you betterment on the time used. So it depends on the age/hours on the prop what if anything you get. But that's a cost the owner swallows regardless and insurance usually covers some of the prop cost. Insurance does cover the full inspection and re-assembly of the engine, but parts would be limited to parts damaged by the prop strike - which could include the crank. Owner is welcome to turn the IRAN into a major overhaul at the cost of the additional parts alone - which is good deal for an older engine. Here is where an owner could really make out just doing the inspection. Lets say the crank has already had it last grind done at last overhaul, meaning next overhaul is going to require a new crank no matter what. If the crank is slightest out that would warrant another grind, the insurance typically picks up the cost of that new crank - potentially saving an owner a bundle down the road if they still own it on the next overhaul. Now if the owner is sure they'll run the engine to TBO, it probably doesn't matter in the long run if they skip the teardown, except for betting incorrectly on inspection results. Although the chances of real damage should minimal, not doing the tear down is going to have most future buyers question the value of the engine if a tear down inspection is not done and they learn about what happened. Which gives us reason #2 - resale appeal and value of the engine if it does get sold in the near future. Plus everybody sleeps good at night not betting on a missed inspection to verify; that could prove priceless.

When I get my KingAir I'll let you know ............ but could be awhile!

My stack includes both a GTN750 & 650 and when I had this decision to make I still went with GTX-345 panel mount. I really wanted to put it in the avionics bay to clean up the panel, but didn't simply because of all the reported bluetooth connectivity issues reported here in Mooney's. And I don't even need the bluetooth connectivity to the 345 on ordinary flights because my primary connection is to the FS-510 which gives me everything including ADHRS from my G500 to my ipad. But I wanted the GTX-345 connection as backup connection for ADHRS data in the very remote possibility of losing G500 ADHRS. Its not even my first level of backup, its my 2nd backup since my first real backup is the panel LSI-500. But I didn't want to risk losing bluetooth connectivity to it in the back after hearing about numerous people complaining about intermittent connectivity. Most definitely I would have gone with the avionics bay remote mount if I could be guaranteed I would have the same reliable bluetooth connectivity but there are no guarantees. Also despite not needing it, I have still have the ability control the 345 from both the 750 & 650. I don't really see a problem with a loss of real estate on the 650 either. Probably because I run my 650 in the default nav page exclusively. From that page, the flight plan page is one touch away by touching the active waypoint. All the important features are as well including OBS and CDI functions. My 750 provides the moving map, since the 650 is the wrong unit for a moving map IMO. Even flying with students where we typically only have the smaller 650, we still keep the 650 on the default nav page for the nav data fields and we'll use the ipad for the moving map situational awareness. That enable using the GPS's nav data fields to fly instruments with precision. (Even most of the rental fleet I teach in these days comes with a GTN 650, most have upgraded from the older GNS boxes, and many even now have the GFC500, yet most of the vintage mooney's I fly in including the early J's still don't have a IFR GPS or WAAS, but every pilot flys with an iPad) I am based under a busy TRACON so I often do change transponder codes in flight and personally it really doesn't matter which way the code gets inputted in. But if I had a single GPS go out with a remoted 345 I doubt I would feel that compelled to fly it till I got that fixed anyway. With a single GTN, I'd expect such a failure to most likely also take my main comm and nav radio as well. Just say-in as that failure mode doesn't apply to my dual GTN panel.

After many years of Mooney ownership I have used about every towbar there is out there. If you do need a tow bar, here is the finest available towbar you can get for the Mooney https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/bogibars2.php Its far superior to the Mooney factory towbar, lighter, much more secure in its attachment making it much easier to steer as you push the plane back.

Technically not true. See the reg Jerry cited above - once installed it must be on in all controlled airspace. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, but the IRAN, although extensive with respect to seals and bearings as done by Aero Accessories (there is no official parts list for the 500 hr IRAN) doesn’t include all the mandatory replacement parts required to qualify as an Overhaul by the manufacturer. An IRAN is still preferable to an overhaul anytime up until the point of an engine overhaul simply because the overhaul replaced expensive parts whether or not they are needed - but now you’ll need them to qualify as overhauled else get new ones due to the difference in cost being worth it to you. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't seen an actual parts list for adding dual brakes added up with current Mooney prices, but I have seen 3 M20K 252's go the dual brake update which changes out ALL the brake parts except for parking brake valve and hoses and also includes new spindles, calipers of course and 2 sets of gear doors (inner and middle). In Mooney prices for one side that prices out at $13.6K! although $1700 of that is for a pair of their new master cylinders since the Cleveland ones are no longer available.

Indeed Mike is correct, I have forgotten his name but he worked at Dugosh. But the plane wasn't running. As best as I recall, the plane was in the hangar and he moved the prop, which turned out to be hot and fired prop just enough to hit him in the head pretty hard. Although luckily the head injury was survivable it resulted in a significant brain injury that affected more than his speech. After a long recovery and rehab, he did return to work but the return was short lived. The brain injury apparently took to much a toll on him to return to work permanently. My biggest recollection of this was that it really taught me how dangerous a hot prop can be - it doesn't need to be a running engine to do a lot of damage, one pop can do it if your in the way. This was in the early 2000's - my guess around 2003 or 2004 or maybe even 2005 i.e. probably over 15 years ago now.

Might be a little late for this, but we'll be doing a MAPA PPP in Ogden UT on Oct 4-6, which is an intensive 3 days of all things Mooney that includes extensive ground school and 2 flight training flights. Typically the flight training is geared towards completing the requirements for a Flight Review on the first flight. The second flight can be continued VMC work or an instrument rated pilot can work towards completing IPC requirements allowing a proficient instrument pilot to get both a Flight Review and IPC over the weekend. But this would offer some of the finest Mooney specific training, both ground and in the air in just a few weeks. I don't know if it is still possible to sign up though given its only a couple weeks away. But you can check it out at https://www.mooneysafety.com/ppp-registration/ If both you and your instructor attended, you'd get 4 of those 5 hours and your friend would get a great start to build on.

Gravel runways in good condition aren't going to be problem as stated above. I've used gravel runways in Alaska as well as dirt in Baja mexico every year without ever damaging my prop. But its good pilot technique that prevents prop damage. To prevent damage keep the yoke all the way back while taxing and on the takeoff run only add power in slowly as you build up speed on the takeoff run; specifically avoid jamming in the throttle before your moving down the runway to prevent the prop from sucking in FOD. And if you don't have a FOD free runup pad to use, dispense with the traditional runup in place and instead just do a basic mag check as your building speed in the initial takeoff run, preferably by the first 1/4 of the runway and well before the halfway point, by isolating the mags just to make sure you aren't taking off with a dead mag or major roughness; you should still have more than the second half of the runway to abort. Two pilots up front makes this a lot easier to accomplish.

But an iPad can connect to many bluetooth devices at one time. I have the GMA 35, but not the the bluetooth option so can't speak to connecting to it and the FS 510 simultaneously, but I bluetooth connect to both my FS 510 and my GTX 345 on every flight, I am also blue tooth connected to my Apple pencil which is another bluetooth device. In addition to the FS, I also connect to the GTX 345 as a backup ADHRS ready to go without any effort in the very unlikely scenario I was to lose my G500 ADHRS which is primary. IMO. The backup GTX 345 ADHRS isn't much of a backup if I have to take precious time to get connected to it. I know you have near the same panel so I recommend exploiting the capability to connect to your GTX for backup as well. I figure as long as I am connected to it, I'll never need it.

@afward absolutely you can change the K factor in program mode. See your Pilot Guide. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, multiple Bluetooth connections aren't a problem. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk