kortopates

I agree going by the F model till you can verify on your own. But the most important factor will be if you still have the original 2 blade prop or not. The 3 blade props changes it substantially since they are a big air brake. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It the long run the FS 510 should save you $$ since you won’t need to pull the SD cards to reprogram with data every 28 days. All that removal and re-insertion leads to failure needing new cards and can occur in opportune times. I understand you only have one box to update compared to my 3, but if you think Bluetoothing the data across to your box is slow, just wait till you do them manually after you take them home or bring a laptop to the plane. It’s actually quite fast even with my 3 boxes. While you were doing all that card programming you could have been taxing to the run up area, copying clearance etc. while your iPad did it for you. Also with your soon to be GTX-345 (rather than 330) you won’t want the clutter of your portable Stratus 2 anymore nor the need for the second iPad connection (FS + stratus) since your FS 510 will replace both with a more reliable system; so you can sell it and recoup a few $. That backup AHRS you were planning to get from the FS210 will still be available through the GTX-345. So you’ll still have all your bases covered. And when your done you’ll have higher resale value on your avionics with the 345. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The FS 210 with the GTN series doesn't make any sense. Look into the FS 510,which is the right one for the GTN's, and about the same cost with no installation cost and does more!

Agreed, they almost always gain weight by being re-weighed. If that was the case, it would be advantageous from a useful load basis to go back and stick to arithmetic updates only. Of course re-weighing is always an option - probably not nearly as helpful though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't really recommend doing the rating in the turbo. The full power to idle in the pwr off landings are really hard on it. I know one K owner whose turbo died prematurely after completing the rating. Of course could never prove working on the rating is what caused it. The other thing is this is a really quick easy rating to get in a school rental to learn the maneuvers. Then you can practice them in the Mooney afterwards. Absolutely, you want to keep proficient in doing pwr-off landings in the Mooney - you never know when you'll need that skill. You just don't want to do dozens of them practicing for the check ride. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Down grading after all these years?! Lol Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What kind of equipment does it have? TKS? Or AC? Those kind of things will do it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very few were needed but there is no other way to get a couple of the rivets in with the structure for the electric gear blocking access up in front of the rail The guidance is in AC-43.13-1B Section 4-57. See paragraphs f(3) and (6) in particular. They are 1.5-2x stronger than the rivets they are replacing. But if you want Mooney's specific endorsement you should email Stacey at Mooney.

One fatality in a C model. No pax on board. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/10/mooney-m20c-n9667m-fatal-accident.html?m=1 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, I thought Byron just mixed them up. It's the Mooney Hour Meter or Tach time that we use for maintenance that saves us money. The EI RPM tach unit is an excellent replacement for the Mooney OEM tach or Mooney hour meter but the EDM, Horizon tach or a Hobbs will all inflate your maintenance times and thus cost. A multitude of methods can be used to record pilot flight time for logging. I just write down start up and shutdown time off my watch. GPS can record both power up time and takeoff time - but power up time is closer to what we want for logging flight time. All my data goes into an Excel spreadsheet which makes it easy to track maintenance intervals etc Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you said that floor was green if that includes the floor bulb light on illuminating the green then that is primary for the gear down - not the panel light. Without a circuit issue both floor and panel are illuminated by the same circuit so if floor was illuminated then both should be. it could be as simple as the panel bulb. Did you press it to test the bulb? Of course none of this has anything to do necessarily with the relay or actuator breaker popping. But it may or may not be related. ( I also can't tell which model this refers from in Tapatalk unless you mention it) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Consider Baja this winter to pet the California Grey whales and land right by your hotel on the Sea of Cortez side at Mulege (or Loreto if you prefer) and then hop over to the Pacific side to land at San Ignacio dirt strip to pet the whales and then hop on back over to Mulege for the night. Although @MBDiagMan would also have a great time hitting many dirt strips in Baja in his tailwheel, the Mooney is the traveling machine to get you down there and back over a 3-4 day weekend; especially when it includes some winter weather that would keep the tailwheel at home!

We actually discussed it last week.

Over a year ago. Their new design is just like Tempest with an integral resistor which should make it easy to tell what kind they are. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't confuse ferry tank fuel cell installations, which are entirely limited temporary operations, as being suitable for "permanent" fuel cell installations - since they are not. Ferry tanks don't typically meet the requirements for ensuring the occupants can otherwise survive an emergency off field landing. Excuse my poor wording, but actual requirements can be reviewed in Part 23.2430 to give you an idea of what you would be up against. Thus sticking to the wings is your only real practical solution.

I have to take the contarian view on GPSS. I personally wouldn't pay anything extra for it. But it's nice when it comes with your avioincs as it did on my G500. But from where I sit, it's just one of the fastest gadgets to losing instrument proficiency. If a pilot needs it to keep up they really shouldn't be relying on it to fly in the system let alone fly IMC. It shouldn't be a crutch to allow getting behind the aircraft and delegate your PIC responsibilities to the GPS and GPSS. Consider what's going to happen to the pilot that habitually engages the AP on departure to use it throughout the flight till the day comes when a failure of some sort takes out the AP. How is a pilot that hasn't been maintaining their proficiency going cope now? Although that may not be popular,it has been my personal philosophy for maintaining my own proficiency. Don't get me wrong. Using all your available resources is smart flying, but becoming dependent on technology to the point you have no proficiency without it is a huge mistake IMO. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree 100% Its a very brief article, many facts are wrong, but what more we can we expect from Cherokee 140 pilot that got her info from browsing MooneySpace! (with all due respect to Jill )

Agreed, and I can't imagine how the FAA folks approved that. It's crazy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For being only 1-2% of the GA fleet I think we get our fair share of coverage. I agree AOPA has been very neutral. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although it got to be rare, should this happen in the busy terminal environment its a set up for triggering an RA on a larger commercial plane with it taking evasive action like climbing or descending and then the controller having his/her hands full dealing with the aftermath, or causing a loss of separation. Either way the pilot is going to be in trouble. And Maro's follow up comment suggest its just a matter of time before others unexpectedly run into this. Although Marco is prepared for this, I would think most won't be. So based on my FAASTeam role with my local FSDO seeing pilots get pilot deviation for unexpectedly turning the wrong way over a fix in busy terminal airspace I think its definitely not okay. Ken is really in a bad position with this IMO given his STEC can only do 3/4 standard rate turns leading to extra large 270 pattern (which of course is a separate issue entirely). I am very certain you will merely get an annunciation of "Steep Turn ahead" followed by Garmin's turn anticipation s/w starting the turn inside of the turn to avoid over shooting. But please do report back. So the question remains why would Avidyne treat steep this way and turn off turn anticipation to fly over the waypoint? Has anyone called for an explanation? You'd think the FAA would have required them to annunciate a warning to the pilot akin to garmin's "Steep Turn ahead" to warn you?

That definitely explains it, but is worse than I thought hoping it was an isolated waypoint issue. This is flat out wrong to fly the turn that way and could get anyone that doesn't correct it into trouble if not violated. Avidyne should really correct it - its a safety hazard. That said, real life IFR flight plans that would really have a greater than 135 turn required would be really rare. At least I can't imagine a valid enroute situation that would require that and wasn't a course reversal in an approach ( a course reversal in an approach would be coded differently anyway). But @Marcopolo comment above suggest it still happens though.

The control information (or GPS stearing on what to fly, when to turn) is provided by your Avidyne GPS. The Aspen GPSS just translates that to heading commands for an AP that doesn't know how to interpret GPS stearing commands. Thus the issue is with the Avidyne GPS. There is no such thing as a fly over Fix - only fly over RNAV waypoints - and CROME is a low Altitude enroute Fix thus has to be coded as a Fly By waypoint by definition. So the Avidyne stearing is just plain wrong. Why I don't know. Time to call up their support. Perhaps only a DB coding error. But flying GPSS this way on an IFR flight plan could quickly lead to a pilot deviation as you turn the opposite direction from expected over CROME and IFR separation is lost due to nearby traffic. Let's hope it's an isolated database screw up. Really doubt it's anything to do with your less than standard rate turn issue. Glad you figured this out VFR. Let us know what they tell you. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Turboplus document could have been summed up with how to adjust the Max MAP down by ~2.5" based on OAT relative to ISA and then says to follow the TCM guidance for setting up the fuel system, subject to the reduced MAP. But here you go: TSIO360 Fuel Setup - NEW 08.pdf But SID-97e is very old. The last revision of SID 97-3 was G which was obsoleted a couple years ago by M-0 Standard Practices & Maintenance which replaced 100's of SB's SID's and SIL's which is therefore very large. But I values you need are: GB & LB: 2700 rpm 40.0" (reduced per above) max FF 23.0-24.7 GPH However, at Savvy we recommend using a target FF of 0.5 to 1.0 GPH above TCM's high number (24.7) which yields a target of 25.2 to 25.7 GPH. Of course, your mechanic will need to ensure all the fuel flow set up parameters are in spec after changing any one. These are the idle unmetered fuel pressure and idle mixture (both at idle rpm of 700) and the metered max redline FF per above. FWIW, their is really nothing complicated about the TCM's fuel system, its actually the simplest between Lyc and TCM since it only meters based on volume unlike Lycomings which is much more complicated. The priming system though is unique to the TSIO-360 which was put on for really cold winter starts. None of the big bore Continentals have such a system.

Indeed, a TIT above 1450F is essentially an emergency calling for the boost pump because of the insufficient fuel flow in the more modern POH's where 1450F is called out as a redline limitation for full power TIT. I would get it properly adjusted before further flight.

So much for being at least 35' above the departure end of the runway threshold on IFR takeoff! Wonder what went wrong and if it was in the pre-departure planning or on the take-off roll? Looked pretty close to near disaster. Those poor pilots must have been shaking once they saw the damage to their plane. I would have been.