kortopates

Your perspective is welcome and I doubt you are alone. My perspective is that I find there is very little overlap between the written exam and learning how to fly on instruments. It may be a little boring to digest, but the IR isn't nearly as hard for a person that has been flying around 100 hrs or more, talking to ATC on VFR flight following. Plus there are many different avenues to pursue for the written beyond studying test questions, including community college course work, where I teach an advanced IFR ground school that includes simulator time on the redbirds. My point is, it can be hard to understand how to apply the material if ground school consist chiefly of Gleim like study questions. But many other video based training classes I believe solve most of this issue. Especially the community college classes do in an environment where the student can learn from shared experienced from other students as well; but not everyone has access to that. My class even includes a TRACON tour. My approach to instrument training isn't focused on passing the exam, but how to use all your IFR resources to survive when things don't go as expected. If the written isn't done it becomes a distraction very quickly. The other aspect, IMO, is that the only students that have failed to complete instrument training are those that didn't or wouldn't complete the exam. Its frustrating for them when they're getting out to the end and we should be concentrating on the oral but they still haven't gotten the written done and their seeing how inefficient this translate directly to their pocket book and schedule. Its been a real problem for some. The only other significant problem is unique to owner aircraft. Owners suffer from another problem of their own making when they can't quite afford to maintain their own aircraft as in being able to present an airworthy aircraft to the examiner (e.g., either fix broken avionics or rip them out or properly disable and placard - hard to let go of capability you want to fix rather than lose but can't quite afford to fix properly).

Garmin would say they already have, the NXi perspective being used on the current production. And Garmin's level of WAAS for the G1000 has many iterations beyond what Mooney implemented years after Garmin released it. They still can't access any RNAV approaches that had LP with a 0 degree DA. Garmin solved that problem many years ago! The problem has never been Garmin, its always been the factory's need to devote resources to test and approve newer Garmin software. But you can hardly blame the factory since there is very little, if any, $ incentive for them to test and approve Garmin updates. Look how few G1000 users upgraded to WAAS when they could; which was significantly cheaper than ripping out the G1000 suite and building a new panel from scratch - especially if it had a GFC 700 AP.

I suggest you buy a new EI harness. A quality Certified crimp tool cost many hundreds of dollars. Very few A&P's even have this equipment which is basic standard stuff for a avionics tech.

The list is a good start but know how to not just load an IAP, but select a transition other than VTF and then go direct to an IF between the transition fix and the FAF. Know how activate the missed apprch or not if circling. Know how to use OBS mode in GPS mode to fly a hold manually. Know what the different scales of full scale CDI deflection are for Terminal, Enroute and Approach and when they change. .... There is lot more to it than following the magenta line after you have your flight plan entered. Lol's Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lukon, you are much better off getting the instrument written done with a good score before starting instrument flight instruction. Although not required, i personally recommend training in a IFR GPS equipped panel since these days instrument flying is 90% RNAV based. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Peter, I found exact OEM replacement solenoids for just under $200 but mine is a 28v system and may be a different part no since I installed the 6041H202 model, so this may not be an exact match but I didn't look for your number as much as what I used. https://www.peerlesselectronics.com/6041h202-relay I went this route, versus a generic solenoid as a minor mod, so that I wouldn't have to also alter wiring it. It's in a terrible spot to work on. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Awesome suggestion and exactly the way to do it, by consulting the ICA or Precise Flight documentation. But I just wanted to add the caveat that since there are many generations of speed brakes they aren't all the same. Some of the earlier speed brakes, such as my pneumatic actuated brakes, use sealed bearing. Trying to lubricate these is not recommended (Precise says not too) since it can do more harm by attracting dirt than do good. Consult your documentation first.

Overhauling based on an emotional concern isn't necessarily the wisest course of action either; especially from a reliability standpoint. TBO is only one parameter. Calendar time can have more importance. But much better to decide based on the health of the engine. Compression test data is notorious for going up and down and for being an unreliable indicator of cylinder health. So good for you for borescoping the cylinders. But still that's only looking at the cylinders. Even if some cylinders need work, this doesn't mean an engine overhaul is really necessary. Cylinders are changed daily without overhauling. Given the expenses and risks you are rightfully concerned with, you owe it to yourself to read to Mike Busch's book on Engines available at Amazon. That will give you sound guidance on how to better decide when to overhaul. Mike has a third book coming out soon addressing aircraft ownership as well. Anyway, I am only suggesting this because i really believe you'll feel empowered and much more comfortable about delaying engine overhaul till factors discussed in Mike book are really suggesting its time to overhaul, and not just based on some cylinders that are easily repaired or replaced. see https://www.amazon.com/Mike-Busch-Engines-maintenance-troubleshooting/dp/1718608950/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=engines+book+by+Mike+busch&qid=1561608948&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Couldn't tell from your post which model you have - apparently a C model from other post. If you have an engine monitor with downloadable data, open a free account on SavvyAnalysis.com. Then you can upload it and share a link to the data here. Then people can take a look at it. If I knew your N number, I'd take a look to see if I can find your data, but I don't. if you only have a single EGT and CHT, well that's pretty useless. Both EGTs and CHTs can vary very widely or have a large spread on the C model due to being carbureted and the legacy baffling. Hard to go much further without seeing the data.

I wouldn't put anything in an aircraft that didn't meet the flammability/burn test requirements! Fire after an off airport landing is way to common to ignore this. Weight is also important to me.

If you decide to do it, I highly recommend doing it at the MAPA Denver PPP. The Denver PPP always gives you the choice between the Mountain flying course or the traditional venue. That way it's a bit more Mooney specfic with same mountain flying instructors. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since the fall/winter of 2008 I believe - almost 11 years.

I can easily imagine Mooney pilots bypassing it once they realized all runways where dirt or gravel in addition to not being controlled. But a very attractive thing about the field is its surrounded by mostly open space; at least compared to the other options. My guess is he felt he had the altitude to be able to make one of the other larger paved and controlled fields; but why GEU or DVT I wonder except these are pretty instantaneous decisions. But one very positive thing you can say about going down in the city, unlike in some open space area, is that someone was right there to lend assistance when things did go terribly wrong on landing (hitting the light pole). Just hoping he pulls through okay and big thank you to the amazing Mr Hunnicut for pulling him from the burning wreckage in time.

Looks like a non-waas unit. If it doesn't clear up on its own, you know what you gotta do. Does working perfectly mean you can switch between VLOC and GPS mode without any trouble? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The difference is after a recent run, the oil pressure will come up pretty much instantaneously. Contrast that to starting it up after it been sitting for several weeks or longer and the oil has back drained to the sump sufficiently that even the oil pump has drained. You'll be running for several second at least at idle rpm before the oil pressure come up to safe levels. Add in the risk of poor start with high engine RPM at startup and not only is excessive un-needed wear a concern but risk of real damage from high rpm without oil pressure. This is so easily avoided by turning the engine over without the plugs which anyone can do or even better if you or your maintainer has access, using a pre-oiler. The later is a bit invasive as one has to be careful to re-attach the oil hoses and properly torque the connections but it avoids all engine revolutions without oil pressure.

Sorry, beefier landing gear is a misnomer. The IPC shows this. WRT the gear, the difference is in the spindles/axles and brake/gear doors. And the spindles are actually identical except for a beefier torque plate for the double puck calipers to mount to. Also the the earlier Bravos came with single puck brakes, even with the higher max gross weight. Later before the Encore came out, Bravo's went to a double puck brake with a retrofit kit - later that Mooney drawing made for the Bravo was also made available for the 252 to convert to double puck brake system and used for the Encores. There is similar rumor to a change in the tubular cockpit frame with the 252 which made the 252 eligible for the gross weight increase but not the earlier 231 airframe - don't know if there is any truth to that one either.

I realize and understand, but that was more of a comparison between airframes with different empty weights than the added weight from the Encore conversion which is very small. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The net gain in useful load is nearly all of the 230 lbs, double puck calipers, thicker rotors etc only weigh a couple pounds more, heavier control weights only weigh ounces more. I can’t recall exactly to the pound, but I got within just a few pounds of all of that 230 lb gain. That’s absurd to suggest the brakes weight 100 lbs! The heaviest component of all is the spindles, but the only mod is for the beefier torque plate for the brakes. So their difference in weight was negligible. It’s a very worthwhile mod and highly coveted. It brought my 252 to nearly a 1120 lb useful load! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although I feel for the pilots loved ones left behind, what a total waste. @HXG said it much better, both angry and sad.

