kortopates

Just like any other electrical accessory, you'll be making up your own harness. Besides you'll have to pull the wires through the wing to the outboard senders and you couldn't really do that with the connectors already crimped on the wires because of the clearance issues.

Correct, you will still have the extended tank without a sender. But with the CIES senders you will do much better than what you had with the OEM gauges. For starters, before CIES you only knew full main tank condition after filling the mains when there was no fuel in the outboards. Then, soon as the fuel settled into the extended tanks, your OEM gauges would read somweher around 2/3 full and your OEM gauges never correctly indicated the right amount of fuel till each side was down to about half way - which on mine was ~18gal. Now once you calibrate with the CIES, you will have no problem reading full main tanks properly, and since full main tank quantity isn't actually to the top of the mains after the fuel settles into the outboards, you can continue to add a substantial amount more of the extended tank volume and continue to accurately indicate these gallons above the main tank capacity. But somewhere between 1/2 to 2/3's of the extended tank capacity the main tanks do become full to the top and senders can no longer sense any added fuel to the extended tanks (sorry I don't recall the exact amount - its written down in the hangar). So although without a 3rd sender in the extended tank area we still don't get accurate fuel indications all the way to maximum capacity it's still a tremendous improvement in that we do get accurate fuel indications not only to full main capacity but quite a ways past it. I rarely ever fill the extended tanks anyway. But my big complaint has always been having no accurate indication till about half of main capacity; so the biggest issues IMO have been solved by these.

Its been too many months now to recall with certainty so I would recommend chatting with Scott, he was generally very available by phone. But what I recall is that the inboard was master and I thought I recalled both senders having 4 wires - that I don't recall them being different. But its been awhile. The proper term I was trying to recall is plastic bushings for the sleeves. I'll have to see if I can dig that part up. The rest of the hardware to my recollection was unchanged from the original removed hardware and thus whats in your Mooney IPC.

@thinwing I've been their very recently with a student. Although it's worse than usual, the holes so to speak aren't at all what I would consider deep. But numerous with a few large ones, but all didn't appear to be deeper than 3/8- 1/2" - without measuring of course. I wouldn't hesitate to go back, but it's beginning to be a more like a gravel runway than paved in places. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For frequency mode, it took JPI a few iterations to get the firmware to work properly. The last fix I am aware of that is working for me wasn't till this spring. I think that's why many went with the resistive mode installs because of the issues JPI was having with the frequency mode. Oddly JPI had it working on the 930 much sooner than the 900 and I have no idea why the 900 gave them so many problems with the freq interface but it did. But to me, the big benefits of this technology was greater accuracy in fuel level based on the frequency mode use; so I don't understand the comment there is not much difference other than that all the dissatisfied 900 users having problems as JPI worked to provide updates. But I haven't worked with both kinds of installations either to really quantify the difference between resistance and frequency modes. The screws for the senders, being smaller than the holes in the senders, require plastic tubular inserts to make up the size and seal. I'd recommend you build a test harness to ensure all works fine and you get stable outputs at the JPI - that could save a lot of trouble shooting time avoiding wiring issues after everything is installed. We had enough problems that in the end, my installer pulled the ground all way back to the cockpit as well as ground locally as shown in Scott's diagram; probably because Scott always would say make sure its adequately grounded when there was an issue. You'll notice the Mooney outboard sensors have a big bend in them so as to not hit the front of the tank. The CIES outboard senders did not clear the front of the tank. To make sure exactly why we opened the tank from above (right above the sender) and bent the arm to clear the tank with about an inch of clearance. You can probably do that in the blind just repeatedly bending a little at a time - but we wanted to be sure. But also note our senders were installed upside down relative the CIES labeling. Maybe some of these things are no longer relevant if Scott has made changes to make the install more straightforward. Mine were installed in what Scott's instructions referred to as a master-slave wiring. I recommend using smaller gauge Deutch 20G connectors, here is 4 pin example off amazon https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01CUCA9GA/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Calibrating just takes a little time and JPI limit of 5 readings pretty much narrows down what you need to do. We started with the plane leveled and added the same amount of fuel to each side to keep it level. What I didn't quite expect is that it tool 2-3 minutes for the frequency output to stop changing - not in truly fluctuating way, but it would change by a number or 2 even after the first minute or so; so suggest giving it a couple minutes to stabilize before you record the value.

