kortopates

@Phil EF and your IA are correct. Why? the STC does nothing to remove the CDT 280F limitation. Notice how their performance is still in reference to the original POH, it's merely telling you much MAP to reduce by based on the differential between CDT and IAT, technically the Intercooler STC calls for a gauge that shows both to get a differential. But regardless, the STC doesn't remove the CDT limitation.

Only two things I haven't seen explicitly mentioned is: 1) When the OEM doesn't grant explicit permission to re-ue their STC to a second hand purchaser, then good chance their will be a significant fee for it depending on the vendor. I am don't know what garmin does but as an example, STEC charges a significant fee. Good to find this out before purchasing. 2) With used avionics acquired without an 8130 - you should realize you can send your used unit in to be benched checked and certified by the OEM or repair station with capability for the specific item. This will also allow you to update the unit to the latest mod level (include firmware and h/w updates that may add capability relevant to your installation. Lots of talk here that may not be legally necessary, but do you believe that your A&P/IA can do anything more than superficially check out your unit to be working properly? Wouldn't you want to be sure the unit is working properly and have it get any calibration adjustments it may need before you install? Cost to do so are typically reasonable; depending on the vendor. For myself personally, I always factor the cost of doing this in evaluating the whether the item is worth it. Not so much for the piece of paper but for what it presents for getting it re-checked. Plus if the unit has significant issues you want to find this out this asap if you are buying from a reputable shop or person so you don't get stuck with it. Personally, If I can't make passing a re-certification with 8130 a condition of sale or refund, I won't buy it.

I understand how people would really like to get the instrument rating done and over in a couple weeks. Life gets in the way at times and so we tend to think why not just set aside a couple weeks to get it done. But going that route robs the pilot from learning about ADM skills and different weather hazards as they appear during the course of normal training. Seldom does accelerated training provide much IMC experience unless they just so happen to do their training at the right time and at the right location to get it. IMO taking your time with much greater time and exposure to mentor your ADM skills with your instructor will leave you much better prepared. Giant kudos for learning your instrument rating in your complex Mooney where you are much more likely to learn IFR flying by numbers with different PAC's for different profiles and gain the piloting discipline which will transfer to flying IFR any aircraft. I have no doubt many pilots can get through the accelerated training and then use their license to learn slowly in gradual baby steps as they learn different kinds of weather. But what one has to guard themselves against is the same strong drive of accomplishment to complete such an arduous task in a couple weeks, can also translate into an attitude of invincibility when it comes to setting personal minimums. At such an early stage such pilots are still learning what the weather risks really are and may not even consider things like strong winds aloft at altitude even hazardous since it never came up in their brief training. A sad but great example of this was a Mooney pilot some years ago that got his instrument in 10 days because he just had to fly his Mooney J to a wedding in Jackson, WY in a few more weeks and didn't want to be deterred by clouds. He ended up killing himself and 2 of his young kids because he lacked the experience to conduct such a flight and then accepted clearances, like direct over the highest terrain, that he really didn't have the equipment to fly. I am not saying everyone that does the accelerated training is going to go down the same path. What I am trying to convey is perhaps you'll get a far better education by adopting the same attitude you need to survive from the get go, by taking your time to get as much varied weather and IMC experience as you can with a good instructor that will not only pass along the technical aspects of flying instruments partial panel etc but also spend time with you to learn more about the hazards of instrument flying and ADM. IMO it will build a much stronger foundation for you to build on. But regardless of what route you go, you and anyone pursing an instrument rating is to be commended simply because its a lot of hard work, much like the private was if not harder, and for me it was the most rewarding rating. So get it and use it often Because proficiency is everything in instrument flying.

Original post is totally unreadable from Tapatalk - invisible font like Anthony said. But couldn't read anything. I am betting the text was pasted in. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A bit over 28 would be nice. I don't know how to quantify the increased landing distance, but suffice to say you will really notice the difference. Its not hard to beat book landing distances in the Mooney. Most of the Mooney landing distance performance numbers are based on 1.3 of Vso, based on weight. Lots of ways for a Savvy experienced mooney pilot to improve on the book numbers. But whatever the pilot is comfortable at doing, their numbers will improve with a properly set idle; plus it will save your brakes.

Actually TCM spec for the IO-550-N - the 310HP Mooney variant and now the 03, is 25.6 - 27.3 GPH. We at Savvy, and many others in the industry such as RAM, all suggest that MAX FF should be set to 0.5 to 1.0 GPH above TCM's high number and thus would recommend 27.8 to 28.3 GPH. Many owners though prefer as much as a gallon/hour higher. Since A&P's are bound by the manufacturer spec's not all maintainers and repair stations are willing to go above TCM spec's; especially by much more than 1 GPH. But because its a accepted industry standard most will go by our recommendation. Problem is as you go higher, you'll get some CHT relief at the cost of decreasing the horsepower the engine is delivering from being overly rich. Nobody wants to be held liable if the pilot has a takeoff accident cutting it too close and then the FAA violates them for for improper maintenance or worse the estate wants to sue them. But as mentioned above, the idle adjustment is entirely independent. Running 29 GPH for MAX FF will not prevent a smooth 600 rpm idle, but the idle adjustments must be re-done after adjusting the higher end adjustments and vice versa. An Idle 830 rpm vs spec 600 rpm idle will substantially increase short field landing distance.

TCM specs an Idle speed of 600 RPM for big bore 550's. With proper idle mixture and unmetered fuel pressure adjustments it should idle fine at that. Higher max FF shouldn't prevent smooth idle, but adjusting the max FF setting can throw off the idle setting. TCM advises if you change one you must check the other and keep iterating till both are to spec. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great story - cause I did the exact same thing myself! Except perhaps in even riskier conditions flying over the ocean. Early in pilot days, I rented a C150 to go to catalina for the day with my wife. I talked to the pilot that flew it before me and asked if he had filled it after the flight which was the club policy. He said he did, but of course I still climbed up there to check. But standing on the fuselage step I pulled the cap and put a finger in and did get it wet. Which was the best i could do without a ladder. So confirmation bias told me my wet finger and "Full" on the gauges that I was good to go. I didn't notice I was wrong till on my way back from Catalina. Catalina Island doesn't have fuel but I don't think I was even that bright to realize I was low on fuel before departing. You see I had anally run the numbers and the book insisted I did with about an hour reserve ....more confirmation bias. Well by the time the shoreline was coming into sight I was sweating and counting off the miles of our required swim while looking at gauge that was showing near empty.At least we did have floatation and snorkel gear from diving or snorkeling at Catalina. It was a miracle that we made it back. Like Jim, I was so curious to learn how much gas it would take to fill it, I taxied straight to the fuel island rather than call for the truck (using the truck was also club policy). I really wanted to measure it myself (or perhaps avoid running out on the taxiway!) I filled that tank to the top with the pump indicated a few tenth greater than useable capacity. I also learned from the log that the previous pilot had flown It about an hour or maybe less and realized too I that I should have looked closer when I didn't wet my finger at the very top of the tank. It wasn't till that flight that I really learned just how easy it is for pilots to run out fuel. Good or bad, I've been tankering fuel ever since and never skip seeing the fuel levels with my owns eyes before flying. Good think I didn't take off without my wife though! thankfully running out of fuel is usually survivable

With the unmodified fixed (bolt) wastegate engine, I recall critical altitude at a DA of 15,700' (from memory). The Merlyn fixes that and the intercooler will bring down the CHT's at altitude. (I also answered your partners question on Savvy, see that for a more in-depth explanation.) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point, I believe your right. 91.327 limits the condition inspection to certificated repairman, or the other usual suspects A&P and repair station. But the owner can perform maintenance and make log book entries.

That's interesting since he included it my '86 M20K. Maybe he changed his policy on that one since I started my subscription many years ago. Regardless though I trust him on this stuff. He probably know ADs as good or better than anyone. Plus this is one that get's subjective as to how long you keep applying it to airframes.

I'd email Fred at ADLog and ask him about it.

Exactly! Its easy to look up AD's for your Engine and airframe, but that leaves you grossly incomplete because you have to look up separately for each accessory. For example, vacuum pumps and even turbos are typically not with the engine. There was a recent AD on altimeters used in Mooney's. There have been seatbelt ADs and the list goes on and on.... Its very hard for the pilot owner to do this, I doubt any would get anywhere near a complete list just using the FAA site. This is why IA's subscribe to services to do this and why owners should use ADLog.com. My Adlog.com list for my '86 Mooney includes the Bendix AD. You may be missing how the AD system works. If you have the Bendix switch, the AD applies to your aircraft. If your switch has the excluded date code or white dot, then you'll be able to list the AD in the non-recurring list, resolved as NA due to date code and you won't have to log the recurring 100 hr checks. But without the AD entry in your AD list, saying what was found, nobody really knows if its applicable till they pull your switch to look at it. Anything that is possibly applicable and can't be easily determined visually without any disassembly needs to be documented as to why its not applicable. A test you should be considering is how otherwise do you prove the AD doesn't apply, if its not real obvious visually then list it.

You can try the non-invasive ring wash first to unstick it. In doing so, not only is not much more trouble to wash all 4 cylinders once you're set up to do it, but that's how you'll know if you do have a stuck/gummed up oil ring, you'll feel it when it unsticks. Ed Kollin of Camguard published a ring wash solvent recipe that has proved most popular and perhaps successful for the job. I didn't see the recipe here, but this BT thread describes the process.https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=143044&start=15

I don't know if you have the ability and the time being AOG, but an aircraft welder can fix that like new in probably a day.

What a long night! But seems you left something important to the story out - was it a rental with another pilot departing in the morning? Why else would you feel the need to return any sooner than the next morning? I know a fellow instructor that left his Bose A20's in the restroom after a flight by mistake, ran back only 20 min later after realizing it to find them gone! That sucks

I sure hope not! BK has other digital autopilots including the 225 and 325. If the 230 supports the same external interfaces that the 225 does, then I know my G500 Gad 43e will support it and probably your Aspen too. I am waiting to hear about that as well as (projected) cost of new BK servo's which is another big unknown.

There is no fix without pulling the cowling. If you do, you'll probably readily see what the problem is and one of the two suggestions above should fix it, even if only temporarily. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That does look just like the M20K baffling. It's possible the part no's are different parts of the same assembly or one is the full assembly and another is the just the top part - flat section. The full assembly includes several parts - vertical portion that attaches to cylinders, horizontal portion that has cracks and felible baffling material. You just want to replace the horizontal portion. Call Dan at Lasar and he can order the piece from Mooney for you. Your rear silicone baffling looks totally ineffective - time to replace. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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