It seems like most of us all began with a commercial solution like the Checkmate card since they offered an immediate solution. But its essential to have a very good understanding of your emergency checklist. Just having them at your disposal, or even pulling out the POH in an emergency isn't going to cut if if you haven't spent considerable time really learning to understand what they do and why. For example, the Continental has 2 fuel pumps for entirely different purposes. We really need to understand what they're for. One of important ways to learn this is going through the POH and creating your own Emergency checklist as Larry @Larrynimmo did - its really the only way to go. Turbo's are far more complicated than the NA engines and thus a Turbo pilot has a much greater responsibility to understand the different failure modes and many more procedures that come into play with a more complicated engine and the additional challenges that come with flying in the flight levels. Make the time to produce your own checklist, from the POH, in a form that you understand them and can put them to immediate use when the time comes. Its also just as critical that we all understand the different failure modes of the equipment avionics that we fly so we know for example what will and won't affect the autopilot. We all owe it to the precious cargo we carry with us at times.

Jewell is a fine choice, and whom Mike B used on one of his engines. But since you mentioned leaving out Mags, be aware that Major Overhaul is legally defined term by the FAA that to count as a Major Overhaul, and thus reset TSMO to 0 in your logs, that we are required to overhaul or replace everything that the manufacturer requires per their documentation. Thus you are likely required to overhaul if not replace the mags. An IRAN of mags doesn't count since its not an overhaul that follows its own parts replacement list. If that's important to you, since its affects resale value, be sure to discuss with whomever does your work exactly what kind of return to service paperwork you'll be getting: IRAN vs Major Overhaul on your engine. An IRAN won't reset the clock on TSMO. Here is an excerpt from TCM M-0 Appendix C-2 that covers mandatory replacement parts: At engine overhaul the starter, starter adapter, alternator, magnetos, and engine fuel system must be replaced with New, Factory Rebuilt, or FAA approved overhauled units. On turbocharged engines, the turbocharger, wastegate, all controllers, bypass valve and exhaust system must be replaced with new, factory rebuilt or FAA approved overhauled units. All engine baffles must be repaired or replaced and all flexible baffle seals replaced.

Yep, Sunday and today look like mostly overcast days for logging IMC. Be my pleasure next time you're down.

Indeed, we were being vectored on from the south and then I heard him call out traffic to a much faster mover to the north. Then when I heard him tell you to alter heading for the traffic I recognized your voice and checked the full call sign on my Ads-b traffic and sure enough it was you. Approach asked us to keep our speed up for you. I checked again and you had 60 kts on us! Meanwhile I am telling my client he just has to keep our speed up till CIDRU, then slow to normal approach speed. We were in a J model - no match for the fire breathing 310HP Ovation on our tail! Meanwhile my client did an excellent job on the approach till we went missed into the IMC layer for our next one at Oceanside. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The ACR PLB's is what I use and recommend. I use this model, the 400 with integrated strobe light: https://express.google.com/u/0/product/3043364091155050282_7600232609211953833_6114026?utm_source=google_shopping&utm_medium=tu_cu&utm_content=eid-lsjeuxoeqt%2Ceid-wuakzuqbuq&gtim=CNaK68mR_PHTYxC0tInThevS5hIYsL-DjwEiA1VTRCiQtavoBTDqlfUC&utm_campaign=6114026&gclid=Cj0KCQjwrpLoBRD_ARIsAJd0BIU6a_LNmSr6Xt-OggSA4zV_275G7jRxLZJz0VSXmzD5J4Tua6N1iRUaAp2TEALw_wcB There are other similar models that include messaging festures; like a SPOT. I personally have no interest in that. But keep in mind these are not a substitute for a 406 onboard that will activate on it's own and you can flip the switch to activate while gliding to an off airport landing. These of course are dependent on you being concious and able to activate it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My K uses metal clips. I am skeptical that plastic would be strong enough for the armrest. But let us know if you try them. And I wonder if your broken ones are plastic, if that could be why? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk