kortopates

I am pretty sure, that both Mooney and LASAR get the wing tip lenses and other lenses from GLA. The only difference I've ever seen is in price; primarily Mooney's mark up. Trimming to fit and drilling is no different. BTW every plastic part for a Mooney requires trimming to fit and the same is true for a lot of aluminium parts as well; especially doors.

Exactly, but it assumes the WAAS upgraded G1000, if still a non-waas G1000 then the EI unit (or comprimable) is still required.

Any A&P can overhaul Mags (as well as the 500 hr IRAN, which is not an overhaul) but the point of this discussion is to seek out a Mag speciality repair station to have your Mag's IRAN'd instead. Instead of just visually inspecting mag parts as most A&P's are limited too, such speciality shops all have the ability to bench test parts and overall mag operation which ensures a more thorough mag inspection. Additionally, this service isn't going to cost you more whether your A&P does it or you send it out to a speciality repair station to perform; other than some time and shipping charges. In fact, with many speciality shops including the one I've recommended, Aero Accessories, one can make case it a more economical route to go given the better parts pricing through the mag speciality shop. I know I can't buy many of the mag parts at the prices Aero Accessories charges me for. A mag overhaul is only necessary at the time the engine is overhauled/majored and not recommended before since it will needlessly replace parts required merely to conform to the required overhaul replacement parts. An IRAN replaces all seals, bearing, points and anything that is needed - every 500 hrs or 5 yrs.

For anyone wanting to reduce antenna drag, particularly with the Nav antenna towel bar or Comant VOR/LOC/GS plate antenna on the vertical stab, you can do like I did, mount it in the wing tips. Originally my 252 had the very good Comant CI 120-200 antennas installed in each wing tip. But when I went to the Encore conversion I had to replace them with a smaller footprint nav antenna that wouldn't interfere with the larger aileron flight control balance weights used for the increased gross weight change. LASAR came to my rescue allowing me to use their STC from their wing tip STC'd nav antenna.

I didn't qualify it with any data, but after adding one it wasn't noticeable. If I was flying a Cafe Mooney for speed and efficiency trials of course it wouldn't have been added. But it just took one time to disembark with snow/ice on cold ramp to make me feel like a idiot for not having it. Although I didn't get hurt, it was clear to me how easy one could slip falling back on to the flaps (forget about the bruised ass of the pilot - it'll heal! but possibly not my flaps Anyway supposedly its in 1-2 knots penalty and I think 2 is even exaggerated but for an avid skier it was really worth it to me and my wife. Its not very hard to remove it and collect your own data but Mooney has said the drag reducing cover is very effective.

Some years ago, I spoke with the Continental Engineer that worked with Mooney to work out the bugs with the original K model. They actually spent some serious effort researching this topic because initially they had the cowl flaps closing too far. To paraphrase perhaps a bit, he explained that closing the cowl flaps too far down actually caused a turbulent reverse airflow out of the cowling that significantly reduced airspeed by several knots. When they opened up the closed position of the cowl flaps as they have specified in the service manual they got several more knots and of course improved cooling. In sense the added drag of the cowl flaps being a bit open was optimal compared to eliminating the larger drag from the turbulent airflow caused up front at the prop from closing the cowl flaps too tight.

+1 for Robert and Aero Accessories. They do great work and shop time has always been 24 hrs for the 500 hr which is a complete disassemble and re-assemble. Prices are very reasonable as well. Been using him for over 10 years. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no such thing in our Mooney's. Google is your friend is finding discussions on this. A google search of "Mooneyspace Zero fuel weight limit" found this thread from 2017

You have me curious about which TRACON or Center gives you such poor services if they often forget you. That is nothing like what I see in the SOCAL area. Occasionally when they are very busy it might seem like being forgotten with last minute turn on's but I've never been actually forgotten. I've even been tempted to squawk 7600 and turn onto base because of terrain ahead when IMC and they where very busy. But on base legs on VTF they are suppose to say if it’s a vector to cross final or not and they almost always do say so. But I’ll start slowing down if I am coming up on final and haven’t gotten my final vector to intercept final. Just never felt forgotten but sometimes growing concerned waiting for my turn to get that vector. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did the same as Don. There are some timer functions available for one, ease of changing call sign, but the real reason I did the panel mount is that I wanted to be able to guarantee a direct bluetooth connection to the 345 since it offers a backup ADHRS. You might recall we've seen lots of post of G1000 users that had to install their 345R in the back and found out that the bluetooth connection to it was intermittent at best. Although the GTX-345 ADHRS is a distant backup after my main backup instrument (LSI-500) I still wanted to ensure I could connect to it easily if I lose my G500. I have it set up so that I am always connected to it and my FS-510.

The other thing about the missed on the Avidyne as understand from Avidyne users (I have yet to work with anyone that didn't have Gamin's) is that the Avidyne units don't suspend crossing the MAWP but automatically sequence to begin the missed approach. I don't understand this since the pilot is screwed if they are intending to circle. There must be some missing information to this. Are you sure about the ground based nav approaches using the same "navaid" for the alternate missed approach? As I understand from AIM 5-4-55 Arrival Procedures .... c. Some locations may have a preplanned alternate missed approach procedure for use in the event the primary NAVAID used for the missed approach procedure is unavailable. To avoid confusion, the alternate missed approach instructions are not published on the chart. However, the alternate missed approach holding pattern will be depicted on the instrument approach chart for pilot situational awareness and to assist ATC by not having to issue detailed holding instructions. The alternate missed approach may be based on NAVAIDs not used in the approach procedure or the primary missed approach. But maybe your point may be based on the quoted bolded text at the end - which I didn't quite understand since it seems in conflict with the earlier statement "in the event the primary NAVAID used for the missed approach procedure is unavailable". Can you share an example of an alternate missed approach that uses the same ground based navaid? I have yet to see one. And any comments on how that is suppose to work when the navaid goes out? They would have to issue yet another alternate missed approach procedure?

We have a missed procedure in SOCAL where the missed has a maximum altitude leg where you may have to descend rather than climb - off KVNY. One good thing about alternate missed procedures is that when in use they come with NOTAMs providing some of the otherwise missing detail on navigating to the alternate fix. They are so common on our ground based Nav approaches I assumed all have them by now. Do some ground based nav based approaches not have them yet? Of course they all need them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wish her a speedy recovery from us! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've had the happen too - without access to an APU in Mexico. Luckily mine wasn't totally drained. It was my wife's leg to fly home. She flipped the master on and we could see the battery was very drained. If we had tried to crank with the starter it would have been totally drained. So instead I got out and hand propped it. We sat there for probably 1/2 hr watching the alternator output come down to near normal. I knew our last hour and a half would be IMC to an IMC approach so I wasn't going to depart without ensuring the battery came back up in charge. The battery was pretty new and came back up pretty good but I expect it's longevity has been compromised. But The rotor on my main alternator died about 1.5 years later - I am sure that episode took its toll. But down south I didn't have the options we have here in the US. The alternator only puts out 10-20 amps normally with a healthy electrical system on my 28v system and 20 amps is only after startup. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It charges, but as Byron said it's VERY hard on your alternator. Nor would you be taking off on a airworthy (discharged) battery. If the alternator fries shortly after takeoff you'll have nothing. Always charge the battery up first and then start up with an APU preferably to prevent further discharge and only depart when the alternator output is showing a normal amount of charging showing the battery is charging and back up near normal. That might take a few minutes after startup at a fast idle. I learned that the hard way, at night even, before I knew anybetter. Really stupid!! But you don't have to be. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its easy to correct and update - just follow the instructions in the Pilot Guide for doing so. Too many pilots assue the installer calibrated the HP Constant - and think its accurate from the start but that virtually never happens. The other consideration is the unit is computing % power based on a ROP calculation - not LOP. You need to go by simple FF and compression ratio for LOP power. (Incidentally, another engine monitor does calculate % power for both ROP and LOP but I've never missed this on the JPI.)

I suggest you re-read the many good post above. Regardless of what the old approach chart said, its only the new format that explains what other equipment is needed for, hence what's new is the "..required for procedure entry". The old format would have just had a note on the plan view or notes section that said "adf required" only. If this is new a new requirement for your CVO ILS 17, so be it, but the new requirement doesn't change the rules on GPS substitution for ADF, VOR and DME. See AIM 1-2-3 for that. You can still use GPS to fly every segment of the approach except the final from the FAF to the MAP. Here is information on the new format for charted equipment requirements: https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/airports-and-airspace/navigation-and-charting/instrument-approach-procedures

My 252 converted to Encore useful load is over 1120 lbs with all glass and all the options that came standard on 252 including dual alternators and even dual brakes - just no TKS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All excellent points, but if I was@oldguy i.e. if this happened to me, I'd be on the phone to the TRACON or Center after being on the ground to ask why? ATC aren't suppose to be enforcers of the rules anyway. I once had a TRACON controller tell me my requested GPS was unavailable because of a GPS testing NOTAM saying that only GPS may be unreliable or lost. But I was getting a good annunciation of LNAV (or better) min's and told the controller. A quick conversation entailed and I got cleared for the approach. That was in the early days of GPS and they no longer do that. Maybe it's not too late to call and ask them why? It sure has my curiosity piqued. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the new gov format for describing equipment requirements beyond the final approach. It much clearer now is to what equipment is required where. But remember as Skip said above, GPS substitutes for ADF, VORs (except when it’s named in the approach name*) and DME. *plus you can even navigate with GPS on final on VOR and ADF approaches as long as you monitor the raw VOR or ADF data. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody here has ever suggested the Chinese could have done better. The usual references to the Chinese is the fear that they bought the company for its intellectual property or to manufacturer in China - all of which are absurd given the realities of aviation in China. The Chinese aren't yet interested in attempting to build GA planes because they well know the Chinese people won't trust the quality of Chinese made planes - not for a long time to come. They came here to buy brands that the Chinese people would have confidence to get into aviation with. They also believe that the equivalent of the FAA in China, the CAAC (Civil Aviation Administration of China) is bigger (not in people but as a maze) and more difficult bureaucracy to work with than our FAA. Its far harder for them to get a brand new aircraft design certified and into production in China than its if from for them to buy a US firm to design and certify a new plane here and then work to get an approved US product certified in China.

Flight visibility is certainly controlling, but there are actually three things you need to drop below DA/DH or MDA per 91.175 which I teach at the college as "FLY" to remember (Notice there is nothing on ceiling): AT OR BEFORE MAP, YOU NEED TO BE "FLY" Flight visibility - As prescribed Landing Environment in Sight - Runway, TDZ, Threshold, lights & marks or ALS (i.e. any one of the ten items listed in 91.175) Your Normal Maneuvers to Land - You must continuously be in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers – and (commercial operators) allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway.

Sorry - corrected by typo - “just as obligated” ! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regarding the: "This "failed" design effort could have simply been an way to measure and mine current US engineering and technology knowledge in the aviation market. It's possible that they really didn't have any idea whatsoever about what they were doing... but that's not likely. It would be very interesting to hear how much time it would take to get a clean-sheet design "certificated" for the US market." Hope you do realize that the only Chinese help at all for Mooney is the 100's of millions of dollars poured into Mooney to keep the Kerrville factory going and to pay pay for the Chino team of US engineers to design and develop the trainer to US FAA certification standards - it had to meet US certification standards before they would try to get it certified in China. If you want pass blame for its failure its all on US folks - not the Chinese. The Chinese contribution was cash and lots of it! It was from engaging with current Money owners, that Dr Chen, (the UCLA Aerospace Engineer that headed up the M10 project) learned how important the Mooney tail was to the brand and added it to the M10.

That's very true. But the only difference is us Part 91 operators can start the approach with visibility reported below required mins but we are just as obligated to go missed if our "flight visibility" from the cockpit is below the mins to complete the approach to a landing. The big boys (part 121 & 135) can't even start the approach if the reported vis is below min's.