kortopates

Its been discussed here before, but I don't recollect the details except they are entirely different enough that if you wanted to upgrade from non-fiki to fiki all the panels have to be changed out. A call to CAV would be the best source. But simple logic suggest they wouldn't have gone to completely different panels if they didn't need too meet the certification standards for moderate ice - but that is mere speculation on my part. I have never seen a side by side comparison either.

Lance, I think someone miss remembers this issue with the Cowl flaps. What you’re describing is absolutely true with the 231 but not the 252. Quite some time ago, I had the privilege of spending a week with the continental engineer that did the original engine installation engineering. that’s when they discovered that if the 231 Cal flaps were completely closed it caused backflow at the air inlet, reducing the efficiency of the prop, reducing cooling and reducing air speed and my recollection is the advice from the continental engineer was to keep the 231 Cowl flaps open by an inch and a half for the fully close position. but if you examine the 252 cowling, you’ll see that issue was corrected because we have large exhaust scoops on either side of the larger cowling door, so the aircraft has plenty of exhaust outlet on both sides with the cowl flap door fully close. my own testing as an owner for over 20 years has shown me as well that I gained a couple knots going completely closed even though most the time I have to run with them just a little bit open at altitude in order to keep my CHTs where I want. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good for you but you and @Hank are not typical. For every long term car owner i can also point to folks that lease and get a new car every couple years. You are right, most if not all aviation alternators came from the automotive world. But i believe they have supposedly heavier duty bearings/seals and brushes. Continental apparently uses Ford alternators. An aircraft is more hostile environment with all the vibration and i assume heavier loads on average. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are actually 3 very different versions on the M20K POH's. A few different ones for the 231 and very different ones for the 252 and Encore. I would recommend buying the digital manuals on a USB thumb drive from your favorite MSC or Lasar.com and that way you'll have all the manuals including POH's, Service manual and Illustrated Parts Catalog. Really every owner should have these if they are going to participate in their airplane maintenance.

CFI’s instructing in their own Mooney’s is just not a thing. There are very few Mooney’s available to rent across the country, mostly vintage Mooney’s. They don’t do well as rentals as a less than current pilot is very likely to prop strike it. Buy your Mooney and pursue Transition training. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But can be overhauled at a fraction of new $ including the adapter. IMO, it makes zero sense to replace with new unless you’re on a trip and can’t wait for the down time in sending yours off. I have done prophylactic inspections of my gear driven #1 alternator when it’s accessible, replacing worn parts, for the same reason you cited. Regarding the car argument, i don’t know of anyone driving a car much older than 10 years old but most Mooney’s are many time that older. Years is just as important as hours due to corrosion and age. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

11/30/2010 - my 15 year anniversary was just 2 days ago! Maybe I'll have an extra dessert tonight in celebration Nah I have to work on that useful load

But it doesn't say to land with flaps anything less than full flaps. As Ross pointed out so well, Mooney only published data for landing with full flaps. That is the definition of a Normal Landing and the only kind of landing we have POH numbers for. Note even the latest POH's form the Acclaim and Ultras provide a lot more details on performance for landings including Density altitude, proper approach speed based on weight, landing distance based on weight, plus both head winds and tail winds and both positive and negative runway slope and sometimes grass runways. But the one thing they still don't provide numbers for is less than full flaps. Its also kinder and gentler on the airframe to land full flaps since it represents as slower landing. I am sure most of us would agree that landing in a strong xwind; especially one that exceeds the maximum demonstrated xwind component may not not merit full flaps, but its also not a normal landing either.

A lot of good comments above but I just wanted to add another to emphasize the correct recovery technique when ever getting so slow in the pattern. The pilot began with the correct recovery in lowering the nose and the NTSB report has it as well but its a bit buried in the many bullets: Its critical to recognize pitch is immediate and lowering the nose will instantly regain flying speed, it doesn't matter whether the wings are level either at this point Notice as well that power isn't even mentioned as that may not even be necessary. The plane supposedly making its base to final turn when this happened and ideally it would have been at ~500 AGL - plenty of altitude not to yet panic. But once the pilot realizes they won't make the runway then certainly adding power is necessary, but it shouldn't need full power after lowering the nose, not even a lot of power, and there is no evidence that recovery was delayed to the point of a wing drop - quite the opposite. But what the pilot reported after he lowered the nose and after adding power is that: "The airplane then “violently” pitched up and to the left." Any increase in power needs to be matched with right rudder otherwise the plane will roll to the left uncoordinated from all of 5 turning tendencies we all learned as Private Pilots (Torque, P-Factor, Gyroscopic Precession, Spiraling Slipstream and Adverse Yaw - or lack of rudder while turning). It pretty much requires full or near full power to get the aircraft to pitch up like that violently when trimmed for landing as we're all familiar with when doing a go around and advancing full power. So plain and simple the pilot had to over react with the power and wasn't prepared for the out of trim forces that ensued. Over use of power has been mentioned a couple times above but I just wanted to emphasize the correct reaction is to lower the nose immediately; power is a secondary consideration not the immediate one; especially at 500' AGL I wasn't able to review the ADS-B ground track data to see if he might of been really low on that base to final turn but might have spawned adding so much power but in the narrative the pilot stated he thought he was about 500 AGL (per his handheld GPS) in the turn that shows excellent situational awareness IMO. But he also stated that on the down wind he had gear down, 1 notch of flaps, prop forward at 70 mph which we all know couldn't be true. The pilot was not a new pilot, but a VFR Private pilot with near 1500 TT and 376 hrs in type, flying with his wife passengers. I am thankful and amazed that both he and his wife survived with only minor injuries with only a Lap Belts!! It a testament that he never gave up. I hope if he fly's again, and I hope he does, that he never does so again without shoulder harnesses. I personally do not fly in any aircraft without them because most aren't so lucky.

Absolutely you can borescope through the bottom plug. You’ll want a stool to sit on doing it this way but this is a popular way to borescope. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

New production gear actuators that didn’t get used. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The factory. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love my Garmin glass panel, it’s got virtually the best of everything from Garmin except for their EIS because their EIS still has a lot to be desired. Instead i have a JPI EDM 900 which i feel is still superior to Garmin. Someday they’ll catch up but it’s still amazing to me how much differences there is in all the Garmin EIS implementations. Probably the G3X implementation is still the most advanced but not sure at this moment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A new motor is/was $25K. I know someone that bought one not long ago when there were only 4 left. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually only the Vintage Mooney’s use a shuttle valves. Mooney eliminated them somewhere between Vintage and Modern models changing to running the copilot brakes in series with pilot brakes. Standard Mooney brakes are no harder to bleed than any other GA brakes and best bled as instructed in the service manual with a pressure pot bottom up just like other GA aircraft. It’s the dual brakes that are bare to bleed that there is so much written about here in older threads including by myself. The reservoir plug is vented. i don’t no where to get a proper replacement other than salvage. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am betting it was rigging or a previously repaired wing. I am done them many times including in a J with a private student and more recently in an Ultra. The Ultra wing was so well balanced that trying to do a spiral demo (trim for 75-80 kts hands off clean, and wait till spiral develops and recover approaching Va) that even after 90 seconds the a wing never dropped to develop a spiral so eventually he nudged one wing over so we could practice the spiral recovery. I've seen similar behavior in Mooney's with vortex generators; perhaps easiest to do falling leaf with since they just mush rather than break (unless you force it). I have seen a few that are very sporty in the stall, but they’re rare.

Don’t be, they are easily repaired by Consolidated Aircraft in New York, an electrical repair station. They have most of the Mooney drawings to repair these. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look to see if you are leaking any fluid into the belly by the pump as it could be getting into the line where the static drain is plumbed into the belly. If so, i’d at least replace the o-ring in the static drain. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

does it actually fit on the dash? i assumed you’d have to go to a window mount where reception is a little trickier. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Installing a second TIT probe is a standard practice whenever one installs an engine monitor that isn’t approved for primary like a JPI EDM 830. You can’t replace the primary factory TIT for your panel but you want your engine monitor to log TIT along with everything else. Quite common. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve been flying every day is the busy SOCAL airspace and only seen restrictions on VFR services for flight following and practice approaches during busy times. And the occasional tower that goes ATC Zero due to staffing is probably the worst of it. But never an issue with IFR including no significant delays. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Out west in my airspace where terrain abounds we’ve had numerous fatal accidents from departing VFR expecting to pick up an IFR. To me it’s not worth the risks and stress, plus we have excellent service such that a long delay is very rare. Yet Accidents are very common doing this at night while also failing to fly an ODP. i’ve seen a number of folks get into trouble because they thought they had enough altitude under a ceiling to be safe to depart but failed to consider the MVA and had no clue that the MVA was above the ceiling. Best to get your clearance on the ground and climb up on an ODP safely if you’re going to need an IFR. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incorrect; it does have speed restrictions though that aren't an issue in a Mooney.

It much describes most of EU flying. Here in the US, not that many pilots get more than 100 nm miles from home and very very few leave the country. But in the EU the average pilot is an international pilot.

It’s in the 100 hr/annual check list on the factory website Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk