kortopates

I don’t recall the part # for the -MB but Ram sells the v-band clamp and has the best price for it when i last purchased one 6-7 months ago. As far as i know it’s still a wait to get one due to the AD which has created an artificial need because every Savvy owner wants to get one on their shelf so they don’t find them selves grounded for 3-4 months without one. Last year was about a 6 month wait! The part number is different between the -MB and -LB so suggest looking up the correct part # before calling to order one. But get on somebody’s list asap. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://continental.aero/continental-services/ Fairhope is a good choice but there is nothing complicated about setting up your fuel system; especially on an NA engine. Often the real challenge is getting them to set the Max FF a full GPH or higher above the high TCM number for your engine; some tech’s are afraid to do that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s much harder to tail strike a mid body than a long body. But avoidance is guaranteed in any model by not raising the nose so high as to lose sight of the end of the the runway. But as we continue to pull the yoke full aft we’re doing this when the aircraft no longer has excess energy to balloon. What we’re really doing, or how i prefer to explain it, is we’re trying to prevent first the mains from settling and then after prevent the nose wheel from settling till we have no further back pressure to add. But to maximize short field technique, i am sure from your past writings you’re coming in at 1.2 Vso, rather than 1.3 for a normal landing, with very little excess energy to bleed off likely resulting in a firmer landing for a very short runway. As such we’re not likely carrying power into the round out but coming down steeper with no power or very little and doing a faster than normal round out and using the ground effect to cushion a steeper descent angle and absorb the remaining energy. The steeper approach angle, little to no power and slower approach speed all lead to requiring a perfectly timed and faster continuous flare to bring the yoke back. I don’t mean for the explanation to make it sound scary but it’s amazing how little runway the proficient pilot needs to land their Mooney with good short field technique. it’s not difficult at all to beat the POH landing distances which are based on a normal 1.3 Vso approach speed and a normal 3 deg approach angle using proper short field techniques as you have written about here in the past. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as i know the hotel hasn’t been finalized yet but it will be very shortly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To add on to Ross’ post, i would add one of the most fundamental steps in learning how to land any airplane is the round out or what we use to call flare. Never do we land strictly level, but we continue to raise the nose in ground effect while keeping the cowling just below the end of the runway looking straight ahead, while allowing the mains to settle on the runway. The really proficient pilot doesn’t relax the back pressure till the yoke is fully back to take advantage of aerodynamic braking (with exceptions for crosswinds) before letting the nose wheel contact the runway. Over rotating, and losing sight of the runway straight ahead, risks a tail strike; more so in long body. We have all learned what happens when we fail to execute the round out or flare before impacting the runway; hopefully well enough in trainers so as not to be reminded in a mooney. So the pitch attitude on the ground really has nothing to do with how to land a Mooney or any aircraft. And lastly every formation pilot learns how to land their Mooney as fast as 90 kts on the runway killing the myth that you can only land at the “proper speed”. But of course a formation landing is very different from a normal landing. Aircraft need positive pitch on the ground for stability else, we’d be wheel barreling down the runway. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Excellent points and especially #4 but nothing wrong with pitching down till the you feel light in the seat. This is after all what the upset recovery schools teach these days and the ACS no longer makes any statements about minimizing altitude loss. Instead the emphasis is on "immediately recovering from the stall by reducing the angle of attack". No matter how bad a wing might be dropping off in the stall, an immediate push down that makes you light in the seat will very promptly recover back to flying speed with wings leveled and the pilot can transition back to climb attitude to return to the starting altitude. So personally I think its a big confidence booster for those fearful of power on stalls - which is required to the full break these day for private students and whichever the DPE calls for on the Commercial. The other reason for pushing till light in the seat is that folks where focusing on preserving altitude to only get into a secondary stall; usually more violent than the first.

It’s a very amateurish installation to do that. See the JPI installation instructions prohibiting this. Why? The thermocouples produce a very low current with only few millivolts. That makes the wires very sensitive to interference from high voltage ignition wires and high current wires like alternator output cables. The thermocouple wire harness needs to be routed independently without being bundled with other electrical wires else the result is very noisy EGTs and CHTs. Very frustrating to say the least after spending a lot of $ on labor and an engine monitor and get noisy signals because the installer couldn’t follow directions. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is the website for the guy that does the prop balancing and he is really good. wrote the book on it. He’s retiring though so good luck. Also he work out out Cable airport in SOCAL and Arizona, does travel too, came down to San Diego for a couple of us. www.jfdynamics.com Cell(626) 818-3029 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Three of the 4 EGT wires are being moved, just let the mechanic undo the mess forward of the firewall and re-route them properly. After a job like that i’d half expect to see them bundled with ignition needs too which would need to be corrected as well. But consider if going to this trouble, it could be a good time to upgrade the display head to a modern color 830 through their upgrade program where you return your 730 display. It was costing about $1200 after exchange. It’s a good deal if you have the panel room since it’s bigger. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably has more to do with how your plugs and lemo switch are wired. i’ve seen many configurations including a switch to allow switching between them which i think is unnecessary. But my set up allows having both my Bose plugged into the Lemo plug and then my mike mask plugged into the mike jack which apparently opens the mike connection on the Bose because i’ve never had any issue communicating with ATC. Certainly don’t need the extra accessory to block the Bose mike. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do have to adjust the squelch because the mask mike won’t break squelch as easily as a regular headset - did you do that? But that’s all i need to do and then it works normally. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A plus is that his has 10 years and 300 hrs since the fine damage, so I wouldn’t necessarily eliminate it without a good review of the logs. If the repairs where well done and essentially replacing damage parts and wiring with new it could effectively be in better condition than it’s age suggest. But it’s also very possible it was totaled, sold as scrap and then resurrected as cheaply as possible. One has to review the damage and repairs to find out what is really being offered starting at $75. Plus 30 hrs per year since the fire isn’t much but a recent Top helps with that too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First apologies to @PeteMc for miss remembering that the service manual was not corrected. But here's the scoop, this was figured out by the Continental engineer that worked the 231 Engine installation for Mooney on site at Mooney. I learned about it when I was taking Continental's A&P maintenance class at Fairhope nearly 2 decades ago so I've forgotten exactly if he said 1" or 1.5" but I've posted this multiple times here over the years and these days enough people have heard this now that I'll just let someone reply - but its being questioned.... After the initial installation was done they were trying to address some reported cooling complaints so they were testing various things. So they learned closing the cowl flaps all the way was really reducing cooling. But they were surprised to discover why, which was because it was causing enough back pressure at the air inlets preventing air from flowing through. The bigger surprise is that it was also disrupting airflow over the prop enough that when eliminated they got something like a 10 kt increase in airspeed (which is probably a bit of an exaggeration). But the point is they weren't expecting the back pressure and resulting turbulence at the air inlets was as disruptive to air flow as they found. There just wasn't enough outflow at the bottom of the cowling to with cowl flaps closed to create the low pressure area below engine to allow the air to move freely through the inlets and down the engine cyl fins into the low pressure area without the cowl flaps open some amount. The 252 doesn't have this issue since even with the large single cowl flap closed both sides of the lower cowling have enough open area to allow air to flow freely through from the top high pressure area and down to the low pressure exit.

Much as been written here about the importance of K cowl flaps, particularly the 231, need to be about an inch open when fully closed else it causes a significant loss in cruise speed as well as cooling. See your service manual. You can use google to find older threads with more info on this.

So sorry to hear about this, just came across the sad news. But glad to hear your getting some help with the treatments. Your upcoming camping trip sounds great but hope it’s more glamping than camping! The Calanques will be beautiful this time of year if that’s where you’re headed. thanks for the update and keep us posted when able. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t really know for a fact but my understanding is that cowling improvements were made to allow the Vne increase. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice. James is also fellow colleague of mine at Savvy Aviation. It would be good time to at least replace the old flexible baffling if not also re-work the aluminum baffling. Glad you caught removing the fuel diverter!

It has to be anhydrous. Anhydrous simply means no water in. Rubbing alcohol is 70% isopropyl and 30% water. You're looking for 99% Isopropyl - there is no such thing as 100%. 90% isn't anhydrous either with 10% water. You can buy the 99% in the gallon from industrial supply outlets or you can buy it from many drug store outlets in pint quantities.

Without being an owner yet, training would be restricted to a Mooney rental if you can find one. Insurance doesn’t allow us Mooney CFI owners to provide instruction in our Mooneys without a very expensive commercial insurance policy which would only make sense if it was renting out all the time. If you find a rental, they’ll provide an instructor on their policy to provide you instruction. You may need to get your own renters insurance as well. The vast majority of new Mooney owners wait till they purchase their Mooney to get training in their new Mooney. Besides a couple hours in type will not reduce your first year insurance premium’s one bit; it typically takes 100+ hours in type. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn't an excuse for it, but decades ago the Dukes electric pump had a bad enough reputation that I saw pilots minimizing their use of the pump. Originally it wasn't rated for continuous use and It was expensive and didn't last that long. But these days the rebuild kits have seen significant improvement in parts, and are now rated for continuous use.

I'll try to respond but much this is speculation since I don't know which aircraft this. I get a lot of pre-buy question/reviews. They come in all different ways. Its not our intent to comment on your data without your permission. Most often a buyer gets the data from an owner and loads it up for us to review. Its very common for a buyer to share their data just like sharing their logs. But from your comments, saying this wasn't done with your permission has believing this fell through the cracks so I would like to better understand so this doesn't happen again by ensuring proper checks are done. "I do not agree that there is a distinction between providing files or commenting on the data." Fair enough. But the prospective buyer was never granted access to pull up your data - only you as the data owner can do this. "The analysis was not shallow, and it even suggested an escrow for the engine since it was less than 200 hours from a top overhaul. This easily could easily affect the outcome of a purchase with just speculation. " This would have come from the Mx Pre-buy advisor - it has nothing to do with your upload engine data, but must of come from either log book review or statements from the prospective buyer. The Pre-buy advisor doesn't even look at data. That's most often me. "This easily could easily affect the outcome of a purchase with just speculation." Agreed, but this is coming from log book review. So speculating here as I would like to really know, but I suspect what happened here is the Pre-buy manager asked me to answer the pre-buy clients request to review the owners data. I got a request as follows: "The last few flights from Nxxxxx were uploaded the other day by the owner. Would you mind quickly reviewing them? Thank you!" I am out of town right now at NASA full time this week with a limited schedule and I didn't verify the source of the data. I assumed, incorrectly that the owner loaded the data specifically so we could look at it to comment to help sell the plane. Why else would the owner tell the prospective buyer they had uploaded more data.... But maybe the owner hadn't. I don't really know and am speculating here but really would like to better understand the details to avoid this happening again. This has never been an issue before, but as mentioned, its more often the case that the owner has provided the data to the buyer. What this case is teaching me is that we shouldn't be commenting on data not physically owned by the client or data that the owner has not physically given the client permissions to review. i.e. if the buyer can directly review the data then we shouldn't either. I think that would be clear and simple. But understand I can't speak for Savvy officially, I am one person on the team, but I will pursue making this case based on this experience if I am getting this right. My apologies for this going the way it did. I should have looked closer before responding to this request - again assuming I know the case. @PT20J As to questions about once the data is deleted is it really gone. I can tell you its no longer accessible to us. You guys are considered the owner. To the best of my knowledge its permanently gone but I don't work on the IT side and not the best person to answer this. @exM20K privacy@savvymx.com is an old domain, the correct one should be privacy@savvyaviation.com. If you tell me where, I can get it fixed.

I assure you that only you can give access to your data. But that wouldn’t preclude access to an analyst commenting on your data to a prospective buyer - is that your concern? Feel free to DM me with specifics. Since it’s a Mooney i am most likely involved. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I teach this stuff at the college and my Lost Comm lecture is my only FAA Approved lecture by the TRACON and they would really like you know that they treat all emergency codes exactly all alike as Emergencies. If you’re lost comm they want us to squawk 7600 only and not switch to 7700 or alternate. And then realize it is an emergency and don’t hesitate to deviate from 91.185 and AIM 6-4-1 as you deem necessary to get down soonest. After all, in a radar environment they’ll be watching you closely and keep other instrument traffic away from you and the sooner you are down the happier everyone will be. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have the perfect folding seats that allow folding one down at a time if I wanted too but never considered that. I've had two different labs, 75-80 lbs, that I was always more worried about shifting the CG back further in flight that I've always secured my dogs harness to the seat belt to ensure the dog stayed on the back seat. These days I fly with a Terrier that is small enough I don't think I would be any issue but just the same I am more comfortable if I don't have a distraction from the dog moving in the back seat. Personally I think its more comfortable for the dogs on the rear seat cushion than it would be on the carpet on top of the folded seat or further back. I'd think less vibration. Regardless I'd am more comfortable up front if I don't have a bigger dog moving around affecting trim in flight. I'd have to start blaming my furry family member for deviating from my assigned altitude by 20' But that might be just me. @RoundTwo replace the missing plastic cover on the baggage door. Some day if you travel with lots of gear back there piled up with the mechanism exposed it could allow the door to open in flight. That's one of the theories of what happened to the Mooney that had the baggage door open in cruise that tore off and got stuck in on the elevator. The part is only about $10 from plane plastics and will keep it protected from any interference with cargo back there.