kortopates

Much better for the new owner to be doing the annual after purchase since only the owner has legal responsibility. You don't want the prior owner just going for the cheapest annual deferring everything possible. You want to be totally involved with the decision process and calling all the shots. If you're not the owner, things could go sour fast and we've seen that happen multiple times at Savvy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You'd think so but It's really not an issue because you can't buy the mag harness without the ignition leads already in the cap. The cap comes with wires already cut to proper length and built into the cap. It's takes some pretty expensive tooling to replace a single ignition wire but I've done it. So all you really need is the diagram and firing order to confirm. The hardest part is actually determing where cyl #1 is on the cap and mag to ensure proper orientation of the cap to mag - which isn't even on the diagram. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha Ha! My idea of going back to basics is whipping out the sat phone (worst case) and calling the TRACON for an ASR approach! But before all the electrons stop flowing I still have many much better options. Of course I love technology. [emoji6] Hope the new hangar is working out for you! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Instrument overhaul in San Diego can overhaul it - usually cheaper than exchange. Then exchange if you want to minimize down time at more $. Then of course going to new modern G5 etc. Welcome to airplane ownership and maintenance. These tend to last 5-10 yrs between overhaul; sometimes a bit longer when lucky. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you are using the EI monitor, nothing about the JPI rpm sensor applies to you. EI is completely different and works off wires connected to the p-leads on the back of your ignition switch. They can take a resistor in-line as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Assume the artist took some liberty with where the wires attach to the mags. Its emphasis is only in showing what cylinders plugs the mag fires - but not precise location on mag.

I have never seen that on a O-360. But it is common with electronic ignition but just on experimental engines to my knowledge. I would be curious to where the approval for that comes from since that's news to me. Let me guess that your Mag RPM drop has never been even? But you can really only see that with a engine monitor or digital tach, yet I would expect the left mag isolated will have a bigger drop than the Right mag. With Electronic ignition it makes sense to do that, by having the electronic ignition fire the bottoms since the higher voltage of the EI can still fire a dirtier bottom plug better than a conventional mag. But with 2 conventional mags it doesn't seem like a good idea when you lose the right mag and can only fire your bottom plugs that are not likely to be in the best of shape - the odds of finding yourself running on less than 4 cylinders is much higher than with a conventional arrangement. Here is a diagram of what the O-360's ignition harness is as they came from the factory, as mentioned the conventional routing on most engines is opposite of this.

How about the TRK RNAV Y 20 - the LP min's require WAAS plus you'll get +V (advisory glide slope) same for TRK RNAV Z 20 - the LP min's require WAAS plus it also has the +V Also consider that even RNAV 11 approach that only has LNAV minimums, that with a WAAS GPS you will get +V advisory glide slope on it as well. So all of the TRK approaches, except the circling only GPS-A approach are benefited with WAAS There is a lot more to WAAS than just WAAS approaches, such as airway routing, better VNAV and lots lots more. And of course your likely to travel to many destinations that will utilize even better WAAS approaches with LPV. But even if ones personal minimums prevented ever utilizing the lower minimums of WAAS approaches, the benefits of WAAS are so pervasive and numerous in our flying that I would never want to go back to pre-WAAS days. The advisory glideslope alone on otherwise LNAV only approaches is a big improvement alone.

I can certainly see that happening. Did you check with Surefly for their advice since they must be familiar with this issue by now? Just curious if they had a specific recommendation. I'd think a good % of io-360's were set up just like yours - not unusual at all.

++ on the 310hp or an Eagle with the 310 hp is equivalent. But I wouldn't walk away from lack of Ads-B since its easily solvable with a GTN-345R but I would be discouraged if it didn't have WAAS already just because its doesn't look like its possible to add it now since its out of production, leaving you with scrounging for a salvage GIA-63W's.

That's not a mis-wiring but a different ignition harness than what the factory originally used or spec'd (i.e. as shown in their Overhaul and maintenance manuals). The Lyc io-360 is an oddball in that Lycoming's original ignition harness was opposite to most of the rest of the industry by having the each mag fire the bottom plugs on that side rather than the top. Very few engines did it that way. So it should be no surprise that some/many of the ignition harnesses approved for the io-360 actually use the conventional routing where each Mag fires the Top plugs on its side and bottom's on the opposite. It really makes no difference and as long as you know what you have then you can properly interpret your engine monitor.

I agree without the caveat only because the airlines had some real hurdles with lack of approved Ads-b hardware for some airframes and avionics - a situation that doesn’t apply to any of us - thankfully. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Checking with Aeromotors is a great idea.

I much prefer to have both since they serve different purposes. If I survive the landing and am still conscious, I’d like to think I could activate a PLB, but I might be pre-occupied getting out of a burning aircraft. The nice thing about the 406 ELT is it doesn’t depend on me activating it. I’ll be adding a third one in a few days - a Garmin Inreach so if Iam conscious I can even communicate. Of course not all need all that. I am probably more concerned than many on this stuff because I fly over a lot of desolate terrain and headed south of the border again soon; plus I’ve seen first hand how difficult it can be to locate a downed plane that is surprisingly close to civilization. This technology is too good and too affordable to pass up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure, but it looks like it could be the Mooney wire #, if so you’ll be able to find it in your schematic. I’d start there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

About flying after 1-1-2020 - google Mooneyspace for thread about last April timeframe that discusses the FAA website to request authorization for a single flight at a time. Yep, the FAA is providing a website since they expect a lot of request. Who knows how easy the process will be because the FAA has stated they will not allow people to repeatedly fly without ADS/B and the exceptions via their website are intended for pilots to fly with a broken or in-op transponder or ADS/B for re-positioning for repairs or for installation of Ads/B - not for a postponing compliance. But we really don't know how they'll enforce that intent till they do.

I've never understood the one mag at a time. One reason is that my mags on the back of my TSIO-360-MBcSB are hard to get too. I either have to pull the second Alternator or the Intercooler or both, so I pull the second alternator which gives me access to the left mag. With the Left mg off, I can get to the Right mag without pulling the intercooler. Whenever I pull one Mag, they're going to both get re-timed externally which means loosening up the other one to re-time it as well. Because I run pressurized mags, I've found through experience I really don't want to pass on the opportunity of internally inspecting both mags at annual so both mags come off at the annual and both mags get at least re-timed internally and usually with new points if not more. Then both mags go back on with new hardware and get re-timed externally and finally torqued to spec with the torque wrench. Before first flight the engine is run up with a mag test where usually, after re-timing the mags internally and externally, and plugs serviced the drop between the mags is near even if not even. But its not typical to see both mags perform so well together without doing them both together and I prefer the ability to be alerted by any unexpected difference between the two of them rather than minimize the presumed risk of only touching one at a time. Plus the engine gets leak checked for oil leaks and exhaust leaks and all control's lubricated and rigging re-checked. Only then the cowling goes back on and the plane is readied for a maintenance flight in the pattern to verify max power redline settings etc. I've never had a problem that wasn't caught and corrected before first flight but realizing making mistakes is only human and I feel compelled to check and double check everything before even first start to avoid the horror stories we've all read about here. I am just as vulnerable if not more so than many because I don't have any one to QA my work but myself. It take a lot of extra time to double check things before first flight but its my butt and one thing I've learned is nothing in aviation can be rushed nor verified well enough. Just thought I'd share my contrary opinion to thought of servicing only one mag at a time that many seem to subscribe too.

I wonder if Apollo ever released repair documentation before Gamin bought their line? We know Garmin does not since all their products are engineered as LRU's - Line replaceable units. Without documentation, its not legal for anyone to work on them; especially for a repair station. Although you may not care that any repair wouldn't be documented, most repair station wouldn't want to take the risk. If you are a big fan of these, as many are, your other option is to replace it with another used working unit. Here is one source: https://www.bennettavionics.com/apollo-cnx-80-garmin-gns-480-waas-ifr-gps-nav-comm-mfd-moving-map-glideslope/ But I am surprised how much used ones cost - so financially it's probably a smarter move investing in a new modern GPS radio like a GTN. But since Bennett sells them used, perhaps they have some capability to repair them too - worth a call.

That would be George's Electrical Service in Sacramento (916-927-3386) that can overhaul the motor - a great resource when it needs it. Prior to that, I'd check with LASAR or Top Gun for their advice. (I don't know the specifics for ITT gear motor but LASAR & Top Gun are popular shops for replacing the no back clutch spring and other maintenance on these).

Actually it is, Mooney makes several different versions of the black plastic insert as the wing tip's evolved with changes in lighting. If you do have all the plastic pieces it is somewhat repairable with some additional plastic ground up and mixed with MEK to make a paste, then painted afterwards. Without the missing plastic you could try a bid of fiberglass cloth epoxied and then painted. If not satisfied with a repair, a new plastic part cost about the same as the wing tip lense or perhaps you could find a salvaged one.

I agree with you Dan and Andy both, and I am sorry my brief statement had that effect. I wasn't really thinking of how Dan put's it above and that is exactly the right attitude to portray IMO but I was responding to the intent to use the Turbo into Class A which is natural but not compatible with a Basic Med. Agreed Andy, there are few absolutes in aviation.

I hope that didn't come across flippant. I was not suggesting that a turbo is not worthwhile below 18K, quite the contrary, I was reacting to the notion that it might be fine to fly one above 18K without a FAA Medical whenever weather might made it preferable or necessary. With all due to respect to Robert whom I have no wish to offend, this is needs to be recognized as classic normalization of deviance from the get go before the plane is even purchased and in the hangar. None of us should try to justify or rationalize developing unacceptable practice or standards, such as flying in Class A without a FAA Medical, without catastrophic results till the deviance becomes an acceptable norms. The thought needs to broken at the start with the notion that the planes service ceiling needs to be artificially lowered to below 18K while flown with a Basic Med, similarly as if the plane was only outfitted with a UAT for ADS/B out.

While the PROTE team was enroute to San Diego, we got approval for participation with just a Basic Med - no longer is it limited to FAA Medical. Don D told me a lot of Mooney Summit folks were turned away because they only had a Basic Med. We put through 191 participants through our PROTE event in San Diego the week before Thanksgiving - thanks to many that came from all over SOCAL and even Las Vegas and Phoenix area.

I created a pair of molds for trimming wingtip lenses. It a was a worthwhile investment that has greatly simplified the time required to trimming to fit to probably about a 1/2 hr complete with drilling the holes. It has also pretty much eliminated any chance of error. Given the high cost of wing tips, which aren't that difficult to damage, it was an easy choice for me.

One of my first lenses was a Mooney lenses - it required the same trimming to fit. I wished I had put a micrometer to verify if identical thickness because I originally thought the Mooney one might be a bit thicker but I didn't discern a noticeable difference in thickness (but didn't measure exact thickness either). I've sourced from all 3 places over the years.