kortopates

The 252 airframes began in '86. So it will have the 28V system, electric infinitely adjustable cowl flaps and all the add ons where standard on the 252's except for second alternator and choice of autopilot with the KFC-150 the more expensive with option to add KS197B VNAV which was rare. Standard add-ons that where options in the earlier 231 includes built-in O2, electric standby vacuum, speed brakes, hot prop, and folding rear seats (which started in '85?). The only real non-factory upgrade was the Monroy extended tanks. Rocket Engineering increased the max takeoff weight without any airframe changes, just part of their STC Later, Mooney increased the max takeoff weight by 230lbs in the follow on Encore model with its TSIO-360-SB 220 HP engine with some limited airframe changes including control surface balance weight changes to presumably to keep the same flutter margins and double puck brakes that last longer; these can be retrofitted to the 252's only to get the larger max gross weight.

See post #1 in this thread - Don Maxwell aviation. Don's son Paul Maxwell is whom you are referring too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alex If i was in your shoes i would replace the the 2 rows of mortiz engine gauges and Shadin display with the EDM 900 mounted right there. Your avionics shop can cut a plate to cover the removed equipment and mount the EDM at low cost. Once painted to match it will look fine. A year or two later when ready for more extensive changes you can get a new panel cut for an entirely clean slate design. Even with the EDM, I kept redundant EI MAP and RPM gauges, so I would keep your existing ones for now. Here is how I did mine and I think horizontal mount as some benefits assuming it will fit that way - but you have the portrait option if needed to. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless there has been a recent change, you can not buy a EDM 900/930 without a new harness. So for improved reliability you'll want to install the new harness to avoid connection issues from chaffed wiring as long as possible. But you'll want to reuse many of your existing probes, assuming they are still in great shape. Only the EGT probes suffer from tip erosion from the hot exhaust. Then resell what you don't use with your old unit. I personally prefer the EDM 900 mounted closer to the pilot vs the 930 mounted to the far right; especially on our Mooneys with limited panel space. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The transducer signal is just wired in parallel to both units. Look online JPI's technical support area of their website. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although your point is well taken, no one here is speaking of dropping a Mooney into a short strip over a big obstacle. I think the point is it's very doable with very good short field technique that includes precise speed control. After all the private pilot ACS standards are much more precise than being 50' high at the numbers and commercial requires within 200' without the engine - with an unobstructed runway of course. But it takes time in type and lots of practice to get there and while working on it good saftey margins are essential. So I certainly don't mean to sound critical of you. Quite the contrary, You're being real smart to know your numbers and add a good margin which will serve you well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can get the Mode S install accomplished on your own, if you can do the configuration. But you'll probably want to use your Garmin 650 installer for the Ads-b portion. Only Garmin dealers have access to firmware updates, install manuals etc. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as I know, only owners wash planes at the wash rack with water and soap. Mechanics clean with varasol or equivalent in the hangar. It's better for the airplane too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand, but I am wondering if flow rates and wing coverage wasn't enough to meet certification requirements with the original panels. Why else would they re-design them. Reducing install time couldn't have been a requirement but a side benefit. My guess is the new design improved the effectiveness of the weeping fluid in some way that improved the icing protection - why else would they spent all that money and time if the initial panels did the job just as well?

So true, no shop escapes at least the occasional complaint. As long as annuals and maintenance is done by humans there will be mistakes made and omissions. The very best shops in the country are not immune. It happens. The best of the best shops though, adopt a QA process of having a second set of eyes check/inspect the work done by another tech. This is really the best defense we have but for the most part only the larger shops can do that. The smaller shops successfully do the same thing with discipline that comes from years of experience of the need to check and re-check their work. I say that because some small shops have some excellent track records as well. Despite how much you may trust your shop and mechanic for your maintenance I hope you all follow the trust but verify approach. By that I mean we really need to treat every flight right after extensive maintenance as a test flight with crew only. A pilot that picks up his/her plane after annual, often on the weekend, and launches into low IFR is more than just naive about the risks they're taking. At least do a thorough pre-flight and run-up paying attention to your engine analyzer and then a lap in the pattern VFR to check out the plane; preferably during business hours so the shop can address anything that just popped up and keep everybody happy. (Like @David_H stall horn issue, but David caught it and what he could on the pre-flight which is the point unlike some stories I've read here such as pilot that took to the runway to takeoff without any oil pressure and many more like that....Yeah the shop really screwed up on that one too!).

The reference to the S&M manual wasn't for the checklist but how the maintenance was done.The Mooney 100 hr/Annual checklist is a separate document. The SM does include some detailed items though on various maintenance intervals including the 100 hr but is not as complete as the Mooney checklist. A reference to the checklist is not required either. As @EricJ explained above shops are free to conduct an annual by whatever checklist they want to go. I'd assume Mooney expects MSC to use their checklist as a condition of being recognized as a MSC - but that is a question for Mooney or an MSC. With the EI R1 tach I wouldn't expect to see any time added. You can easily warm it up under 1300 and then do a run-up at 1700 in under a minute or two at most. But an annual to the reg's means nothing more than an annual was completed. Its best to talk to the shop in advance about what their checklist is. One can always discuss using the Mooney Checklist with any IA or shop that is doing your annual - rather than assuming.

I wasn't aware of the different panel's between inadvertent and known ice. In the Cirrus, the inadvertent panel do not have the same coverage as the KI which makes a big difference. But I wish CAV was more upfront about the differences. I can't help but imagine that CAV would have never gone to the KI panels if they could have met the protection requirements with the earlier panels. Why else would they go to all that expense unless getting certification requirements demanded it. Consequently there has to be some advantages in the newer panels in meeting the known ice protection requirements. At least I'd really like to know.

Ironically you are both quoting the same thing (essentially) and getting different interpretations. Our current icing guidance stems from the Bell legal interpretation letter that was to revise the FAA's stance that for a couple years preceding it was pretty close to saying known icing conditions where as simple as visible moisture at and below 32F. But the Bell letter was in response to an up roar that such an interpretation was totally unreasonable. I thought Rags did a good job of summarizing (its the same way I look at it) and the more recent AD put out in 2015 is directly in response to the legal interpretation of 2009. In understanding known Icing conditions its important to digest this paragraph from the legal definition: The formation of structural ice requires two elements: 1) the presence of visible moisture, and 2) an aircraft surface temperature at or below zero degrees Celsius. The FAA does not necessarily consider the mere presence of clouds (which may only contain ice crystals) or other forms of visible moisture at temperatures at or below freezing to be conducive to the formation of known ice or to constitute known icing conditions. There are many variables that influence whether ice will actually be detected or observed, or will form on and adhere to an aircraft. The size of the water droplets, the shape of the airfoil, and the speed of the aircraft, among other factors, can make a critical difference in the initiation and growth of structural ice. Most flight manuals and other related documents use the term "known icing conditions" rather than "known ice," a similar concept that has a different regulatory effect. "Known ice" involves the situation where ice formation is actually detected or observed. "Known icing conditions" involve instead circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot. While "known icing conditions" are not defined by regulation, the term has been used in legal proceedings involving violations of FAA safety regulations that relate to inflight icing. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has held on a number of occasions that known icing conditions exist when a pilot knows or reasonably should know about weather reports in which icing conditions are reported or forecast. In those cases the pilots chose to continue their flights without implementing an icing exit strategy or an alternative course of action and the aircraft experienced heavy ice formation that validated the forecasted danger to the aircraft. The Board's decisions are consistent with the FAA's long-held position in enforcement actions that a pilot must consider the reasonable likelihood of encountering ice when operating an aircraft. The reality is it all comes down to our planning and what we do when we encounter known icing. The key thing is when we venture into conditions where icing is possible, we need to have sure thing exit strategies available to us, such as descending to warmer air. And we can't continue on failing to take action before it becomes too late. But if we venture into possible icing conditions without any possible escape plan and/or wait too long to take any action we're pretty much asking to be made an example of enforcement action; if we actually survive the experience.

JPI has gotten pretty good at fixing the MAP oscillations within their firmware. It seems very few installations require installing a snubber in the line but occasionally they'll give the client one when the s/w fails to smooth it.

Maybe what you really want is a reaction at the thread level rather than individual post level. But I know nothing of what the platform supports. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're mostly not tight on the IO-550 unless they came with TCM position tuned injectors. Those typically get the engine close to .5 but it's rare to see better. Better typically requires Gami's which we all understand we can always keep improving on when ever necessary with injector swaps. But With TCM position tuned injectors there is no adjusting or swapping. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not saying its a bad idea or wouldn't be helpful to some people. But its a lot of work and although I could be terribly wrong I just don't see Craig wanting to take all that on without it being entirely s/w driven by features he can simply turn or enable. Otherwise it seems like a lot of work for someone(s) to do for an unknown value - if any. By monitoring recent activity, everyone can see what threads that are being added too regularly and where the current activity is. By googling outside of Mooneyspace, folks can search for a topic or item they want to learn about before posting - but few do and we repeat the same topics over and over again. Which is okay, but we often get more than one thread on even the same news event, such as an accident. But I personally don't like the idea of the someone summarizing or editing a thread to condense the gold nuggets of wisdom, since the value of the information herein is what people gleam from the post. Different people will get different points etc. Of course this is only the opinion of myself and I have absolutely no say whatsoever. Its totally in Craig's court But I am all for keeping the site as easy or as simple for him to administrate as possible.

A prop strike that wasn't fully inspected would have most people either passing or at least negotiate the cost down to include an engine IRAN and expect ~ 3 month down time. Although legally a shop can return to service an engine after a prop strike without a tear down based on complying only with the legally required AD 2004-10-14 (which is largely based on complying with SB475C). But recognize Lycoming's recommendations to complete a full IRAN per the above referenced Lyc SB533C. The owner chose not to comply since it's optional for a part 91 operator, its only legally binding for commercial operators. Yet no insurance company would refuse to comply with it ; after all we've all seen anecdotal evidence of crank failures after a prop strike that wasn't properly inspected. Some failures have occurred shortly after and others haven't till many years after. Yet we can only speculate why the owner didn't comply. Did he lose his insurance after the first episode and thus didn't have the money being self insured? Or did he purposely not file a claim since he would expect to not be able to get insurance again after 2 prop strikes or claims in such a short period. But the only remaining question that really matters to you, is do you want to roll dice and fly a prop strike engine that hasn't properly been inspected. It could be a ticking time bomb putting not just you at risk you, but your family and other unsuspecting people. If something does happen down the road, expect the first thing the lawyers will notice that the prop strike in the logs wasn't fully inspected against the advice of the manufacturer and best practices in the industry regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with the mishap that got them involved. Here is an article that explores this more: https://www.avweb.com/news/features/The-Prop-StrikeSudden-Stop-222325-1.html

If it leaves the option of subrogation open to the insurance company its really not coverage at all - at least not coverage under the open pilot definition we can count on. On the gear up claim example, you imply that if the company subrogates to recover their loss, blaming someone that falls under the open pilot, that it isolates the named insured from fault? How so, it does nothing to erase the claim and the named insured will have to declare it on future insurance apps and I suspect take the same hits for having the claim regardless of whether their company was successful subrogating. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the engine wasn't IRAN'd, just complied with the Lyc SB, I wouldn't even consider it. Too much risk. As long as it was insured, no insurance company would have refused to IRAN a prop strike since there is too much liability exposure down the road. Sorry, but this is enough reason to not to purchase an aircraft. Its one of the biggest mistakes people make - I liked @Boilermonkey analogy of a mail order bride. Surely you can afford a airline fare over a weekend to go see it. You should be!!! pictures aren't enough.

Seems like a lot of work when simply googling "mooneyspace jackscrew" brings up the thread at the top of the list. Google works pretty good for me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you want further background on this, this article should help. https://www.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2014-11_prebuy-dos-and-donts.pdf Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So true. This article helps explain these terms pretty well. https://aircraftandmarine.com/aircraft-insurance-basics Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't explain it either, but it's been a common issue enough that any installer should be well aware of it these days. I am sure Jerry can explain it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not unless they are a named insured, just like yourself. Otherwise it's as Vance explained above. Next you'll want to understand the difference between sub-limits versus smooth; probably the second most miss understood aspect of insurance. These days the typical sub-limits of 100K is nothing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk