kortopates

I see what you mean! The mid body's went too a different parking brake valve that is downstream past the master cylinders, about under the rear seat. Your earlier one looks like it prevents fluid from going back into the reservoir? No idea when they changed, but more the J so I expect your right about which one Chris has. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 2 independent lines through the parking brake don't interconnect except through a valve mechanism. Depending on which O-rings are leaking it could very well only leak out from one side - not necessarily both sides. I forget exactly, but I recall at least 4 O-rings. Hope that clarifies. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BTW, when the MC is re-installed, be sure to remove that gap between the bracket and the MC fitting with a washer or 2 so that it can't move side to side to prevent any side loading. Probably just one standard -08 washer, plus the thin one behind the cotter pin. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you your parking brake had signs of leaking then for sure you should rebuild it with new o-rings. You'll be able to get a kit from LASAR for that and the MC if you want to do that one too. Incidently, leakage in the parking brake will not effect both brakes. There are of course 2 separate lines going through it that don't connect except for the external valve mechanism. If you haven't already, when you bleed and flush, you can switch to the synthetic equivalent of 5606H. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really admire and respect what your doing for your friend and AME!

I frequent a ski area in the winter and never bother with the expensive heated hangar. I just park in reach of electricity and plug in my engine tannis heater. If you don't have that they'll pre-heat your engine on the ramp for you for much less than a night in the hangar. In my mind, the only thing to push me into a hangar is the threat of hail. Snow isn't bad if it's cold powder. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where are you? I have a gas powered one with the Mooney specific hardware in San Diego. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The p/n is actually on the plug of the servo which is a little closer. You can also look it up in the Mooney IPC. The p/n is specific to our Mooney's which is what makes them rare. Which model AP do you have? Ah, i see KFC-200, sorry I don't know the pitch servo p/n off hand on that one.

If you have the budget for a panel mount unit which is always on and integrated into the audio panel so you can't miss it, this is what I use which replaced my original clock.

No way that any of the control surfaces could be incorrectly installed, about the only thing that could be done improperly beyond balancing them would be too not use the proper hardware which can be verified visually. Neither effects rigging.

I'd be far more concerned about the mags, but an "inspection 100-150 hrs ago" is ambiguous to me. Are you referring to a 100 hr inspection or a 500 hr/5 yr IRAN? I do the 100 hr inspection annually and always comply the 500hr/5 yr IRAN. Its a false sense of security to assume since you have 2 mags you can run on one just fine. Our engines need both to run satisfactorily. Put another way, loose a mag and you're just one plug or wire away from losing a cylinder and 25% of your power. Remember 2 of those cyl's on the remaining mag are only being fired by the dirtier less efficient bottom plugs. If that doesn't concern you, consider a bad mag is going to cost you much $ and inconvenience away from home. At Savvy where we advocate maintaining most everything on condition, including ignition wires, the mags are the big exception. With mags its best to comply with the recommended 100 hr and 500hr/5yr inspections and IRAN in accordance with L-1363-F (slick mags overhaul manual); especially with the Slick mags. On the other hand if the the last inspection was a full 500 hr IRAN, then you should be fine to do just the recommend 100 hr inspection each annual. Only at engine overhaul would we advocate overhauling or replacing the mags. Economics typically dictates whether you overhaul or replace them when the time comes. But as long as you can economically get through the 500hr IRAN every 500 hr or 5 yrs, there is no need to replace or overhaul them.

Here you go Anthony@Carusoam Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll agree with that and raise you one so to speak, I'd rather see them commence the go around just a couple feet above the runway, add enough power to stop the descent while cleaning up and still maintaining directional control by exercising proper rudder control to keep tracking above the center line while continuing to accelerate and not leave the ground effect and commence too steep of a climb till on proper speed. A "precision" go around in effect. Like the saying "only perfect practice makes perfect".

I don't do touch and goes in complex aircraft either, although occasionally lots of them in trainer aircraft with pilots learning or relearning the landing sight picture into the round out. So I certainly agree they have their place. But in the Mooney and other complex aircraft like Bonanza's I prefer to practice "precision" landings and takeoffs; even if 'precision' is just an illusion - it remains the goal. For example, consider the basic normal landing. If properly done with speed control its not over after the stabilized ~3 glide slope at 1.2-1.3 Vso for approx weight with round out that includes pulling the elevator gradually back till the wings won't support it and it settles on the mains. All at the same time proper rudder control is utilized to keep the nose tracking down the center line. But its not done when the mains have touched. The precision normal landing includes holding the nose wheel off by continuing to add back pressure gently till its all the way back to take advantage of aerodynamic braking from the added pitch drag; the most effective braking early on. After we can't hold the nose wheel off we'll be slow enough for the brakes. The short field approach is very different in approach speed, steeper approach path and a faster round out with firmer touchdown (which by the way Ross @Shadrach did an excellent job of covering in another thread on the proper short field technique that applies to all Mooney's including the longbodys; as opposed to dragging it in low and slow which is so popular in primary training). Although I only simulate getting on the brakes, but how would you know how good your short technique is while transitioning to the go right after the mains touch? How do you practice the rest of the round out holding the nose off as long as possible if you already started the go? How does one do x-wind practice with more and more aileron into the wind through the x-wind round out and roll out? The T&G is none of these but closer to the aborted landing. I practice and do aborted landings too, after all its a required element in the ACS and thus a part of a flight review. But I'll often try for just a couple feet above the runway, which IMO requires the most technique or precision in rudder authority to keep the plane above the center line while arresting descent and cleaning up the aircraft. I'll also include the soft field takeoff, because even though our Mooney's don't make good soft field aircraft, its an excellent exercise in rudder technique that we can further reinforce by adding in simulating the high density takeoff by keeping the aircraft in ground effect as we clean it up and accelerate to Vy before leaving ground effect entirely. By the time most pilots get to the Mooney for transition training, they have the basic sight picture down and really need do need work on precision more than sight picture. But precision all the way through the landing - not just to the touch. Also the accident record shows us there is more added risk in doing the touch and goes in complex aircraft. This is why pilot proficiency organizations like MAPA and the Bonanza ABS folks have policies against them in part and in part to emphasize the precision elements of each different landing type. Is the added risk mitigated by a proficient pilot with adequate time in type? I think we have enough proficient Mooney pilots here that demonstrate it certainly can be. Just like a couple of professional pilots can do them in an airliner. So I respect the choice of those that have the experience and proficiency and chose to do them. But as an advocate for precision training and my own desire to perfect my landings I see no value in touch and goes in complex aircraft and I personally think the added risks is very real for new low time transitioning Mooney pilots. I especially get the need in the C172 for them, when the Hobbs meter is rolling over at clock time. But in the Mooney it cost me zero maintenance time on my Mooney to complete the roll out and taxi back (i.e. no tach time) I'll confess, while working with a few very low time Mooney transition pilots with new private certificates, I have taken them to an airport with a 2 mile long runway that we could do Stop and Goes for those pilots that really needed lots of lots of Mooney landings. But most transitioning Mooney pilots don't fall into that category and most of our runways are too short to allow that. I know this topic will forever remain contentious, so just another pilot's/CFI opinion motivated by safety and precision. And to the OP, @gsxrpilot, I loved the video - keep them coming!

Also check the fit of the rollpin that goes through both the shaft of the motor and the overlying control arm bracket - sorry not sure what to call that except that it fits over the motor shaft and attached with 2 rollpins. The motor shaft will probably be fine, but if the rollpin holes in the overlying control arm is enlarged then that will lead to premature failure of the roll pin(s) as the pin rotates back and forth against the hole sides. It so it should be replaced with a new one to get a tight tolerance fit again. The two rollpins are 90 degrees apart so that you don't loose cowl flaps with just one pin failure. Check them both. But my guess is that to minimize his down time, no one has disassembled the assembly enough to do a full inspection and find the issue. Being in a really back tight spot makes it very difficult to see what's going on without pulling things out. BTW, the current spec on the motors went to the next size up in roll pin diameter making them much stouter and thus harder to break. So getting the motor overhauled to the current spec is another way to attack the issue. Going to the next size up allows drilling out the smaller hoes on the attaching bracket and making it like new with tight tolerance holes again without replacing it. That savings almost pays for the electric motor overhaul.

I don't know either but @Ned Gravel implied that when he said "To file, review, amend and brief on flight plans on the ramp" unless I miss understood. Anyway Ned would be the person to answer since he apparently does so on the ramp. But maybe he doesn't mean aircraft running, ready to go? I'd like to know too. But it could be different in Canada too.

@Raptor05121 nailed the "no drop" issue, which would be indicative of the selected mag not grounding from either a broken p-lead or ignition switch fault. And @M20Doc explained the sources for why or how the Mags can create an unbalanced mag drop. You can add weak plugs to that as well. But after doing my mag timing, typically after annual, my mags will both result in a 60 rpm drop on my engine with 0 rpm differential between mags. (simply because of anal about getting each mag timed identically to spec with a digital leveler and all the plugs evenly gaped). Remember each mag (conventionally) fires 1/2 of the bottoms and 1/2 on the tops on the opposite side from the bottoms, so seeing balanced mag drop shows you each mag with its plugs is putting out an equivalent strength in ignition spark. Typically the OEM limits the unbalance to 50 rpm maximum since its indicates one of the mags is weak* compared to the other. (*but weak could really be just split timing too). But at the same time the max mag drop can be as much as 150-175 rpm depending on the OEM which is too large in my opinion to tell if there is really an issue or not and the drop is really going to vary based on mixture too. But for the last few decades we've had a much better way to determine ignition health during the run-up using an engine monitor to see the EGT rise of every individual plug when isolated to a mag; which is highlighted by putting the engine monitor in normalize mode after EGTs stabilize at run up RPM before you start selecting individual mags. It provides far more valuable information that the rpm drop does; especially when done lean.

That all makes sense. I hadn't thought of using it for those things since I do all of that before I get into the aircraft where I do have a wifi connection or I'll use my cell phone hot spot in the very rare occasions I need it or more likely since I have the same apps on my cell, I'll just do it on my cell directly; especially if its just textual data. For example, often I'll file the flight plan from my cell while in transit to the airport. There used to be a constraint that you had to file IFR flight plans no less than 20 min prior to departure. I've been in the habit of doing that for so long I didn't know that it had been relaxed. I do activate and close VFR flight plans on the hold short line, but I use my cell phone to click on the link I get text'd from Leidos, but most of my flying is IFR because IFR makes the complicated airspace so much easier, but working with my students keeps me active on the VFR stuff too. If i didn't have a cell phone with data I would have a hard time without cellular data on my iPad, but with the cell phone I just don't see the need for adding cellular to my ipad; especially with all the same apps on my cell. Being a retired tech guy, I don't see the inconvenienced point either. But I understand its coming down to personal preferences.

We're not disagreeing @Ned Gravel . My plates with geosynchroning are on my GTN750 and I navigate off the default nav data on the GTN 650 and G500. The iPad is an EFB but can aid in situational awareness but isn't even first string in the electrical failure scenario because of the battery backed up panel instruments. My iPad is mostly used to keep track of Bravo and restricted airspace flying right seat. And even for that I am not trusting the cellular GPS without waas and error detection. So if we both agree the device is not suitable for navigation, why do you advocate getting one with the cellular GPS? I have seen too many people advocate using their iPad as a backup navigation and heard of many do it when something went bad even though their IFR GPS was still functioning just fine which just shows they need some partial panel training. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use a WiFi only iPad. Rarely do I visit a FBO that doesn't have WiFi. In the rare cases I need it, I use my cell phone as a hot spot. I sure don't need it in the air either since TIS-B and FIS-b come via Bluetooth from my panel. I could care less about the GPS in the cellular iPad. I wouldn't trust it for anything. My GPS source is coming from my waas IFR GPS panel or in an electrical emergency I'll use the portable waas source (gdl 39D). If it comes down to it, I still have a cell phone. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since 2015, clarified the requirement for a view limiting device in order to log instrument approaches in INFO 15012 https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2015/info15012.pdf It also clarifies what it takes to log an approach under actual (crossing the FAF while IMC) and simulated IFR where we are expected to fly to min's with the hood (with reasonable exceptions allowed).

What you want to see is near the same identical RPM drop on both mags, and more importantly a healthy EGT rise (50-75F+) on each plug; or more if done lean. An almost unnoticeable drop is not healthy.

I don't think that is true as long as their is airborne dust or other particulate in the air and urban surface air probably always has enough to do so. I am no authority on this, but also remember that they have clear air mode versus precipitation modes for running the radar sweeps in order too pick up smaller particle returns (if I recall that properly).

Windshear is actually pretty common in my SOCAL area when we are having Santa Ana winds in the late summer and fall. Although I can't say I ever recall seeing one forecasted as strong as 40 kts at 1000' before! That beats what see around here. But its most common in the early part of the day before the sun has done much heating and surface winds are still calm under an inversion layer. But as it heats up during the day we get more low level mixing and those calm surface winds are gone. In our GA community, it poses a bigger risk to a few pilots I know of that insist on using Vx as a climb speed for quite aways because they believe it will increase their chances of getting enough altitude closer to turn back in an engine out situation. I subscribe to the opposite approach of getting airspeed well above Vy soonest where I can see much better, keep the engine cool and have more than a second to react if I do loose the engine. And the engine out analysis shows that approach isn't reducing your chances of being able to turn back either. But going back to this scenario, someone mentioned surface winds would favor taking off on R17, and given the TAF, I would try for a right turnout departure into the winds at 1000' rather than a left turn out which would end up being downwind. Also as Bob mentioned above, be sure to have plenty of speed before reaching 1000'.

Oh ok, no worries,