kortopates

I sure think so. I don't know of any modern Mooney's with that much useful load (1127 lbs) and a fully glass panel.

Wish I could but I am down for annual right now and Friday and I am working with an instrument student daily to get him ready for his checkride Wednesday. Hopefully he'll do as well as you! Check out Red Rock if you haven't yet and can get out there. Its beautiful.

Congrat's! Now you've earned your certificate to continue learning in the IFR system. File often!!

Just a thought, but I'd think you'd rather remove the heavy standby electric vacuum system and keep the engine driven pump. That's what I did and got back another 6+ lbs of useful (I'd have to check my t & Bal for the exact weight as that's just from memory), plus no electric motor to maintain. But I got my useful load back up 1127 lb after all the changes I went through.

Dave, I agree the oil filter anatomy tells us there are safe areas to pierce it such as near the hex nut providing its carefully done. Someone like yourself with lots of experience that is both knowledgeable of the potential issues and precise as you described does not have anything to be concerned about with regards of contaminating the engine. But my sense is that Continental really doesn't want people to use a screwdriver to pierce their oil filter simply because of the risk it presents and hence why worked to get the Tempest tool out to safely pierce one. Yet I also understand someone with lots of experience is going to be able to do it with a screw driver safely too. I also recognize the practice is pretty widespread, and I assume mostly with the permold series where the oil filter is mounted with the mount on the bottom which is as messy as they can get. I don't though subscribe to the notion that Continental would necessarily put out a service letter/bulletin to say not to do so even though they may not approve of the method. Perhaps because they recognize it can be done safely. But I don't think they feel obligated to to point out practices they don't approve, instead they publish their approved procedures . As an example, I don't recall either OEM issuing something when we heard of the plane that went down due to using RTF on the FF transducer hose fittings with a piece of RTF ultimately getting into the fuel line and causing a fuel blockage. Instead they publish their approved list of sealants and what they apply too. Admittedly that was pretty stupid assembly error on someones part so perhaps a better example is that we have yet to see them publish guidance supporting what I believe to be more and more accepted practice in the industry to counter cylinder failures from improper replacement; which includes the practice of re-torquing the cylinder bolts while a cylinder is off to keep bearings in place. M-0 provides great guidance cylinder replacement during maintenance including the need to torque cylinder through bolts on both sides, but is silent about temporarily torquing the bolts with washers or a cut off cyl base while the cyl is off which can lead to trouble when one also has to rotate the engine to TDC to re-install each cyl and hence will be turning over the crank where a bearing could slip. Its really up to each reader/observer here to do what they want with the information they read here. But this didn't come from a seminar, like a IA renewal seminar speaker, which I would also treat as a representative of the company but their in house factory tech training class given once a month. I don't think there was any embellishing of the facts given that the evidence provided spoke for itself showing the filter fragment which led to a crankshaft bearing seizing. But as already noted and agreed too above, just piercing the filter alone isn't going to cause that, one has to damage the filter element as well. Yet I totally get their point that using their tempest tool rather than a screw diver is going to ensure the filter isn't accidentally damaged. But I also don't think any knowledgeable tech being careful and precise has to worry about it - like you said above though they need the complete details and issues to be careful about. Don't let me discourage you from sharing on Mooneyspace though, its always a learning experience!

Dave, The information was provided during Continentals week long Aviation Technician Factory Training Course. The course is taught by very senior experts there that have a long history with the company and have seen a lot. One of the speakers was the TCM rep that did the engineering on the original 231 engine installation. It was a very worthwhile experience. I don't know of any source for this that is published. They were adamant about not puncturing the oil filter with a screw driver because in their opinion that is what leads to the possibly they have seen. They went on to further explain, knowing sometimes tech's have a valid need to drain the filter before removal, that they developed the only safe approved tool to puncture and drain a filter with collaboration with Tempest whom makes and distributes this tool. You have probably seen this, you screw it in to make a very small shallow puncture and can then attach some tubing to drain the oil. Thus it prevents a tech from internally damaging the filters internal filter element. I am sure what they're worried about is that once tech's thinks it's okay to pierce the filter by stabbing it with a screw driver that people won't always be as careful as you described and end up piercing the interior of filter by accident or ignorance. Once that happens TCM believes it can lead to piece of filter paper getting into the system where it can potentially clog a galley. But IMO, the screw driver would also have to pierce into the center metal that the paper filter attaches too in order to provide a path for the paper filter fragment to get into the engine. That would be really stabbing it directly into the center. But blowing compressed air in sounds exactly what it takes to get any ruptured filter pieces into the system after the screw diver has done the damage. I know you're method is being super careful to pierce at the edge but their point is its too hard to control and best to eliminate the chance by not taking a screw driver too it so for those that want to pierce the filter they advise to use the tempest tool. Anyway sorry I can not offer a published source of this. But I'd suggest you call their technical support hotline for confirmation. I've always gotten very good responsive help that way. And if the support tech's can't confirm I can then follow up with one of the instructors assuming I can still find their contact info. The story that he gave about the engine failure resulting from this popular practice really got my attention. Its too many years ago now to be sure, but I kind of recall him showing some photographic evidence of what they found post mortem. With the impression it made on me though it never occurred to me to ask about a published reference. But M-0 says nothing about how to remove an oil filter. But they also don't provide any list on what not do either that I have noticed.

Yes, WAAS provides all 6 of the GPS approaches. Don explained it as he bought up the handful of remaining GIA63w's needed - when gone thats it. There are some limitations since the approved s/w version is only an early WAAS version at a time when many LP approaches that had an advisory glideslope (+V) where removed by the FAA by coding in a 0 for the GPA. This broke the WAAS software and even the LNAV version of these approaches were no longer available for about a year and a half on all the Garmin platforms - I think this over 5 years ago now. But this is the version of the SW that Garmin and Mooney certified. There is a Garmin service letter that list them all if you want to review which is posted here on Mooneyspace as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Continental has been advising for years that practice has brought down an airplane and they strongly advise against it. It led to a peice of filter material getting into the oil system that plugged an oil galley - be careful. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hadn't seen that, but it has a few errors starting with their being 3 models (231, 252 and Encore with 3 engines) before introducing the Rocket engineering mods to the 231 and 252.

The 252 airframes began in '86. So it will have the 28V system, electric infinitely adjustable cowl flaps and all the add ons where standard on the 252's except for second alternator and choice of autopilot with the KFC-150 the more expensive with option to add KS197B VNAV which was rare. Standard add-ons that where options in the earlier 231 includes built-in O2, electric standby vacuum, speed brakes, hot prop, and folding rear seats (which started in '85?). The only real non-factory upgrade was the Monroy extended tanks. Rocket Engineering increased the max takeoff weight without any airframe changes, just part of their STC Later, Mooney increased the max takeoff weight by 230lbs in the follow on Encore model with its TSIO-360-SB 220 HP engine with some limited airframe changes including control surface balance weight changes to presumably to keep the same flutter margins and double puck brakes that last longer; these can be retrofitted to the 252's only to get the larger max gross weight.

See post #1 in this thread - Don Maxwell aviation. Don's son Paul Maxwell is whom you are referring too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alex If i was in your shoes i would replace the the 2 rows of mortiz engine gauges and Shadin display with the EDM 900 mounted right there. Your avionics shop can cut a plate to cover the removed equipment and mount the EDM at low cost. Once painted to match it will look fine. A year or two later when ready for more extensive changes you can get a new panel cut for an entirely clean slate design. Even with the EDM, I kept redundant EI MAP and RPM gauges, so I would keep your existing ones for now. Here is how I did mine and I think horizontal mount as some benefits assuming it will fit that way - but you have the portrait option if needed to. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless there has been a recent change, you can not buy a EDM 900/930 without a new harness. So for improved reliability you'll want to install the new harness to avoid connection issues from chaffed wiring as long as possible. But you'll want to reuse many of your existing probes, assuming they are still in great shape. Only the EGT probes suffer from tip erosion from the hot exhaust. Then resell what you don't use with your old unit. I personally prefer the EDM 900 mounted closer to the pilot vs the 930 mounted to the far right; especially on our Mooneys with limited panel space. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The transducer signal is just wired in parallel to both units. Look online JPI's technical support area of their website. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although your point is well taken, no one here is speaking of dropping a Mooney into a short strip over a big obstacle. I think the point is it's very doable with very good short field technique that includes precise speed control. After all the private pilot ACS standards are much more precise than being 50' high at the numbers and commercial requires within 200' without the engine - with an unobstructed runway of course. But it takes time in type and lots of practice to get there and while working on it good saftey margins are essential. So I certainly don't mean to sound critical of you. Quite the contrary, You're being real smart to know your numbers and add a good margin which will serve you well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can get the Mode S install accomplished on your own, if you can do the configuration. But you'll probably want to use your Garmin 650 installer for the Ads-b portion. Only Garmin dealers have access to firmware updates, install manuals etc. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as I know, only owners wash planes at the wash rack with water and soap. Mechanics clean with varasol or equivalent in the hangar. It's better for the airplane too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand, but I am wondering if flow rates and wing coverage wasn't enough to meet certification requirements with the original panels. Why else would they re-design them. Reducing install time couldn't have been a requirement but a side benefit. My guess is the new design improved the effectiveness of the weeping fluid in some way that improved the icing protection - why else would they spent all that money and time if the initial panels did the job just as well?

So true, no shop escapes at least the occasional complaint. As long as annuals and maintenance is done by humans there will be mistakes made and omissions. The very best shops in the country are not immune. It happens. The best of the best shops though, adopt a QA process of having a second set of eyes check/inspect the work done by another tech. This is really the best defense we have but for the most part only the larger shops can do that. The smaller shops successfully do the same thing with discipline that comes from years of experience of the need to check and re-check their work. I say that because some small shops have some excellent track records as well. Despite how much you may trust your shop and mechanic for your maintenance I hope you all follow the trust but verify approach. By that I mean we really need to treat every flight right after extensive maintenance as a test flight with crew only. A pilot that picks up his/her plane after annual, often on the weekend, and launches into low IFR is more than just naive about the risks they're taking. At least do a thorough pre-flight and run-up paying attention to your engine analyzer and then a lap in the pattern VFR to check out the plane; preferably during business hours so the shop can address anything that just popped up and keep everybody happy. (Like @David_H stall horn issue, but David caught it and what he could on the pre-flight which is the point unlike some stories I've read here such as pilot that took to the runway to takeoff without any oil pressure and many more like that....Yeah the shop really screwed up on that one too!).

The reference to the S&M manual wasn't for the checklist but how the maintenance was done.The Mooney 100 hr/Annual checklist is a separate document. The SM does include some detailed items though on various maintenance intervals including the 100 hr but is not as complete as the Mooney checklist. A reference to the checklist is not required either. As @EricJ explained above shops are free to conduct an annual by whatever checklist they want to go. I'd assume Mooney expects MSC to use their checklist as a condition of being recognized as a MSC - but that is a question for Mooney or an MSC. With the EI R1 tach I wouldn't expect to see any time added. You can easily warm it up under 1300 and then do a run-up at 1700 in under a minute or two at most. But an annual to the reg's means nothing more than an annual was completed. Its best to talk to the shop in advance about what their checklist is. One can always discuss using the Mooney Checklist with any IA or shop that is doing your annual - rather than assuming.

I wasn't aware of the different panel's between inadvertent and known ice. In the Cirrus, the inadvertent panel do not have the same coverage as the KI which makes a big difference. But I wish CAV was more upfront about the differences. I can't help but imagine that CAV would have never gone to the KI panels if they could have met the protection requirements with the earlier panels. Why else would they go to all that expense unless getting certification requirements demanded it. Consequently there has to be some advantages in the newer panels in meeting the known ice protection requirements. At least I'd really like to know.

Ironically you are both quoting the same thing (essentially) and getting different interpretations. Our current icing guidance stems from the Bell legal interpretation letter that was to revise the FAA's stance that for a couple years preceding it was pretty close to saying known icing conditions where as simple as visible moisture at and below 32F. But the Bell letter was in response to an up roar that such an interpretation was totally unreasonable. I thought Rags did a good job of summarizing (its the same way I look at it) and the more recent AD put out in 2015 is directly in response to the legal interpretation of 2009. In understanding known Icing conditions its important to digest this paragraph from the legal definition: The formation of structural ice requires two elements: 1) the presence of visible moisture, and 2) an aircraft surface temperature at or below zero degrees Celsius. The FAA does not necessarily consider the mere presence of clouds (which may only contain ice crystals) or other forms of visible moisture at temperatures at or below freezing to be conducive to the formation of known ice or to constitute known icing conditions. There are many variables that influence whether ice will actually be detected or observed, or will form on and adhere to an aircraft. The size of the water droplets, the shape of the airfoil, and the speed of the aircraft, among other factors, can make a critical difference in the initiation and growth of structural ice. Most flight manuals and other related documents use the term "known icing conditions" rather than "known ice," a similar concept that has a different regulatory effect. "Known ice" involves the situation where ice formation is actually detected or observed. "Known icing conditions" involve instead circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot. While "known icing conditions" are not defined by regulation, the term has been used in legal proceedings involving violations of FAA safety regulations that relate to inflight icing. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has held on a number of occasions that known icing conditions exist when a pilot knows or reasonably should know about weather reports in which icing conditions are reported or forecast. In those cases the pilots chose to continue their flights without implementing an icing exit strategy or an alternative course of action and the aircraft experienced heavy ice formation that validated the forecasted danger to the aircraft. The Board's decisions are consistent with the FAA's long-held position in enforcement actions that a pilot must consider the reasonable likelihood of encountering ice when operating an aircraft. The reality is it all comes down to our planning and what we do when we encounter known icing. The key thing is when we venture into conditions where icing is possible, we need to have sure thing exit strategies available to us, such as descending to warmer air. And we can't continue on failing to take action before it becomes too late. But if we venture into possible icing conditions without any possible escape plan and/or wait too long to take any action we're pretty much asking to be made an example of enforcement action; if we actually survive the experience.

JPI has gotten pretty good at fixing the MAP oscillations within their firmware. It seems very few installations require installing a snubber in the line but occasionally they'll give the client one when the s/w fails to smooth it.

Maybe what you really want is a reaction at the thread level rather than individual post level. But I know nothing of what the platform supports. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're mostly not tight on the IO-550 unless they came with TCM position tuned injectors. Those typically get the engine close to .5 but it's rare to see better. Better typically requires Gami's which we all understand we can always keep improving on when ever necessary with injector swaps. But With TCM position tuned injectors there is no adjusting or swapping. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk