kortopates

Virtually every plane has this one in their AD list. It really isn't worth any trouble to remove it by date code on the switch, but sure, why not if you can. In truth though every pilot should be testing this on EVERY shutdown. I am sure every pilot that earned their PPL within the last 10-15 yrs was taught to do this test with every shutdown; whether Bendix, or ACS etc. We've had way too many death and serious injuries from hot props not to do so; of course not all from flunking this test but I had to replace my switch a few years ago when the contactors became intermittent. Now that I am more experienced and seen many accidents from hot props (including a Mooney mechanic friend), In my opinion the AD doesn't go far enough. It should also include a Key check. I learned this one from a fatal accident on my field. How many of you have gotten extra ignition keys from the aviation aisle at Home Depot or Lowes? No surprise, but the only approved Bendix key blanks for making spares come from Bendix - not home depot. Make sure that with your un-approved spare key that its not possible to remove the key until the off position. I didn't learn this till a fatal accident involving a trainer where the key was removed and put on the dash and then pilot & instructor got out to push the plane back. Problem was the key got pulled out without it being in the Off position! You know what happened next sadly. I never heard but wondered what kind lawsuit entailed and the potential judgement against the owner (school) - I assumed they were sued by using "unapproved parts". I quickly checked all my keys learning this and continue to do the shutdown test on every plane i work with - AD ot not, I consider it significant safety issue.

I remember that one. Closest we come to seeing a tornado drop in! In fairness to those that see real tornadoes, this was a long ways from a tornado, but we just don't see much crazy convection, just some earth moving Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since your primary RPM gauge can't be modified like a EDM-900, they'll simply add a new approved for primary RPM gauge. All the pre-waas G1000 Ovations had the same problem and they added this inexpensive yet very reliable EI R1 gauge https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/ei-digitalgraphic1.php If your governor is still in good shape, the prop shop should be able to easily enough convert it for less than half the cost of an overhaul. But they won't know till they open it up on the bench. You'll also be getting a POH supplement, the AFMS for the 310 HP upgrade, to update your POH.

Unless you had your firmware updated weeks ago, you can't have 6.62 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually a different style of engine mount for the 6 cyl Continental. But if you did that, the plane would revert back to it's pre-missile max gross weight - whatever it was. You don't get to keep the Missile max gross weight! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since your serial number is not listed as eligible for the higher J gross weight (2900 lbs) your only option is to trade up to a newer plane that is either elibgle or with the 2900 lb max now. Your mechanic can only symphasize with you as their are no legal options - the Missile conversion is no longer available either. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe you are right and I am also pretty certain (but can't say 100%) that Rocket Eng did nothing for the Missile. I do know they did nothing for the Rocket. So you can interpret that way anyway you want. Mod'ed owners will claim the FAA thought it was perfectly save to add all that extra weight to the gear, in contrast to the Mooney which some and myself would interpret as being more engineering conservative and perhaps thorough. But I have noticed everyone interprets it their own way so I won't even try to justify any interpretation. I can share a data point. I new one owner of an older Mooney. We shared the passion of Mooney adventure travel flying to many international destinations. In his early J, he always traveled long range with 2 couples and about the equivalent of 1 carry on roller bag per person. Yes, he was hundreds of pounds over weight! I always worried about him having a traffic pattern accident or landing incident or takeoff accident. We did some dirt field destinations together. But he was a smart guy (engineer) and a careful pilot; other than not respecting the regs concerning his plane limitations. But he never got into trouble from that and died happily in his sleep. I am not judging, but I could never take unsuspecting passengers like that and expose them unknowingly to that risk. Besides I also would hate to risk my estate to the lawsuit that would undoubtedly transpire when some lawyer figured that out. You know that will be the "cause" even if it was truly for something unrelated. NTSB findings are not admissible in court by design - perhaps civil court they are. Anyway my solution was always to get the legal increased gross weight before ever taking off overgross with a pax; lack of confidence in the airframe was never the issue for me but concern over liability I found very frightening. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sort of us, but not really. Today whether you are RNAV or not, ATC will assume you are and the old ground based nav holding instructions aren't used unless you ask. So like your example, instead of being told to "hold west on the 9 DME 83 degree radial..." you'll hear hold west of VISTA...". You'll virtually always be given a RNAV waypoint to hold on, eliminating any concern for these differences. But if you got such and an old style, I would be looking at the enroute chart for the waypoint name and use that. But where it's important, and about the only real practical example I can offer, is in departure clearances that are not in the database. These can involve intercepting and flying a radial to an waypoint or VOR that is ways away from the VOR. For these you'll want to take advantage of OBS mode for it's ease and effeciency, but if the distance away from the VOR is great and variation differences are too (easily looked up) we need to be aware of consequences of the variation differences and sometimes go to the trouble of defining legs in the flight plan to eliminate such error when that significant. It's generally not that significant till you are going by class Bravo airport's traffic flows. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's really simple. With a non G1000 system can upgrade however you want with out approval of Mooney but generally with as anything STC'd for your airframe. Not so with G1000 since it's apart of the TCDS. Since it's part of the TCDS Mooney certified it that way and only that way. Nobody at this time has any STC'S for G1000 based planes. Second most important point is that eventhough the Avionics manufacturer, Garmin, has a well defined upgrade path for G1000 users including the new Nxi suite going into current production, these are off limits to older airframes till the TCDS holder, Mooney, does the additional engineering to work with Garmin to get newer s/w and h/w tested and certified for the older airframes. I.e. all upgrades must come through Mooney's approval process to update the TCDS. We're dependent on Mooney. History shows us Mooney got through one significant upgrade from Non-waas to waas that took several years (with some other minor upgrades for Ads/b). Your guess is as good as anyone's if and when Mooney will provide a Nxi upgrade. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very good points. Differences in magnetic variation are very real, typically the VORs will be different by at least a degree or more for good reason unfortunately. This translates in being careful when using OBS mode as we could be a ways off. But this issue is eliminated by flying a leg rather than using OBS mode at significant distance away from a VOR. But difference in DME becomes indiscernible at approach altitudes where it becomes important. Why? - basic trig shows difference is less than 0.1 NM. But at enroute altitudes we really don't care about the difference; especially crossing a VOR which is went we see the max difference. In fact GPS is then giving us the accurate distance. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, not an STC. Manufacturers do not use the STC process for anything. Instead they provide drawings for mods and can sell retrofit kits for the needed parts. But kits aren’t necessary as long as the changes are made in accordance to the drawing. STC’s are sought by third parties to modify the TCDS as a supplement to it. As long as their has been a gross weight increase for the J’s their have been owners of older Mooney wanting to get a similar gross weight increase in some fashion. But given it never happened back in the days of when J’s sold for double of what they do today, I seriously doubt we’ll see it happen now. But sure anything is possible with enough $. Cheaper to trade up though. Years ago too, owners had a second option with the Rocket Engineering Missile mod, but that’s also gone today. We have the same issue with the K max weight gross weight being eligible only for 252’s. It raised my useful load to just under 1130 lbs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great on being a Savvy client, don’t hesitate to hit me up on the Savvy side with analysis help with your LOP ops. With Savvy test profile data we can help you with that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I sure don't mean this to sound scary or critical, but I really encourage my clients to start slowly from no more than 65% power where you can't hurt a thing and become familiar with setting up LOP precisely. As you get to know how your engine operates LOP, you'll get very proficient at setting up and be able to use proxies like TIT and MAP after you know the relationship between TIT and your richest cyl EGT peaking. But at 75% you need to be a full 50F LOP or you have one or more cylinders operating in the redbox. I have been in many clients Bravo's helping them with this stuff and seen a lot of Bravo data and not been able to see a Bravo operate that deeply LOP. 65 to just under 70% is the maximum I have seen when everything is perfect. Nor have I seen a Bravo get anywhere near 0.5 GPH gami spread with stock injectors which equates to resulting in the leanest cylinders flaming out before the richest are adequately LOP in higher power settings. Normal is > 1.0 GPH. All of this is to merely say, just start out at lower unharmful power settings and due your due diligence collecting the data before advancing to higher power temperatures. Additionally, IMO TIT over 1600F is not good for the longevity of your exhaust components and the Bravo is one of the more vulnerable exhaust systems. I personally limit my TIT to 1580F to give me a little buffer before I need to do anything. To get you started check out the Savvy Test profile here and start collecting your data. http://content.savvyanalysis.com/static/pdf/SavvyAnalysisFlightTestProfiles.pdf

How far LOP did you get?

I thought the same thing too. Yeah, the painters painted it with the fuel cap in the wrong position. I don't know, but you'd think that would have gotten fixed before it left the paint shop! Its also the first time I've seen the stripes on the wing there. @Alfredo will never confuse his Mooney with another