kortopates

See Mooney.com under support for the applicable POH version for your Mooney by serial number. Then you order both a hard copy for the plane and digital versions of all applicable manuals through any MSC. LASAR.com does a huge mail order parts business and would be a good one to get them through. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But you already have a magenta ground track triangle directly below the heading digits in HSI mode. So with the magnetometer you’ll have both magnetic heading and ground track displayed to help you make your TRK match your DTK. You’ll probably still want both. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The good news is that with modern WAAS all of that goes away with ground track information. Just visually tracking TRK vs DTK enables you to keep the needles centered before you’ll see the CDI being displaced. Makes Partial Panel easy as well - and much safer. No more zone of confusion or relying solely on compass for heading. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As Paul says above, it was just the technology at the time. Aspen was an early adopter of this technology going for a low cost glass retrofit and a single integrated ADHRS chip was a big part of what enabled there success. But trade off’s exist with all engineering choices and the chosen chip needed all inputs to get any solution. Garmin came later, as I recall, and used a more sophisticated hardware solution that enable them to code for partial failures unlike the early single chip solution. Hence were we are now with Aspens latest offering. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shouldn’t be a problem. That’s what my backup does but rather than G5s, it’s a G500 with the L3 LSI-500 backup which like 2 plus G5’s or a mini aspen. Anyway both primary and backup can display the same or different Nav guidance how ever selected individually. Even though the G5 only supports a single Nav source, that’s not a big issue either. My LSI also has that limitation so I have a separate panel switch to enable selecting Nav from either my GTN750 or GTN650. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely, PM me you email address and I'll help you get set up.

My issue with iPad technology as a backup for loss of primary instruments is it isn't being realistic in meeting the demands of helping a pilot when the failure occurs in IMC. That is no time to be distracted by setting up the iPad page and trying to verify you're getting good ahars data. Before you get that far the pilot could be in unusual attitudes and fighting trying to not over stress the aircraft. Just imagine turbulence in IMC such as probably the case here. The pilot shouldn't be taking his eyes off his remaining instruments for more than a couple seconds, if conditions allow. If the failure occurs in VMC conditions, such on top, and the pilot needs to descend through a thick IMC layer, then by all means the pilot has time to set up his ipad (synthetic vision with AHRS or primary instrument display) and verify level pitch while in VMC before entering IMC. Recall the Bonanza pilot and his pax that didn't survive more than a couple minutes trying to descend through a IMC layer; an iPad fed by an ADHRS could have saved their lives. But contrast that with what we know of this downed M20C. All we know is that the pilot communicated a loss of Attitude. Its also looks like he was IMC and experiencing significant turbulence. (A local pilot on the BT thread remarked winds were forecasted to be 50-100 mph, even if that is an exaggeration other pilots remarked turbulence is very common in that area of the mountains with any wind. Until he fell off radar at the end he was doing a pretty good job with altitude but you all saw the radar track.) My point is even if he had the iPad with an ADHRS feed he would have had a very difficult job trying to get it set up all the while he was trying to keep the wings level and pitch level in turbulence; especially with a portable ADHRS. Thus counting on having the extra bandwidth to get that setup and confirm wings level attitude when likely you have never looked at that in flight yet isn't very realistic IMO. What you do see may not inspire much confidence if you weren't able to confirm the data in VMC either. (A panel ADHRS source like a GTX-345 would be much more reliable and trustworthy.) Consequently the only backup's you can really count on is the one already in the panel that has been on since takeoff and allowing you to cross check against your other instruments. Pulling anything out in the heat of battle should a failure occur at the worst time isn't going to be much of a help if any, and possibly portable ADHRS is more of a distraction than value if the pilot loses control before they get it working; especially if it has to be relocated because of the turbulence. Although backup instruments are a great addition to save the day with such failures, the other thing these events should be inspiring us in is to maintain our partial panel skills. Such as in doing IPC's which requires partial panel work. All of us had to demonstrate partial panel to get our IR. That shouldn't be the last time we were capable of flying partial panel. So we really need both, reliable backups and to keep our partial panel skills practiced on the equipment we fly. Only the modern glass panel with glass battery backups relieve us of the need for our partial panel skills but we still need to practice using our backups.

Another plus one for Aero comfort. We enjoy our Mooney for long trips often doing a couple legs in a day. The first time I re-did the interior I went with a local aircraft upholster that supposedly used a couple densities of memory foam and good leather and I thought great - I'd save my self several hundred dollars and still get a quality job. Wrong! It looked nice but we both still had sore butts flying and suffered for a number of years that way just because of the expense. I did have to do some re-gluing minor repairs many years later and its then I realized I really didn't get multiple densities of memory foam as I thought but a combination of cheap foam with a little memory foam on top. I guess I got what I paid for - barely. So just a couple years ago I finally went to Hector at Aerocomfort. After all the discomfort I really wanted to ensure I got comfortable seats and just didn't want to take any more chances. I am sure there are other really good upholsters available. I even found one locally that was more expensive than Hector at Aerocomfort and he walked me though his process of building up multiple layers but I was done gambling and paid the shipping to get my seats re-done by a proven quality shop with excellent track record. Just wish I did it the first time!

You both are right, out of respect for all Rocket engineering conversion owners I am going to remove my comments on that. Even if it was 2 out of 3 it's still only conjecture. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All break-up's are due to overstressing the airframe; usually from exceeding air speed limits. Of course I can't blame it on Rocket Engineering only they stand out statistically because I do recall most it not all were Rocket. But obviously the one above was not a rocket. There is at least one more that went down in the Caribbean that I could not find in the NTSB, but agreed I should not go just by memory to make that statement without re-checking first.

All good points and most certainly no plane can defy physics. But I would contend with respect to the Mooney fleet, the most important aspects of the physics is the CG and staying within the CG envelope. The fleet isn't nearly as challenged with max takeoff weight as many other aircraft are. I certainly understand your desire to rely on a fresh weighing for a more "accurate" weight and CG. But based on what I have seen in reality, with weigh-in's all over the map, I personally have much more faith in making simple additions and subtractions to the weight and balance sheet based on precise stations and weights than I do on re-weighing. But that's just my opinion seeing results of re-weighings vary greatly. The Mooney's built pretty strong but max gross weight isn't just limited by the performance of the airframe/engine combo but by the engineering of maximum G loads model is certified too. Edited to remove comments on Rocket Engineering max gross weight takeoff changes and M20 K in-flight breakups that don't really go together.

Fingers crossed your plane is unscathed. Terrible wind damage in the article Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow - we can only wish for such an annual!

So true, no different than us fallible pilots !!

FWIW, Clarence is one of the few A&P's I would trust to do a good job with a result that would be repeatable. But he's way above the norm or average of the person that you might get at the typical shop. PLus I expect Clarence would be pretty anal about measuring the distances called out in which error can have a big impact. Again if you really need to do it, go to someone hopefully you know that you can trust that is going to use the proper procedure and be anal about the process. Clarence, I hope you don't mind your attentions to detail being referred to "anal" - its in a good way!

The scales can actually lie, very accurate scales are expensive and need calibrations like torque wrenches. But the real problem is the plane has to be leveled accurately per the manual when placed on scales and then we find many tech are terrible at math and make lots of errors. But an accurate weigh in requires the plane to be drained of fuel and then add back in the unusable and fill other liquids (oil, O2). Many take shortcuts following the procedure, rather than draining fuel, they may fill the tanks and subtract off the fuel. Lots of error there since they really don't know how many gallons they have nor don't use the proper weight/gal for 100LL; perhap use 6 lbs/gal. Years ago a shop offered to weight my plane, and I thought great way to see how close it comes out - when they were done due to calculation errors it was a few 100 pounds off! Admittedly it was with new scales and little experience. 100' feet of 20 gauge wire weights only a few ounces. Enough coax can add up, but we're often replacing coax unless its the first GPS installed or the like. Honestly, I would never advise anyone to weight their plane except for informational purposes only - not for a legal weight - unless it was your only recourse or you had reason not to trust the official empty weight. Then I would seek someone with experience and good scales simply because its too easy to botch.

But only the legal useful load is what matters. Obviously any errors in past calculations should corrected after a thorough review but a number of insignificant less than a pound changes without an update are not going to make large difference or create a safety of flight issue. Nor is re-weighing the aircraft considered a accurate error free method to re-establish empty weight. Frankly that is a much more error prone process that updating the weight balance with correct station and weight numbers. Mooney's are quite capable handling their full max gross takeoff weight and quite easily with significant margin. But the difference between lightly loaded and max gross weight can be significant; especially as we move up the Mooney models to the longbody with considerations for a takeoff max weight that exceeds max landing weight. But I would put much more emphasis on the need for the pilot transitioning to a new Mooney to work up to max gross weight learning how the heavier airframe handles along way so as to not be hugely surprised; especially at higher density altitudes. In the end, anyone purchasing the new aircraft is going to seek an airframe with as much useful load as they can. But getting to the OPs expectation for 1100 useful load, that is way too optimistic. A good useful load on a K is closer to 900 lbs, many are less than 900. A J can be a bit higher but I'll let some J owners give a realistic number. My 252 after converting to an Encore and going all glass panel is now 1127 pounds - but that is very rare.

That narrows it down to K model, being "forever type" that points to the 252 or Encore, making it 252 or 252/Encore more likely if only because of the numbers.

Does your A&P has the equipment and knowledge to do the ads-b out connection to your KT-74? i.e. has he agreed to take this on? Most don't even have the mil std crimping tools for the avionics wiring. And if you need a firmware update for the current ads-b position source protocol you'll be out of luck without the help of a Garmin dealer - there were a lot of updates. I recall their is an optional TIS-A out connection for traffic you could get in areas served by TRACONs as well as an audio out to the audio panel? The guys doing the Static and Transponder test are not the same guys that do wiring. Once you have the full install cost figured out you may be surprised to see your saving eroded from what a GTX-345 would cost you which is much superior and won't need a squat switch but does require a garmin dealer install. Your in a difficult situation right now with avionics shops, the better/popular ones have more work than they can handle right now. I doubt they would want to install anything they didn't source unless they already had a good relationship with you. Doubt I am saying anything new though. But if your A&P can really take this on for you in December, I'd say your plan is sound good to go with Mode S now and having him finish in time for 2020. I am just skeptical of that unless you've been able to verify this. If you need a firmware update on the 650, you have plenty of time to get that from your 650 installer between now and December.

You're going to love your 252 even more now operating out of Denver, as well as all the nearby ski resorts!

Yep, I & 2 is exactly what you want to see but #3 isn't necessarily an issue. It isn't enough clear enough to see what's going on in 3 and 4. Although we'd prefer to see symmetrical red circular pattern, deposits may not be uniform in 3 and and when they're not you want to see green some green at the outer edge before confirming any burning. But if under closer visual examination (higher resolution photo's with better lighting) it appears that is a hot spot, then lapping the valve in situ can clean it up and save the valve before it really burns. But I wouldn't get worried about that based on these photo's - not yet anyway since you can't really tell what's going on with 3 & 4.

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.