How much it saves you will depend on how well you learn how to use it. But it could easily save your life if not at least save you from a risky off airport landing. With the monitor there is rarely an excuse to continue flying an engine till it seizes. Almost always there are plenty of signs to warn you that failure may be eminent if you don't take immediate action. And with knowledge of how to use it, you have a very good chance of saving your engine before it gets to that point. For example, I was flying across the country about mid-way at 10:30pm over the middle of Texas while we watched a slowly declining oil pressure; still in the green. Oil temperature was still normal, but as we were debating what to do about it and when, as it got closer to the top of the yellow arc we began to see fluctuations in the oil pressure. I recognized this as the oil pump cavitating from too little oil in the sump. That was it, the reality of the situation was setting in (remember the CARE checklist?). Cruising at 17K, I had already surveyed towered airports with approaches and services within glide range of about 30nm and told ATC we were diverting to San Angelo because of a oil pressure issue. My wife was the pilot flying on this leg and she was the first to notice the issue. As the pilot not flying, I was working the radios and was talking to ATC. We had already pulled the power to near idle and gliding to the FAF for the approach I loaded and was asking ATC to clear us for our selected approach. With 2 pilots, and the marvels of modern GPS technology we were gliding into San Angelo on idle power and landing without incident. The following morning we diagnosed issue. Our turbo had been pumping oil over board and we were down to just a bit more than 2 quarts of oil; plenty sufficient that we have evaded any engine damage. If we had ignored all the signs with still 1.5 hrs to go to our planed destination we likely would have at least lost the engine and who know what our options would have been if we had not been monitoring our engine analyzer. As a CFI, I work with Mooney owners and with rental pilots at a flying club. Its interesting to me at least that most of the rental aircraft these days have a JPI engine analyzer so their owners can monitor their investments and virtually all have either a new GTN GPS or GNS W GPS. Because of the engine monitor, more and more new pilots are learning the importance using an engine analyzer to do a more thorough mag test before taking off. Of course it takes a CFI that understands this technology to teach to his/her students and what percentage do this I don't know. But just yesterday, we taxied back from the run-up area because the engine monitor showed the left mags #1 plug was cold, or not firing and we were unable to clear it after multiple attempts. For an owner, that save a lot of time which saves money knowing exactly which plug to go clean and test. And the light bulb goes on for the pilot in training on the usefulness of the monitor. Consequently, as analyzers become more universal in training aircraft I doubt many future pilots coming out of ab initio training will even have a question on the value or need for the analyzer; given a choice they won't want to go without it.

Indeed, and I've heard it cost $3700 for the tool. Which should keep most all but the engine shops from performing these inspections which isn't such a bad thing when connecting rods need to be replaced given the specialized nature of torquing the rod bolts to a precise measurable stretch. Its way too soon to tell, but surely some percentage of the rods replaced under this AD will eventually suffer failure from the fix due to improperly torqued rod bolts; likely performed by tech's that lack experience with the procedure.

Lycoming's FAQs on the the AD and 632A explain what cost they are covering for Lycoming connecting rods installed in field overhauls - see FAQ item 12. They aren't quite so forthcoming about when its just their bushings that were installed but say they are working with with engine rebuilders - see FAQ item 13.

Although it's not the only starter adapter friendly option, it has been TCM's preferred starter for awhile now: http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SIL16-1.pdf Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thread has much more written about the topic including a letter from Mike B But keep in mind the vast majority of engines affected by this AD are not going to referenced by engine serial #. Lycoming rebuilt and overhauled engines are a small fraction of the engines field overhauled and then it will depend if they used Lycoming versus Superior PMA's parts.

Interesting product, but I notice it runs a volt low for an aviation 28V buss. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll have to read the report. But IMO, rather than focus on what we/they as pilots could do to make their improper decisions making more survivable is kinda missing the point. My thoughts are on how to break the accident chain and here it seems a lack of pre-flight planning for a very low altitude flight with all of the added intrinsic hazard to low flight. Lack of planning was apparently due to complacency from having flown in the area very frequently. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed they should not be charging extra labor, just their retail price for their fair profit for new mounts. The old mounts came off with the engine and thus no extra labor to use new mounts when reinstalling. I would also ask them to install with new hardware as well. But before they do that, if it was me, I would get the engine mount removed from the firewall (it's only 4 more bolts), carefully inspected for corrosion damage, chaffing etc and have it repaired (if need be) and refinished (either painted or powder coated). Now is the time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True there are no FAA regulations on the tanks, just when 02 is required and how it needs to be dispensed in the cockpit. But this is simply because pressurized gas cylinders are already regulated by DOT. DOT does not allow filling the tank after the hydro has expired and they require removing the tank after its life time has expired. So nobody is going to fill it without being in violation. The 115cf Kevlar tank is huge - no way could this one be considered portable, much less carried on board through the front door and secured in the cockpit when full. All that said, portable O2 is a great supplement to any Mooney and I am sure you can find some used portable systems out there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very sad. As a local flight instructor I can tell you just being local to the SOCAL area doesn't at all prepare you for density altitude. It's just that you are more likely to seek out the training since we have many high density altitude airports. And although we discuss the perils during primary training that does nothing to prepare pilots for the very difficult conditions they will encounter. Inexperienced pilots tend to make 2 critical errors taking off at high DA airports, first is taking off full rich in a NA aircraft, secondly is not letting the aircraft accelerate to Vy as quickly as possible, such as using ground effect before climbing away. Too many in their impatience to get above terrain with so little power pull into much too steep of a climb and find themselves on the verge of stall throughout the climb. As a result they're climbing much more slowly than if they had just let the plane accelerate to Vy to begin with. This pilot made a third mistake by taking off on the east runway at the hottest part of the day not recognizing this was really increasing the necessary performance required to clear terrain and trees. They should have delayed till the cooler evening and/or till they could have taken off west bound over the lake were they could afford to take all the time they needed to milk their very poor climb rate up to cooler air. I just wouldn't dream of taking a student to Big Bear this time of year in a trainer and taking off in the afternoon with temps about 80F at 7K alt - it's way off the POH's performance charts. Yes, it can be done, when you have the experience but why scare the heck out of everyone. Some of the retractable gear aircraft are even easier to kill yourself without training and experience. Consider an aircraft that has a service ceiling of over 12K, (I forget exactly), but has only a service ceiling of 7700' with gear down, a Piper Arrow, and sadly this goes unnoticed by the pilot. If they don't get the gear up in ground effect they are in for a very short ride to either a stall or mushing it back in. Big bear in the summertime is not the place to just wing it without careful preflight planning. Which is why many of our local flight school prohibit flights to big bear till after the pilot has gotten a Big Bear checkout. This is so very sad but it just keeps happening every summer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk