kortopates

These folks should have it; http://www.glapinc.com/mainmenu.htm

I teach the LOP stuff, but I am also a bit anal about setting it up, but I don't use it till after climbing up for a longer x-country where I'll be at cruise for sometime. Although I am sure there are pilots that may set up LOP between airports when doing IFR currency training, I wouldn't consider doing so myself when doing a series of approaches since the workload is too high with so much going on. I strictly use and practice a series of ROP PAC's (by the numbers). Except for going missed, all of the power settings are low power anyway.

Even at my Part 147 school, I still had to take my school completion certificate to the FSDO to get approval to take the written and then orals.

Not really, I was only able to a skip 1 DC electric class petitioning I had met the requirements with the 3 semester Physics. Follow on electrical classes for airframe and powerplant where to aircraft and FAA specific to get out of.

A much closer candidate for replacing a -MB or -SB. But one HUGE problem. It weighs 110 lbs more than my -SB - literally. 548lbs, The fuel savings could make it a wash due to the reduced cruise fuel consumption at 9.2 GPH. For example, a 4 hr ROP flight at over 13 GPH vs 9.2 would burn up that extra 100 lbs in fuel. But we'd still have to fix the CG problem with that extra 100 lbs so far forward. Although it starts out at 300 HP at sea level, at 18000 its down to just barely past 200 HP at 18K, so looks like flight level performance is gone. Although turbocharged with dual turbo's , turbo charging a diesel is much more difficult with a 15:1 compression ratio, contrasted to 7.5:1 for the avgas turbo's. Definitely plus's and minuses to consider.

I think you are thinking of the IA's (A&P's with Inspection Authorization). The FAA FSDO's would really like to reduce the number of IA's by dropping those that aren't doing it professionally or full time and there has been much talk of it - purely to reduce the workload of FSDO PI's that over see IA's. But it remained all talk with no change to regulations. IA's may continue to renew on the basis of continuing education alone.

Yes, by any A&P.

It "applies" to everyone with a Trig transponder, in that you'll need to show one time compliance entry in your AD list that you at least found the AD non-applicable due to installation (standard AFT facing) The following details of the SB may help others Hardware 01/10/2018 version 1.0 This Hardware Service Bulletin applies to TT31 transponders approved under ETSO authorisation EASA.21O.643 Rev B and EASA.21O.906 Rev A, part number 00220-00-(XX) and part number 00225-00-(XX) which are: Serial number from 05767 to 09715; Modification Level 6 or below; Installed in an orientation which is NOT a conventional aft-facing avionics stack mounting.

New AD affecting Trig transponders, e.g. Avidyne AXP340 and Bendix KIng KT74. See attachedAD 2019-13-03.pdf

Its not nearly as easy as getting a pilots license. Check to see if there are any community college A&P programs in your area. That's what I did and went to class in the evenings after my day job. It was a long haul of 2 1/2 years of 4 evenings a week from 4:30 to 10pm. But I found the classes entertaining and fun.

Looks like it will be a great option for a Skyhawk. Wish them well, but they've been working on this for 25 years and been saying it'll be certified since 2011. Now that they got an infusion of cash a few years ago maybe it will finally happen. But I am skeptical we'll see a higher horsepower version suitable for a K in my lifetime. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You nailed it Brad, our remarkable Mooney airframe may continue to keep bragging rights as the fastest certified GA piston aircraft but further innovation is hindered by its limited useful load. All the arguing about adding BRS is just as naive as owners wishing Mooney would bring back the J model. Of course Mooney would add BRS if they could, but the crippling useful load prevents it as did the aluminum skin. But the new composite cockpit shell is a step in the direction of being able to support the system. But the bigger problems remains of significantly lightening the airframe before they can seriously entertain it and then offers options of AC and FIKI.

Yes, the Mooney "factory" in Shanjia, a suburb of Zhengzhou in the Henan province is still going strong. The "factory" though is to re-assemble plane's built and flight tested in the US and then disassembled for shipping via cargo ship container to China. After reassembly in China the plane has to go through a huge effort to be certified under a Chinese registration. While I was there, we only had one Acclaim with a Chinese registration that I had a temporary Chinese license to fly. All the others still had US N numbers that I could fly without my Chinese license, but since the Chinese Acclaim had AC we only flew that the summer I was there. But the 2 Mooney pilots I worked with are still going strong; continuing to train and market the Mooney brand in China. The M10 has to be a tremendous setback for Veronica (Meijing Group), since the big goal was to capitalize on GA training in China with a Mooney trainer. You must have all noticed that after Jerry Chen's replacement announced he was putting a hold on further M10 testing that he was gone very soon after. I wish I knew what Veronica had in mind with Mooney now, but I don't believe she ever thought she would re-coup her investment from US sales. She has always had her eyes on much bigger opportunities in the Chinese market. I believe she has only asked that Kerrvilles stay out of the red, but that's just my insight. But they have never thought they could do anything more in China than re-assemble current production. Their FAA equivalent bureaucracy towards certification in China is no less challenging than our FAA processes. So frankly I only expect to see step-wise refinements to the Mooney design in the US until China can become profitable since its certainly still far from it. But any success in China, should it come to fruition, is only a positive things for US production. Production of a Mooney trainer though would likely be split up across continents. But my hope is that when Veronica can start to make money on the Mooney brand in China, then we'll see Mooney actually explore new airframes beyond a trainer that they have had in their vision for some time. Unfortunately, that appears to be just as far off as it was when I was in China 3 years ago working with them.

I think the biggest unknown is the cost and quality of the future servo's. Although the digital 230 is a nice upgrade in itself, its still dependent on my old servo's which can be really expensive to maintain should the motor armature need replacing with a new motor. Going to the 230 seemingly eliminates the servo risk in that BK says they'll "guarantee" , which I interpret as maintain, my old servo's at no extra cost (beyond labor) for another 2 years. But by then, if not sooner, i'll be in need of new servo's. I'd really like to know what the new servo's will cost and if they'll similarly be the new style of brushless motor design. Would hate to find out down the road that the 230 computer was only half or less of the eventual cost of completely updating my AP. I am also hoping the new servo's will mount the same way as my existing ones without having to remove all the old hardware and start over from scratch at the cost of a lot of labor. If so, the Garmin GFC 500 may look like a better path, although I don't think the Aerocruze will rely on GPS aiding like the Garmin does which is another attractive feature.

Yes and no, I enrichen only because I have the automatic wastegate. You don't and will have to stop the MAP from increasing in descent manually. Sorry, left that out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are as many descent possibilities as there are pilots. I personally come down at cruise power at a few hundred ft/min as long as I get cleared to descend early enough at Pilot Discretion; which is more typical than not. But Whether your coming down LOP or ROP, it's easiest with your 231 without a hydraulic controller, to just use TIT as your guide to maintain mixture. So if you're coming down ROP, which will be a TIT likely in the 1450 to 1550 range, don't let it creep up, enrichen just enough to keep the same TIT throughout the descent. If your coming LOP with a TIT, hopefully just below 1600 rather than above, you can reduce the air to keep TIT from going down. The latter step is mostly done automatically by a 252 with a hydraulic controller, but not with manual waste gate.

We don't replace these, we overhaul them. These folks will return like new: https://www.consolac.com/

Saying "new pistons" above rather than new cylinders means they O/H his cylinders. The labor is included in their engine OH base price. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

New pistons, which are required, means overhauled cylinders. An MB will be a few thousand more with the hydraulic controller and wastegate. Additional accessories add up too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although IA's may use whatever list they like, part 43.D specifies the minimum an annual checklist should contain: D)... (3) Internal engine—for cylinder compression and for metal particles or foreign matter on screens and sump drain plugs. If there is weak cylinder compression, for improper internal condition and improper internal tolerances. I believe Mooney's 100 hr/annual checklist also includes it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@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.