kortopates

See Mooney.com under support for the applicable POH version for your Mooney by serial number. Then you order both a hard copy for the plane and digital versions of all applicable manuals through any MSC. LASAR.com does a huge mail order parts business and would be a good one to get them through. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But you already have a magenta ground track triangle directly below the heading digits in HSI mode. So with the magnetometer you’ll have both magnetic heading and ground track displayed to help you make your TRK match your DTK. You’ll probably still want both. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The good news is that with modern WAAS all of that goes away with ground track information. Just visually tracking TRK vs DTK enables you to keep the needles centered before you’ll see the CDI being displaced. Makes Partial Panel easy as well - and much safer. No more zone of confusion or relying solely on compass for heading. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As Paul says above, it was just the technology at the time. Aspen was an early adopter of this technology going for a low cost glass retrofit and a single integrated ADHRS chip was a big part of what enabled there success. But trade off’s exist with all engineering choices and the chosen chip needed all inputs to get any solution. Garmin came later, as I recall, and used a more sophisticated hardware solution that enable them to code for partial failures unlike the early single chip solution. Hence were we are now with Aspens latest offering. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shouldn’t be a problem. That’s what my backup does but rather than G5s, it’s a G500 with the L3 LSI-500 backup which like 2 plus G5’s or a mini aspen. Anyway both primary and backup can display the same or different Nav guidance how ever selected individually. Even though the G5 only supports a single Nav source, that’s not a big issue either. My LSI also has that limitation so I have a separate panel switch to enable selecting Nav from either my GTN750 or GTN650. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely, PM me you email address and I'll help you get set up.

My issue with iPad technology as a backup for loss of primary instruments is it isn't being realistic in meeting the demands of helping a pilot when the failure occurs in IMC. That is no time to be distracted by setting up the iPad page and trying to verify you're getting good ahars data. Before you get that far the pilot could be in unusual attitudes and fighting trying to not over stress the aircraft. Just imagine turbulence in IMC such as probably the case here. The pilot shouldn't be taking his eyes off his remaining instruments for more than a couple seconds, if conditions allow. If the failure occurs in VMC conditions, such on top, and the pilot needs to descend through a thick IMC layer, then by all means the pilot has time to set up his ipad (synthetic vision with AHRS or primary instrument display) and verify level pitch while in VMC before entering IMC. Recall the Bonanza pilot and his pax that didn't survive more than a couple minutes trying to descend through a IMC layer; an iPad fed by an ADHRS could have saved their lives. But contrast that with what we know of this downed M20C. All we know is that the pilot communicated a loss of Attitude. Its also looks like he was IMC and experiencing significant turbulence. (A local pilot on the BT thread remarked winds were forecasted to be 50-100 mph, even if that is an exaggeration other pilots remarked turbulence is very common in that area of the mountains with any wind. Until he fell off radar at the end he was doing a pretty good job with altitude but you all saw the radar track.) My point is even if he had the iPad with an ADHRS feed he would have had a very difficult job trying to get it set up all the while he was trying to keep the wings level and pitch level in turbulence; especially with a portable ADHRS. Thus counting on having the extra bandwidth to get that setup and confirm wings level attitude when likely you have never looked at that in flight yet isn't very realistic IMO. What you do see may not inspire much confidence if you weren't able to confirm the data in VMC either. (A panel ADHRS source like a GTX-345 would be much more reliable and trustworthy.) Consequently the only backup's you can really count on is the one already in the panel that has been on since takeoff and allowing you to cross check against your other instruments. Pulling anything out in the heat of battle should a failure occur at the worst time isn't going to be much of a help if any, and possibly portable ADHRS is more of a distraction than value if the pilot loses control before they get it working; especially if it has to be relocated because of the turbulence. Although backup instruments are a great addition to save the day with such failures, the other thing these events should be inspiring us in is to maintain our partial panel skills. Such as in doing IPC's which requires partial panel work. All of us had to demonstrate partial panel to get our IR. That shouldn't be the last time we were capable of flying partial panel. So we really need both, reliable backups and to keep our partial panel skills practiced on the equipment we fly. Only the modern glass panel with glass battery backups relieve us of the need for our partial panel skills but we still need to practice using our backups.

Another plus one for Aero comfort. We enjoy our Mooney for long trips often doing a couple legs in a day. The first time I re-did the interior I went with a local aircraft upholster that supposedly used a couple densities of memory foam and good leather and I thought great - I'd save my self several hundred dollars and still get a quality job. Wrong! It looked nice but we both still had sore butts flying and suffered for a number of years that way just because of the expense. I did have to do some re-gluing minor repairs many years later and its then I realized I really didn't get multiple densities of memory foam as I thought but a combination of cheap foam with a little memory foam on top. I guess I got what I paid for - barely. So just a couple years ago I finally went to Hector at Aerocomfort. After all the discomfort I really wanted to ensure I got comfortable seats and just didn't want to take any more chances. I am sure there are other really good upholsters available. I even found one locally that was more expensive than Hector at Aerocomfort and he walked me though his process of building up multiple layers but I was done gambling and paid the shipping to get my seats re-done by a proven quality shop with excellent track record. Just wish I did it the first time!

You both are right, out of respect for all Rocket engineering conversion owners I am going to remove my comments on that. Even if it was 2 out of 3 it's still only conjecture. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All break-up's are due to overstressing the airframe; usually from exceeding air speed limits. Of course I can't blame it on Rocket Engineering only they stand out statistically because I do recall most it not all were Rocket. But obviously the one above was not a rocket. There is at least one more that went down in the Caribbean that I could not find in the NTSB, but agreed I should not go just by memory to make that statement without re-checking first.

All good points and most certainly no plane can defy physics. But I would contend with respect to the Mooney fleet, the most important aspects of the physics is the CG and staying within the CG envelope. The fleet isn't nearly as challenged with max takeoff weight as many other aircraft are. I certainly understand your desire to rely on a fresh weighing for a more "accurate" weight and CG. But based on what I have seen in reality, with weigh-in's all over the map, I personally have much more faith in making simple additions and subtractions to the weight and balance sheet based on precise stations and weights than I do on re-weighing. But that's just my opinion seeing results of re-weighings vary greatly. The Mooney's built pretty strong but max gross weight isn't just limited by the performance of the airframe/engine combo but by the engineering of maximum G loads model is certified too. Edited to remove comments on Rocket Engineering max gross weight takeoff changes and M20 K in-flight breakups that don't really go together.

Fingers crossed your plane is unscathed. Terrible wind damage in the article Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow - we can only wish for such an annual!

So true, no different than us fallible pilots !!

FWIW, Clarence is one of the few A&P's I would trust to do a good job with a result that would be repeatable. But he's way above the norm or average of the person that you might get at the typical shop. PLus I expect Clarence would be pretty anal about measuring the distances called out in which error can have a big impact. Again if you really need to do it, go to someone hopefully you know that you can trust that is going to use the proper procedure and be anal about the process. Clarence, I hope you don't mind your attentions to detail being referred to "anal" - its in a good way!