kortopates

When Mooney went to the electric flaps they were all "infinitely adjustable" so to speak - a bit of a plus but more of minus when you want to raise them to T/O position when doing a GA. When Mooney re-introduced the J in the early 90's they did so with a 3 position detent switch which is really nice and works the same way all of us have experienced in the C172 trainers. The big advantage is you don't have to look at them to raise to T/O on the go - just move up to the T/O detent by feel. They also had the added advantage of a higher v speed for initial t/o or approach flaps. This improvement never made it to the long bodies AFAIK till the G1000 Mooneys since the G1000 also was based on 3 position flaps. I imagine it would be possible to retrofit the J's 3 position detent system, but likely only if you have a 28V system (unless if Mooney made a retrofit kit for 14V systems?). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is nothing new about the fire-resistant synthetic MIL-PRF-83282. I understand most military aircraft were using it by 1985. It has total compatibility with the oil based 5606. It has other benefits in it's temperature range for stabilizing viscosity over a larger range that is perhaps more applicable to turbo flying up high, but it also last longer in service and is not prone to geling with time in service. Interesting on the concern for leaks but I have never experienced what might be referred to as premature leaking like we have seen in engines with multi-weight synthetics. Maybe it's a sign that seals are ready for replacement anyway? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most likely normal with a non-standard CHT probe in #1 - your left rear cylinders. Check@DVA number 3 item above. EGT is normal. If it is a spark plug probe you'll want to replace it with an Adapter probe that piggy backs onto the OEM probe. If it is a piggy back probe already, make sure its still covered with firesleeve and not exposed to air. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just to be clear, sticking valves a.k.a. "morning sickness" is different from wobbly valves also mentioned above which I think was in the context of FEVA - our Failed Exhaust Valve Analysis algorithm which is executed automatically when you upload data to Savvy and then used to alert subscribers of potential failed/burnt exhaust valves. The burnt exhaust valve can often be recognized because the valve is sticking in rotation - not sticking closed or open - which results in a what we call a FEVA EGT pattern recognized by our software. To detect morning sickness when the valve sticks (i.e. is not opening and closing properly), we need your engine analyzer recording at engine startup. All the TSO'd for primary analyzers are wired to the main buss (as required by being primary) so that they are on when the engine is started. Often the sticking valve only last a few seconds after startup while the oil is cold and then stops sticking as it warms until the day comes when it starts sticking in cruise leading to a bent pushrod or worse. The non-primary engine analyzers are often wired into the avionics buss and therefore aren't on when the engine is started so that we are likely to miss a sticking valve at startup unless it sticks long enough to caught when your monitor does come on line. But we've still caught a few here in Mooney's with non primary monitors. For data capture rate, we (I) want to see your fastest supported rate upto 1 sec. Many of the non-primary ones only support a 2 sec rate, like the EDM-830 or the older 700 series which is actually a good compromise with those with smaller memory. Some like the Avidyne only support a 6 sec rate (which is terrible for getting good data resolution). But most of the primary ones including the EDM 900 series support a 1 sec rate which is the best rate for diagnostic value e.g., getting good gami data and interpreting LOP Mag checks. For example, for the LOP Mag check we need to see a minimum of 10 data points on each individual mag as well as on both in between isolated mags while EGTs fall back down to stabilize; or minimum of 30 sec (since 10 sec with the 1 sec capture rate is sill too short). But with a 6 sec default data rate, that takes a full minute to get 10 data points that are very far apart and not nearly as good data as 30 sec at 1 sec rate for seeing issues. Some of you may know that while you have your modern EDM monitor is in "Lean Find LOP or ROP" mode the analyzer switches to 1 sec data rate on it's own, but that short period is not enough when we are trying to diagnose engine anomalies and looking at data in all phases of flight. We want the data capture rate at a constant 1-2 sec rate; which ever your monitor supports. This is also covered in our Savvy Test profile document online at Savvy http://content.savvyanalysis.com/static/pdf/SavvyAnalysisFlightTestProfiles.pdf

We had a similar bug on the Garmin side that took a few weeks for them to resolve since they have a lot of testing to do. But in that case ADS/b data from the GTX345 was overloading the processor in the GTN gps's causing them to go blank for several seconds. The Aspen issue sounds very similar but more frequent and more drastic since it's your flight instruments on the PFD. Haven't heard of anyone complain about the bug though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are multiple ways but this site is very popular https://visitedstatesmap.com/

As a CFI I highly recommend you get the written out of the way before starting training. It's the most effecient and improves your education in the cockpit. I have yet to see the pilot that wasn't delayed in some fashion but not taking care of the written before starting flight training. You do NOT need to find a CFI first to take the written, but you will need a signoff but that's easy. You have many self paced home study programs that will prepare you for the written. Cost vary from what they provide but pick one that is comprehensive to include practice exams and a completion certificate that entitles you to take the written. The most Popular ones are Gleim at cheaper range to King Schools at the more expensive upper end. All of the comprehensive ground school self study programs will provide you with a completion certificate that will enable you to take the written at any approved testing center. But if you have a local community college nearby with a pilot program that is by far your best option and also your cheapest. In a semester you can get the most comprehensive ground School education that goes beyond the exam and for practicaly free. I teach at such a college. Before tsking the exam, besure to Practice the written exam questions until you are repeatedly above 90%; preferably higher. For Each question you get wrong, the pilot examiner is required to quiz you on that topic during your practical; so your practical will go much smoother for you with a good score. With written completed go interview a few CFIs and pick one you think you'll enjoy working with. I would personally suggest an experienced independent instructor that's teaching because they love it over a wet 250 hr CFI teaching only to build the pre-req hours for a flying job. Meanwhile go sign up with AOPA for their free student pilot periodical "Flight training" - I think they'll give you a free 6 months. But you'll want to join for all the great resources they provide student pilots. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See https://planeplastics.com/product-category/airplane/mooney/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Neither actually. Those are identical. There is a synthetic that is fully compatible to 5606H you show above. Has some improved properties in addition to not burning. Here is a link to the Royco brand https://www.skygeek.com/royco-782-synthetic-fire-resistant-hydraulic-fluid.html Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see what you mean! The mid body's went too a different parking brake valve that is downstream past the master cylinders, about under the rear seat. Your earlier one looks like it prevents fluid from going back into the reservoir? No idea when they changed, but more the J so I expect your right about which one Chris has. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 2 independent lines through the parking brake don't interconnect except through a valve mechanism. Depending on which O-rings are leaking it could very well only leak out from one side - not necessarily both sides. I forget exactly, but I recall at least 4 O-rings. Hope that clarifies. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BTW, when the MC is re-installed, be sure to remove that gap between the bracket and the MC fitting with a washer or 2 so that it can't move side to side to prevent any side loading. Probably just one standard -08 washer, plus the thin one behind the cotter pin. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you your parking brake had signs of leaking then for sure you should rebuild it with new o-rings. You'll be able to get a kit from LASAR for that and the MC if you want to do that one too. Incidently, leakage in the parking brake will not effect both brakes. There are of course 2 separate lines going through it that don't connect except for the external valve mechanism. If you haven't already, when you bleed and flush, you can switch to the synthetic equivalent of 5606H. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really admire and respect what your doing for your friend and AME!

I frequent a ski area in the winter and never bother with the expensive heated hangar. I just park in reach of electricity and plug in my engine tannis heater. If you don't have that they'll pre-heat your engine on the ramp for you for much less than a night in the hangar. In my mind, the only thing to push me into a hangar is the threat of hail. Snow isn't bad if it's cold powder. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where are you? I have a gas powered one with the Mooney specific hardware in San Diego. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The p/n is actually on the plug of the servo which is a little closer. You can also look it up in the Mooney IPC. The p/n is specific to our Mooney's which is what makes them rare. Which model AP do you have? Ah, i see KFC-200, sorry I don't know the pitch servo p/n off hand on that one.

If you have the budget for a panel mount unit which is always on and integrated into the audio panel so you can't miss it, this is what I use which replaced my original clock.

No way that any of the control surfaces could be incorrectly installed, about the only thing that could be done improperly beyond balancing them would be too not use the proper hardware which can be verified visually. Neither effects rigging.

I'd be far more concerned about the mags, but an "inspection 100-150 hrs ago" is ambiguous to me. Are you referring to a 100 hr inspection or a 500 hr/5 yr IRAN? I do the 100 hr inspection annually and always comply the 500hr/5 yr IRAN. Its a false sense of security to assume since you have 2 mags you can run on one just fine. Our engines need both to run satisfactorily. Put another way, loose a mag and you're just one plug or wire away from losing a cylinder and 25% of your power. Remember 2 of those cyl's on the remaining mag are only being fired by the dirtier less efficient bottom plugs. If that doesn't concern you, consider a bad mag is going to cost you much $ and inconvenience away from home. At Savvy where we advocate maintaining most everything on condition, including ignition wires, the mags are the big exception. With mags its best to comply with the recommended 100 hr and 500hr/5yr inspections and IRAN in accordance with L-1363-F (slick mags overhaul manual); especially with the Slick mags. On the other hand if the the last inspection was a full 500 hr IRAN, then you should be fine to do just the recommend 100 hr inspection each annual. Only at engine overhaul would we advocate overhauling or replacing the mags. Economics typically dictates whether you overhaul or replace them when the time comes. But as long as you can economically get through the 500hr IRAN every 500 hr or 5 yrs, there is no need to replace or overhaul them.

Here you go Anthony@Carusoam Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll agree with that and raise you one so to speak, I'd rather see them commence the go around just a couple feet above the runway, add enough power to stop the descent while cleaning up and still maintaining directional control by exercising proper rudder control to keep tracking above the center line while continuing to accelerate and not leave the ground effect and commence too steep of a climb till on proper speed. A "precision" go around in effect. Like the saying "only perfect practice makes perfect".

I don't do touch and goes in complex aircraft either, although occasionally lots of them in trainer aircraft with pilots learning or relearning the landing sight picture into the round out. So I certainly agree they have their place. But in the Mooney and other complex aircraft like Bonanza's I prefer to practice "precision" landings and takeoffs; even if 'precision' is just an illusion - it remains the goal. For example, consider the basic normal landing. If properly done with speed control its not over after the stabilized ~3 glide slope at 1.2-1.3 Vso for approx weight with round out that includes pulling the elevator gradually back till the wings won't support it and it settles on the mains. All at the same time proper rudder control is utilized to keep the nose tracking down the center line. But its not done when the mains have touched. The precision normal landing includes holding the nose wheel off by continuing to add back pressure gently till its all the way back to take advantage of aerodynamic braking from the added pitch drag; the most effective braking early on. After we can't hold the nose wheel off we'll be slow enough for the brakes. The short field approach is very different in approach speed, steeper approach path and a faster round out with firmer touchdown (which by the way Ross @Shadrach did an excellent job of covering in another thread on the proper short field technique that applies to all Mooney's including the longbodys; as opposed to dragging it in low and slow which is so popular in primary training). Although I only simulate getting on the brakes, but how would you know how good your short technique is while transitioning to the go right after the mains touch? How do you practice the rest of the round out holding the nose off as long as possible if you already started the go? How does one do x-wind practice with more and more aileron into the wind through the x-wind round out and roll out? The T&G is none of these but closer to the aborted landing. I practice and do aborted landings too, after all its a required element in the ACS and thus a part of a flight review. But I'll often try for just a couple feet above the runway, which IMO requires the most technique or precision in rudder authority to keep the plane above the center line while arresting descent and cleaning up the aircraft. I'll also include the soft field takeoff, because even though our Mooney's don't make good soft field aircraft, its an excellent exercise in rudder technique that we can further reinforce by adding in simulating the high density takeoff by keeping the aircraft in ground effect as we clean it up and accelerate to Vy before leaving ground effect entirely. By the time most pilots get to the Mooney for transition training, they have the basic sight picture down and really need do need work on precision more than sight picture. But precision all the way through the landing - not just to the touch. Also the accident record shows us there is more added risk in doing the touch and goes in complex aircraft. This is why pilot proficiency organizations like MAPA and the Bonanza ABS folks have policies against them in part and in part to emphasize the precision elements of each different landing type. Is the added risk mitigated by a proficient pilot with adequate time in type? I think we have enough proficient Mooney pilots here that demonstrate it certainly can be. Just like a couple of professional pilots can do them in an airliner. So I respect the choice of those that have the experience and proficiency and chose to do them. But as an advocate for precision training and my own desire to perfect my landings I see no value in touch and goes in complex aircraft and I personally think the added risks is very real for new low time transitioning Mooney pilots. I especially get the need in the C172 for them, when the Hobbs meter is rolling over at clock time. But in the Mooney it cost me zero maintenance time on my Mooney to complete the roll out and taxi back (i.e. no tach time) I'll confess, while working with a few very low time Mooney transition pilots with new private certificates, I have taken them to an airport with a 2 mile long runway that we could do Stop and Goes for those pilots that really needed lots of lots of Mooney landings. But most transitioning Mooney pilots don't fall into that category and most of our runways are too short to allow that. I know this topic will forever remain contentious, so just another pilot's/CFI opinion motivated by safety and precision. And to the OP, @gsxrpilot, I loved the video - keep them coming!

Also check the fit of the rollpin that goes through both the shaft of the motor and the overlying control arm bracket - sorry not sure what to call that except that it fits over the motor shaft and attached with 2 rollpins. The motor shaft will probably be fine, but if the rollpin holes in the overlying control arm is enlarged then that will lead to premature failure of the roll pin(s) as the pin rotates back and forth against the hole sides. It so it should be replaced with a new one to get a tight tolerance fit again. The two rollpins are 90 degrees apart so that you don't loose cowl flaps with just one pin failure. Check them both. But my guess is that to minimize his down time, no one has disassembled the assembly enough to do a full inspection and find the issue. Being in a really back tight spot makes it very difficult to see what's going on without pulling things out. BTW, the current spec on the motors went to the next size up in roll pin diameter making them much stouter and thus harder to break. So getting the motor overhauled to the current spec is another way to attack the issue. Going to the next size up allows drilling out the smaller hoes on the attaching bracket and making it like new with tight tolerance holes again without replacing it. That savings almost pays for the electric motor overhaul.

I don't know either but @Ned Gravel implied that when he said "To file, review, amend and brief on flight plans on the ramp" unless I miss understood. Anyway Ned would be the person to answer since he apparently does so on the ramp. But maybe he doesn't mean aircraft running, ready to go? I'd like to know too. But it could be different in Canada too.