kortopates

If you have a EDM-7xx or -8xx monitor, legally the factory CHT probe has to remain in the cylinder well, and the JPI will use one of three possible gasket probes including possibly one at the base of the factory probe. If you have an EDM-9xx monitor, which is approved for primary, then the factory CHT instrument is removed from the aircraft. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can not, but you also can not change out a lifter in a Lycoming without splitting the case! Lifters can be easily inspected and changed in a Continental. Since they typically see more cylinder work they also get more attention to lifters. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe you could explain better by what you mean for “fully loaded” and reasonable DA” for 2500’ and how you arrive at the 2500 min. I am trying to follow how your analysis supports or contradicts the POH. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True when it comes to making parts and their service support. But the one thing that hasn’t changed is their parts manager Dan, with his wealth of Mooney parts sourcing knowledge and access to the factory inventory. He and his parts inventory remains in CA. I do think their parts surcharge pricing has gone up though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aren't your numbers showing your adding life to the battery by increasing capacity? Or is capacity of the battery independent of battery life? I assumed more capacity = more life?

You are correct, its a 2 person job to buck the rivets and took me quite awhile. But the factory pre-drilled rails really help. This was a number of years ago now and I can't recall how many hours but with the eelctric gear there was about 4 or 6 rivets in the front I couldn't get too with a bucking bar that I was able to get approval from the factory to replace with Cherry rivets. With a manual gear I think it will be much easier, but still a big job and had to remove a lot of external skin rivets on each outer edge to get access to the rails rivets underneath - just dropping the belly pan doesn't provide enough access.

As an instructor, couldn’t agree more!! It’s as simple as holding the cowling just below the end of the runway while looking out the windshield and hold off the nose wheel as long as possible. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not so sure about that. If it’s going to slip back it’s much more likely to occur after rotation and is pretty unpredictable. A short field takeoff requires right about 12 degrees pitch up and climbing steeply out is not the time i’d want to risk the throttle going back to idle. Best to let go if it ever happens IMO. It did happen to me once in climb before i changed out all 4 seat rails; luckily i just let it go. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually its all due to oil temperature. The turbo charger controller is adjusted to hit redline at normal operating oil temperature of around 175F. On the first takeoff of the day before the oil has fully warmed up, the controller will overboost till the oil fully warms up. And when the OT is above normal, such as 190-200F the controller will underboost and you won't get the full redline boost. This is also why they recommend using a multi-weight oil since it viscosity is less effected by temerature than a single weight oil. Of course this only applies to full turbo’s with hydraulically controlled waste gates and even then there is some variation among the different controllers.

Yes, but TIT needs to be below 1400f full rich (preferably lower) else the max FF isn’t high enough. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. You’re actually better off climbing at full redline as long as your fuel flow is set up correctly - many are too lean. Doing so, and climbing at Vy + 10-20 kts will keep the engine cooler than pulling back a couple inches. Just note the TIT at redline versus 38”. The TIT at 38” will be higher because FF isn’t linear at the upper range. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you just misunderstood his statement since he was referring to an intercooled 231 - which reduces your redline MAP from 40” to 38” or a little less (when based on degrees of cooling) depending on which intercooler vendor or product. Using 40” on and intercooled 231 would be over boosting the engine since the cooled air is much denser. The documentation is in the STC. But i assume you’re aware and just missed the intercooled part. To the OP, there is no such thing as an “automatic” waste gate on the 231. It’s either “fixed” (bolt) or “manual” with the Merlyn pneumatic waste gate. Only hydraulically controlled waste gates are “automatic” using an additional turbo controller, which are used in the 252 and Encore. The latter two are identical except that the Encore has been boosted up an additional 10 HP and allow an additional 230 lbs to be added to the maximum gross takeoff weight. They are among the most efficient and most sought after Mooney’s. A 252 can be converted to an Encore but not a 231. The 231 was introduced as the poor man’s turbo since it was much cheaper than a full turbo with wastegate and controller (they used a bolt for a waste gate). Most 231’s though have STC’s to add the manual pneumatic waste gate and an intercooler which very significantly improves their high altitude performance. But they are by no means as easy to operate as the full turbo 252/encores with automatic waste gates. All 252/Encores also came standard with 28V electrical systems, speed brakes, standby vacuum, built in oxygen and most with dual alternators.

Understand. Based on that i don’t think the issue is curriculum we teach. Because it's fully covered. But as an instructor my opinion is that the issue is private pilots that don’t spend time and money on recurrent training, fly very few hours per year and then do the minimum waiting 2 years to complete a biennial 61.56 flight review - which can be as little as 1 hr flying and not do anything to ACS standards. You’re to be congratulated for doing regular flight reviews along with IPC’s. Several of you here that i know and fly with do this but you are the well above average pilots out there. For what’s it worth i stopped doing the basic 61.56 flight review and exclusively do Wings flight reviews for about 15 years now which have many advantages including being able to show you can do all the maneuvers to ACS standards. They also give the pilot a much better reputation in the eyes of the FAA if one is ever deviated - they see you immediately as one of the good guys taking recurrent training seriously. The pilot has to value recurrent training though and practice regularly. As the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. I also get to give remedial training to some of the pilots that weren't taking their proficiency seriously. Nobody like the iPad pilot we read about though, I doubt the FAA would even give him that option if it's true he's a repeat offender like his track logs suggest. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never really understood the question. But this 100% a part of the private pilot requirements - min 3 hrs of instrument time. And a part of every Wings Flight review I give along with unusual attitude recovery. With an instrument pilot the unusual att rec becomes partial panel recovery. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These aren't unobtanium as this discussion implies. this morning an Ovation student of mine showed me one he just got from the factory. he did have to wait a few months to get it. But since this isn't even remotely an airworthiness part I am glad Mooney prioritizes the important stuff first. but they do manage to ship them. I am leaving the price out to avoid reading comments about being raped Call your favorite MSC if you need one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, I've been playing with the Beta version for sometime and am annoyed with the "improvements". Also I was in SOCAL TRACON tour with my IFR students and couldn't help notice they where using the old one as long as possible - they weren't impressed either. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you don’t mind, please DM me with the specifics: your N number is sufficient and I can look you up. But if you’ve used our data analysis service with your engine data you should recognize my name. I do all the Mooney’s and am one of Savvy’s IA’s. I should perhaps add, for what’s it worth, you’re actually using the service only in a QA service capacity, which is about half the cost of MX. So if happy with handling the shop communications it substantially reduces the cost. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, but when the OAT exceeds the performance table climb/takeoff temp they want to set the right kind of example. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but the new news is the need to get a sign off for complying with this new AD; even though you may have installed the update. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let’s also not loose sight of the fact that the Aerocruze is merely a computer update to an existing BK KFC-150. they’ve updated the computer which ironically is still maintainable but done nothing to address the real issue with these - the servo’s. Since they no longer have all the parts to repair them, namely motors, i wonder how they can warrant your old servos for a year after an Aerocruze - i guess they have to go to a third party source for an expensive motor replacement which still would wouldn’t be current brushless technology motor like Garmin uses. I don’t see how anyone would bite once knowing the details. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll give you a real example of how a DPE has failed a candidate for using the iPad as primary. The pilot was flying a departure procedure to a slam dunk approach start. The pilot loaded the graphical ODP that was essentially to depart westbound to 400' AGL and then make a full 270 degree turn to the south and intercept a radial west bound about 3 miles south of the airport. The DP continues west bound for near 10 miles but the approach he was requesting had its final approach course only a couple miles from intercepting the west inbound radial of the DP. Because these are so close together, DP and Approach, its common practice to get vectors to final on the approach before even intercepting the radial inbound westerly course. The pilot had to be recognize as soon as they're no longer on the DP and being vectored for the approach. But there is a lot going on in a short amount of time. How this student messed up is he didn't immediately activate the approach on the GPS as soon as he was being vectored onto the approach. Then seeing he was crossing the centerline of final on his ipad he turned to follow the final approach path; attempting to save the approach. Instant failure because the approach wasn't even active yet, and his instruments where still giving him guidance on the DP. The examiner had no other choice - he was clearly navigating by the ipad not his instruments. The Pilot could have confessed to the to the controller that he wasn't ready to intercept it yet and to ask for vectors around for another try while the pilot finished up the activating the approach. That would have been the right call to fix it and I doubt the examiner would have given him a hard time about it. Simply activating vectors to final would have worked out fine on this approach too even though that's not always the correct way to activate a non-precision approach because of potential step down fixes.

I think its much worse. I am pretty confident the pilot is not instrument rated. Assuming the owner is the pilot, as pointed out by Mark in the other thread, there is no record of an instrument rating. Although its possible the ink is still wet on a new IR there is no just way he could have passed a check ride using an iPad for anything more than situational awareness and any sign of ipad dependency would have the ipad immediately failed by the Examiner or on the back seat. Sadly this pilot was attempting to fly IFR by following the magenta line; not by reference to instruments. We all know this isn't legal. The following day this pilot flew two more 3hr+ IFR flights with tracks at the destination looking like this one. I knew the 2 previous owners of this aircraft and did the transition training for the prior owner. It was a well equipped F model.

Agreed, but we don’t know if the controller referred him to the FSDO and what the FSDO may do about it. I hope there is more to the story before his actions lead to a fatal accident; since unchecked they most certainly will. Some years ago another Mooney J pilot did the same thing late at night in much worse weather killing himself and 2 others after his third failed approach attempt. I was shocked he even made it to a third attempt since he went missed without ever following the missed approach procedure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

91.527 is certainly more restrictive but doesn’t apply to us - just fractional ownership and large or turbine powered aircraft. Otherwise concur with other remarks that follow the Bell legal interpretation pretty well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting thought experiment. I think any “practical use” would be limited to climbing through a very localized ceiling, like a marine layer, and then continuing on VMC to a VFR destination. it would be an emergency in practical terms to land at an IFR destination. You’ll need a PAR or ASR approach or if really lucky, vectors to a visual when the ceiling is above the controllers MVA. That would be very unlikely where i live in the southwest. Hence it being an emergency in practical terms. On a side note, back in the days of paper charts, jepp used to publish MVA charts for approach control airspace but no longer in digital subscriptions that i know of and the FAA’s MVA maps are pretty useless to us in their raw form. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk