kortopates

Send in yours to the OEM for repair. They're not only still in business but very reasonable. Google Mooneyspace for contact info. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There should be a K factor written on the transducer, check that is the value in the setup of your unit. If it's correct, before you entertain changing it, I suggest you not make any changes till you: 1) verify by filling it yourself you are using the same exact point for filling the tanks on level ground. 2) go through more like a 100 gals and then do the calculations for adjusting K factor based on reported Used versus your fuel receipts. 20 gals is too small a sample size.

Agreed and the flight schools complain all the time that the 172's selling for 50K are junk planes. But the C172 is what everyone expects to train in which is perhaps driving up demand. Similarly I have never understood why a private owner would want to purchase a C172 when its only a trainer and can be rented so easily. For me at least, private ownership was to a large degree justified to get a high performance plane I couldn't rent.

Fair enough, I didn't realize the earlier investigating you did. I am certainly hoping you're experience is not the norm. We have all read complaints of brokers here with limited Mooney knowledge that I'll sum up as difficult to work with but similar complaints of inaccurate representation that you describe. Usually we hear the broker just took the owners representation without review. Makes you question the value the brokers brings. However, many people prefer to go back to the one broker we all know with a stellar reputation because they have built up their reputation over many years of fairly representing their planes and being straight shooters. That makes them a pleasure to deal with. Maybe they can help you too.

Actually I understood for private use you could no longer get the exemption. I assume the 12 month period you quote is only for business use? Thus I could never qualify again even at 12 months? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did exactly the same thing back in 2003, wasn't hard, just had to leave the plane parked out of state for a few months (2 hr drive away, but for about $20k it was very worth it) Provided my documentation to the BOE and got my letter of exemption. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Initially I assumed you (the OP) was new to ownership, but obviously not and as your experienced as both a buyer and a seller. But there is one thing I would suggest changing in your buying approach asap. Before investing time and money on any plane, get as much information from afar as possible. That include lots of pictures to see if you like it and if you do and think its in the ballpark price wise, then request the logs. As an past airplane owner you may feel comfortable reviewing them but if not you can get them reviewed for free through SavvyAviation.com. You'll have to submit them for review in a digital form that is readable and be prepared to give us a few days to review them. Very likely this will generate a few more questions that you can go back to discuss with the owner. But I wouldn't dream of starting a PPI without doing an initial review of the logs first. But it sounds like expectations might be a bit unreasonably high for the PPI. The PPI's #1 goal is to find big ticket items that show stoppers that will shutdown the process immediately. This is stuff like wing corrosion. Secondarily, its goal is to provide a list of moderate to expensive discrepancies that aren't show stoppers but are points of negotiation. I'd put dented trusses, shock disks, and even leaky tanks all in the second category. For example, if the plane is otherwise fine except for the dented truss I surely wouldn't walk away unless the owner refused to deduct the fairly estimated cost to repair/replace that dented trust. You similarly paid for such airworthy squawks when you sold your K so you are already more than familiar with the process. Now I can understand after a number of such squawks they could exceed some threshold that leads you to have second thoughts but if they are all fixable in a reasonable time and the owner is cooperative enough to deduct their cost to cover them, then why not. There is no such thing as a squawk free plane - as much as I'd like to believe mine is If you want more professional help in the evaluation process, going over PPI discrepancy list, getting unbiased opinions about the work required etc etc, then consider Savvy's pre-purchase service after the free log book evaluation. You'll have access to some great professionals for good advice. Lastly, and this is probably a separate topic, but your thread began with a concern for a price cap on any specific model - namely the F's. I do believe Jimmy would be the first to tell you no such cap exist so I am confused on where that came from. He prices them just like you would expect from a very detailed evaluation that begins with the airframe year and then can have no limit of add's and deductions for airframe time, engine time, paint, interior and each of the installed avionics or upgrades that he has blue book values which are industry valuations for installed equipment. The end price is what ever it all totals up to. If its 150% of the average median price for the model, sure it may have less interest than the cheapest offerings. But you can bet as long as its fairly priced for what it is, its going to sell. Plenty of folks appreciate the higher end offerings because they know those are the bigger deals in enabling them to get the avionics they really want significantly discounted over what it would cost them to pay to have them installed. There are very few 50 year old airplanes that still are representative of how they left the factory with wide ranges in equipment. Expecting wide overlaps between adjacent models valuations is the norm. Good luck shopping, hope you find a winner soonest.

Glad they were friendly. Haven’t heard of a DEA ramp check in years. Even CBP has been quiet on these and they have been known to give law abiding pilots a really hard time in the past. At least on the west coast we used to see government auctions of planes seized by the DEA - been quite awhile since the last one I've heard of suggesting to me there must be little need for these today. But I wonder. These days the smuggling apprehensions making the news have been using tunnels. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said Anthony!

Its really not that hard to pull a wire through the wing or the tail. Perhaps hardest through the cabin if the interior side wall plastic isn't already off. You shouldn't find any of the wires in the belly area of the cockpit, you should find them all along the interior side wall on the pilot side. Pulling the inspection panels in the wing isn't a big job and you're not even pulling every panel but of course easier during annual when you'll already have most of it not all of the ones needed already off. But the string trick to pull one doesn't always work that well. Other tricks that work quite well in longer runs is using a long piece of piano hinge wire but I prefer a long piece of plastic nylo tubing since its not sharp and still flexible. The leading 3-4 feet is made stiff enough to push through holes by heating it with a heat gun. Its works really well. But since you have a strobe lights going out to where you're installing the beacon, and I assume the tail, I also assume you need the wire for the nav-light & transponder since you don't have a nav light on the tail? if so, I think I would prefer to pull a new wire for the beacon power and nav light and put it on its own circuit breaker or the existing transponder CB and always be "on" with the avionics buss on. That way I could retain the strobe switch to turn on/off the strobes. Without the rotating beacon, having the strobes on during the day with the nav lights off is standard practice. The tail position light is superfluous anyway. The UAT always has to be on, so can that tail position light - but just wouldn't want my position lights always switch on with the resulting dimming of my gear down light in the daytime. If really pulling a wire anyway, you have options on how to power it.

Many installations have a separate toggle switch for it on the panel but I assume should have a separate CB on the far right quarter panel that you could pull - right?

The Cirrus AD as mentioned above 2019-08-51_Emergency.pdf

Curious if you have tried just re-booting the EA100? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BTW, a main reason why the 830 can’t be approved for primary use is that you can’t set a hard redline for the CHT POH limitation (set by Lycoming in your case). It’s the same probe used in primary installations but the end user can set alarms for whatever they want. Primary requires it has to be set per OEM limitations which the unit be customized to your aircraft. Guess the FAA doesn’t trust pilots to set it to the OEM limit and not change it later if the unit allows. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although you can argue not using all available runway may have made the difference, I don’t think so. The combination of departing in the dark and allowing the plane to drift off left of centerline into the trees is my recollection of what happened. If the plane maintained centerline it would have been fine but he lacked the visual cues in the dark to help track straight where it was mostly clear. Even less right rudder would have brought the plane down sooner even with more runway. ADM (night not being able to see obstacles off to the sides, not using all runway) and basic airmanship (not tracking centerline and never letting the plane accelerate to Vy, maybe not even to Vx given stall horn was intermittently going off the whole departure sequence) I know most blame it on not using all runway, but I thought that wasn’t the big factor most made it out to be - just my option. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just bypass the Whelen power supply - so that the power input wire to the power supply gets connected to the power supply strobe output wire going out to the wing tip - no new wire required. But you may have to change the connector on one side of Whelen power supply so you have both a male and female connector. They should be AMP connectors. That’s what I did and then you can pull your power supply and gain about 2.5 lbs useful. Please verify you have separate leads for Strobe and Nav on SB - people have told me they only had one. But be aware, if not already, that using Nav lights in daylight automatically dims your gear light making it much harder to see the green gear down light in daylight. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EDM Vs MVP is a deeply personal question. I prefer the EDM 900 for its footprint on the Mooney panel and that it does everything I need. Others prefer the MVP 50 for the larger screen and the fact it provides a lot more sensors - but all of the extra sensors are superfluous to engine management IMO. I don’t really care about gear and flaps position etc nor do I care for the added install complexity and added potential maintenance. Both provide the same GPS integration to the GPS’s for range etc., leaning functions etc... Pick what appeals to you. Not sure about EI install policy but with JPI an owner or shop doesn’t get to specify limits. They take their responsibility seriously and require you to provide a copy of your POH to program all the limits properly. As a primary instrument, the pilot can’t change them. I would imagine EI does the same since end users aren’t that trustworthy to provide all that they need without error. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn’t have to be the ships CHT gauge but you do have to have a CHT gauge approved for Primary. Not just any CHT. The JPI 830 is not approved for anything primary - as stated in their documentation and above by a several. So you could get your OEM one working or buy a separate standalone Primary CHT such as an EI. I assume you don’t want to upgrade your just installed 830 for a 900. With the problems you are having with the 830, I am wondering if you installed a new harness with it. Multiple connection problems are common with worn harnesses with chaffed areas - make sure yours is in good shape. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was going to attach the AD which answers all the questions - but from my phone with Tapatalk I can’t seem to figure out how. The failure is due to their AOA sensor that was improperly assembled by the manufacturer Aerosonic. A couple setscrews missing loctite become loose on a potentiometer resulting in a loss of AOA which has the system pushing down. Correct response is to dis-engage autopilot system. Didn’t read it that closely but there may have also been either a loss of airspeed indications or perhaps just a Vref speed indication. I’ll post the AD later when I can if someone else doesn’t by then. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, good point Anthony, I didn't comment on that because it's superfluous to me since I had his N number But Scott, @231lv, you can post a link to one flight or all flights. I suggest the former, then anyone on Mooneyspace can play with your data using our Savvy tools. It's really not practical any other way. Just go down to the bottom of the page and click where you see Sharing options to generate a link to share with. Savvy has awesome tools! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scott @231LV, Now we're getting somewhere. But in a sense, you are still getting ahead of yourself, trying to run LOP without collecting the data. I don't mean that critically, but just stating the facts you need 2 things to be able to run LOP and they both need to be verified independently. (perhaps you already did this before since you mentioned an overhaul - but if so that data is stale at this point). But that is what the Savvy test profile is for - to check out your mixture distribution and ignition system. Which is why several folks above that have all been down this road have been giving good advice. Right now I wouldn't even focus on TIT, you need to be looking at EGTs and I see you got some decent data to start. Zoom into 10:30 where you leaned out the engine from ROP to LOP and measure your Gami spread. I get the following: Time: 00:10:28-00:11:32 EGT5 peaked at 10 EGT6 peaked at 9.9 EGT3 peaked at 9.6 EGT4 peaked at 9.5 EGT1 peaked at 9.4 EGT2 peaked at 9 GAMI spread is 1.0 A gami spread of 1.0 isn't sufficient to run LOP - your leanest cyl will flame out, actually seriously start missing, while you're trying to get your richest cyl lean enough. Keep in mind 1 gami spread isn't enough data to make any conclusions. We need to see consistent, repeatable spreads. So I only only refer to your data as an example. In the above data, Cyl #2 (almost) appears as a rich outlier, but it looks like you may need more than one swap to get your mixture to <0.5 GPH. But maybe not, when we discard #2 mixture comes in at 0.6 GPH - pretty close to our target 0.5 - we still need a lot more data. I said almost about #2 being a rich outlier, but it has another issue which tells me we really don't know where Cyl 2 is peaking (especially on only 1 gami spread). You notice how EGT2 keeps rising as you lean? well that is a sign of misfire; which could be due to a weak or dirty plug in #2. But that is what the LOP mag test is for - to independently assess the health of each plug and your ignition system as a whole. Ideally this should be done at 50F LOP, But I expect you'll get roughness before you are able to lean that much so just go as far as you can with a smooth engine and then isolate each mag for a minimum of 10 data points or 30 sec. I expect we'll see some misfire in #2 - which should be easy to address if so. But its looking like to me, that you'll probably have to correct any ignition defects before you can get any accurate gami spread data. But get several gami sweeps done real slowly in both directions from ROP to LOP and back to ROP, followed by the LOP Mag test after slowly going ROP to LOP so you can tell how LOP the test was done - since it puts the results in context. Once you get past any ignition defects and can get good repeatable gami spreads, then you can email your results to John-Paul at Gami and he'll be able to get you what injector swap(s) you may need to get good mixture. But before you collect any more data I suggest you also re-set your EDM sampling rate from its default 6 sec rate to every 1 sec, it will improve the data resolution and improve the diagnostic value tremendously. (The instructions on how to do this in the Savvy Test profile are really for the 730/830 - its a little different in the 900 but close) http://content.savvyanalysis.com/static/pdf/SavvyAnalysisFlightTestProfiles.pdf

Agreed, and I am sure it's there but we have very few of the facts here and assuming way too much. The OP is certainly well intentioned but without all the facts our comments may be far from what the real concerns actually are. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have them move it out to either under the wing or back under the tail - the rear will work well. But the NACA cockpit air scoops are known poor places. In your defense you can point to JPI install instructions which had they been following would have had them placing it under the co-pilot wing. But many installers use the duct because it simplifies the install tremendously compared to pulling the wire through the wing or tail. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think@Hank nailed it above. I am sure you'll find the material to test the pilot on is an exact extract from the ACS or PTS depending on his certificate. (I've been involved in giving remedial training for pilots who have deviated and the requirements stem directly from the pilots ACS or PTS). I suspect the oral portion is going to be the real test and would suggest he be prepared to discuss in addition to his pre-flight panning procedures, his equivalent of the CARE checklist aloft and his selection of an alternate and especially 91.175 in detail - since it appears he violated that one pretty good. Of course everything else listed is fair game but from the background presented those seem to be some of the key elements that the FAA is concerned about. I doubt the FAA has any concern on his ability to fly an ILS to minimums but probably suspects his poor judgement could have resulted in a much different outcome. His attitude will be critical to success and sorry to say, but right now the first interview isn't predictive of a positive outcome. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's being considered as they look to replace VOR's with a more affordable cost solution as a backup to GPS. I suspect their intended date on that will slip big time! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk