kortopates

I don't think those use a tray. Just a couple screws to the front of the panel.

The JPI TIT sensor reads almost right at 100F higher than the OEM massive TIT probes. I personally put more confidence in the JPI probes indications.

To my recollection there has been at least 3 K model break ups. Too long ago since I looked at the data but I recall all being Rockets, but at least one was attributed to over stress from penetrating a thunderstorm. Mooney's flutter analysis in the accident report on the Rocket left me with more questions than answers. But long time Mooney engineers like Bill Wheat and Bob Kromer have always referred to our Mooneys as being very safe from flutter during dive certification testing. When Mooney increased the max gross weight of the K model for Encore, they increased the weight of all the control balance weights, doubling the weight on the elevators, based on their computer modeling of flutter analysis to maintain their flutter reserve (or so I've heard from them as the explanation for the changes years ago). To my knowledge Rocket Engineering's only enhancements to the airframe where to support the 2 batteries in the rear for the required ballast with the bigger engine up front. No change in control balance weights was done.

No, but find it on the electrical schematic. It will show location as well.

Be sure to check your junk or spam folders too.

It would take more time than I have to really that well, but I'd start with 43.13 that says we have to follow the manufacturers maintenance manuals. for using anything else we need to have approved data, acceptable to the administrator, to allow us to use it, which is what STC process provides.

Your quoting the Mooney part number, so you could ask your Mooney MSC for a replacement light bulb. But your IPC should also show the Grimes equivalent part no - since that's what the Mooney part no is based on. I find that translates to the Grimes A1285-G-12. Then next step is to go to Whelen catalog look up the cross reference to Whelens part no, which is a W1285 so now you just need to look up whelen's Green 12 v replacement bulb for W1285 fixture. Spruce shows that takes a W1290 14V or W1290-14 available from Spruce. Although I understand parts research can be baffling to an owner, the point of this discussion though was we're only authorized to replace parts with the approved parts specified by the OEM which is our IPC. There are legal means to install something else, but it becomes and alteration which does not fall under preventative maintenance; not even a minor modification.

You can also load them from the procedures list.

It Only allows to change the bulb with the one specified in the IPC. Otherwise it's a alteration, which only a mechanic can do.

sounds like you need a flight stream unit to go with it

I'd recommend selling as is, just price for hours on engine accordingly. Vref gives you the data for this on an hourly basis. Base price always assumes mid-time engine, so a run out engine would amount to a discount of half the cost of a fresh OH engine. You'll have to look at Vref (free on AOPA) or the Blue Book schedule to see what they are allocating for engine time but I'd expect it still falls a bit short of 100% of all the overhaul expenses you'd pay. Plus your panel will help motivate a lot of buyers. Owning and flying a turbo, I totally get why you want to go that route. I can't count the number of times I would have canceled or delayed if I didn't have the turbo to climb up on top and cross the weather from above it.

Personally, I think @steingar first statement makes the most sense with our modern Cirrus like aircraft. But the requirement for logging 10 hrs PIC in a complex aircraft vs training and testing the commercial maneuvers are two very different things.

Whenever Stratux can support Garmin's data protocols - I surely doubt it'll happen any other way.

Same here, getting a server error attempting to login '1 Call to undefined method IPS\login::forms() (MbqRdEtUser.php:29)' So something appears to have changed either on the MS side or tapatalk side. I was assuming Tapatalk, but Chris @Marauder post above suggest Mooneyspace side, since it works on other forums?

It's the same pump for high boost, low boost and prime. If you were using the prime button you may be having a problem with the diverter or maybe even a broken primer fuel line. I am sure your AME will figure it out ASAP.

Get yourself a good Mooney specific instructor and take your time learning all about the plane and doing all kinds of landings and takeoff's. You'll know when you are feeling comfortable with the plane. Electric gear & flaps F model? Are you in San Diego, which field? I am at KSEE. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Running both together provides the ideal situation so that #2 is absorbing the load and saving #1, but should #2 go off line, #1 is comes alive without any pilot action. yeah, you have my sympathies on your #2 noise issue. Mine had just gotten much worse with the new panel, it was actually fine before the new panel work except for minor load meter fluctuation that began in the last couple years. But all the recent panel work back there led to more issues due to the delicate wiring with some chaffed wires and previous wire patches not done properly to alternator circuity that goes there since all the shunts are located there including the new JPI EDM 900 shunt. So I really had to fix mine - my #2 was indicating 3x what it was really putting out. To be able to properly clean things up back there, we put a in new 50 pin circular connector so that we could remove that quarter panel entirely now and fix the wiring correctly. It had seen too much jury rigging over the years simply because there is virtually no access beyond the 4-5" you can pull it forward. But it would be hard to go to that much trouble if the only complaint was whining noise.

Really sounds like Paul's @gsxrpilot #2 alternator filter may have an issue or there is a shielding issue with the #2 since it shouldn't provide any more of a whine than #1 - these are identical systems electrically. Although Paul has a reason for turning off his #2 for the noise, with a fully functional system there is no benefit to doing so. In fact, you'll be transferring the load and wear and tear entirely to the #1 alternator when you would rather have the load absorbed by the #2. The #2 being the belt driven alternator is much more accessible and cheaper to maintain. Its out in a few minutes and be can very affordably maintained with new brushes and bearings periodically. When the #1 goes, its has the very expensive rubber coupler that was $900 last I knew some years ago and requires a quite a bit of work to R&R. Its the one you want to last as long as possible so its really ideal that #2 absorbs most of the load since it spins faster and is much cheaper and easier to maintain. Yes, disconnecting at the alt field switch still has the alternator turning at full rpm, but with no load on the alternator its going to spin easily. Although not a big deal on an alternator turning with a belt, the #1 being spun by the rubber coupler (to enable sheering with an alternator problem) is getting more wear as rubber coupler overcomes the resistance of the higher load. Normally there won't be any or much resistance with #2 taking the load. I recently had to rewire the rear of my entire far right circuit breaker quarter panel because I was having similar but different issues Paul has with my #2 alternator (fluctuations and higher than actual load indications). Cleaning up the wiring fixed mine.

All maintenance must be logged including the preventative maintenance that you as a pilot owner are legal to do. But without checking, I don't recall this as one of the listed tasks. But just as @larryb says above, the repair station will do an entry for the tank & regulator work and then your A&P will do one for the re-install. Just checked 43.A,c and confirmed the tasks is not preventative maintenance so will at least require A&P supervision.

Glad you got it down before you lost more than a couple cylinders. This is one thing I much appreciate on the 6 cyl engine versus the 4. Besides more HP, loosing a cylinder is barely noticeable compared to loosing one of only 4.

Thanks for confirming Bob. Yep, the only difference is in slant range and a lower approach altitude should make the difference negligible. Guess that's good news that Garmin or Jeppesen is able to over come the issue that prevented them for putting the procedure in the DB. But this was such a great example on how to use GPS to substitute for DME that I am going to have to try to find another similar one for the college IFR class I teach since the DB procedure makes it too easy

Yes, its missing and using the arm should work. Inspect it over the prop controls full range afterwards to make sure it's ok.

The only time we have a concern for running too cool is if you are not fully scavenging the lead. Avgas contains a lead scavenging agent" called ethylene dibromide. However the agent needs sufficient combustion temps (not necessarily CHT) to do its job. If combustion is too cool, it results in lead fouling of the plugs. Its true that the scavenging is most effective in the 350-400F range but so what, we hardly operate our engines to maximize lead scavenging. Most of us prefer to operate for maximum cylinder longevity which likes cooler CHTs. Although from a CHT perspective, lead deposits have shown to form with CHTs below 300F, typically we find this is only a concern with very low power ROP cruise where see both very low EGTs and CHT (CHTs of 250F and lower). But leaning to peak EGTs when operating at low power does much better and exposure to lead fouling is much less likely. Hopefully all this will be mute soon when we can run lead free avgas. This is just like the OWT that oversquare is bad for your engine! The bottom like on Mike is that all of his work is dedicated to educating the pilot community and has been for years. Its been a few years since he started Savvy to work with clients directly for fee, but his business model is all about saving clients money by educating owners on the difference between discretionary maintenance and required maintenance, saying "no" to scheduled maintenance that is neither required nor proven to be helpful - like cleaning injectors on annual schedule and giving the owner control back on their annual invoices by separating the inspection from maintenance and getting estimates for discrepancies before the work is started. He's also all about data driven maintenance rather then premature wrench turning and throwing parts at it. Of course he does not advocate all maintenance be done on condition and is a very vocal on the need to comply with timed Magneto IRAN inspection too. If that's cool aide, its the most sensible, logical and scientific reasoning I've been exposed too in the aviation world to date. All of us at Savvy are proud to be associated with him and all he has done for GA.

Very unfortunate event for Bill, but glad nobody got hurt. Hopefully the wing is repairable or they can replace it. I was shocked by some of worst characterizations I've read in the news about an aviation incident - i added italics to the portions I am referring too. ----------------------- from http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/04/mooney-m20r-ovation-n6868-incident_16.html "A small aircraft landed on a North Side street Monday afternoon after the pilot apparently missed a nearby runway." "San Antonio Fire Capt. Kevin Koch said a couple in their 70s were trying to land the plane at Twin Oaks Airport around 3 p.m. when a wind gust lifted the plane past the runway. It ended up in the 600 block of Heimer Road." -------------------------- For sure this is a short runway and gusty winds with tail wind probably made all the difference. But its certainly not too short and although I've never been there the airport data shows the runway gradient on RWY 30 to 1.9% so this makes for a very steep runway landing uphill. Using the rule of thumb that every 1% in gradient is equivalent to landing on 10% more runway, the runway at 2225 * 119% = equivalent length of 2647' - which is much more reasonable yet still very narrow. Of course I am not accounting for obstructions landing on RWY 30 but on google earth it doesn't look horrible. But using the worst case KSAT winds of 18018/G26 indicates landing RWY 30 Tail wind component of 6.5 gust 8.8 and xwind of 18 gust to 24. And the GA rule of thumb for tailwinds is 10% landing distance increase for every additional 2 kts. So although the uphill gradient was a help by perhaps 19%, the tail wind was 30-40+% reducing the effective runway. But the peak winds in the Metar tell a much worse story. If the Mooney got a taste of those peak winds while on the runway, the 150/26 yields 22.5 kt tailwind with 13 kt x-wind component - which is more like a 110% reduction in effective runway length or stopping distance. Wow - Yikes is right!! Also of note, Jolie has been hosting a very popular Mooney fly-in on our west coast a couple times a year at Oceano L52 which is just a 100' feet longer at 2325x50. No real obstructions, but very flat (0.5% gradient) but I doubt it will ever see the density altitude of a airport in Texas. But we've had all kinds of Mooney's including longbodies come into Oceano. Of course Its always important to being right on target speed for a short field landing; else the infamous Mooney float will eat up much of the runway. But rather than gusty winds, our biggest cause for diversions has been the marine layer.

Only on the 800 can you program the # of cylinders, not the 700. Its in the Pilot Guide.