kortopates

Thanks, and still with the extra bay in front of the speed brakes? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Math Quiz - run the numbers in a spreadsheet Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good to hear that. For an idea in street pricing discounts check this example out: http://sarasotaavionics.com/garmin-txi-upgrade

Only the GDU display comes out for the upgrade and goes back to Garmin. The rest I understand is software. Their offering a discounted 10.6" single new screen GDU that will support PFD, MFD and EIS all on one screen at an upgrade cost of $8K. But I assume its not the dimensional equivalent to the original G500 and will need a new panel cut which could weigh heavily in the total upgrade cost. But I also wonder if the upgrade will preserve existing pre-paid enablement extra's like Syn Vision and Jepp Charts; hopefully they don't expect you to buy those again. Although interestingly they charge less for them on the Txi version than the G500.

I asked because there was another mod to modify the original filler neck to hold 100 gal by just filling the tank higher. As far as I know all of the Monroy mods wet an additional area behind the main tank area as shown in the diagram at this website: https://www.emapa.aero/Monroy-Mooney-Fuel-Increase-Upgrade-p/mooney-fuel-increase-upgrade.htm [mention=6932]Piloto[/mention] as the owner of the STC will be able to answer that best. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Extended tanks without the second filler port? What is your total fuel capacity? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting point you raise. But mechanical based accidents aren't solely mechanic error. In fact those are much rarer but I don't recall seeing stats on just what portion of mechanical failures are due to human error like not properly torquing cylinder nuts or crank rods etc. Some percentage could be in fact be attributed to us pilots from abusive ops to deferring necessary maintenance like departing with a know issue (.e.g only 1 mag). But a breakdown of mechanical based accident root causes would be most interesting since I am sure there are many valuable lessons to be learned for pilots as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed it should be no surprise that the human element is the weakest link responsible for 3/4 of all accidents (fatal and non-fatal) with the remainder 1/4 made up of both mechanical and unknown causes. its this later 1/4 that varies between mechanical and unknown portions between fatals and non-fatals for non-commercial ops. (For Commercial ops the mechanical and unknown portion make up a smaller portion.)

You're implying an indication issue on your left tank. If so, you need an independent method of measuring tank volume from both fuel caps to verify. But you haven't given an estimate on the amount of missing fuel over the course of the couple weeks you mention. For example, is it large enough to be noticeably different visually looking into both the main and extended tanks? Or are we discussing more like small number of gallons that you won't be able to tell the difference visually but still plenty to be more than a seep? First, there is no secret place fuel can drain too. Any leak is going to be very obvious, fuel is going to seep or drip directly out from a leak, or if inside the wing, such as up higher, it will run downhill towards the center of the aircraft inside the wing till it finds a place to drip out which could be anywhere downstream including inside the cabin. It will be very evident and leave a unmistakable blue stain where ever it flowed, dripped or seeped from. Its certainly not always obvious exactly where a leak originates from since it can flow down the side of a tank and in the wing for quite a ways before it comes out but it will become visible externally on the aircraft or in the cabin soaking the carpet if its a significant leak i.e. more than a seep. With no evidence of a leakage, it suggest an issue with one of your senders - there are two in each tank wired in series. The wing gauge is not an independent gauge but magnetically senses the arm of the fuel sender below it - so it would make sense for them both to be off. Which brings us back to the point of an alternative method of measuring fuel volume in your left tank. I suggest you stick your Left main and extended tanks. Recording height of fuel level is adequate since you just need to know if the volume is really changing while the aircraft is sitting in the hangar. If there is no leak, its got to be an indication issue if someone isn't borrowing fuel from your tank. But so far, this doesn't sound related to having extended tanks since you are familiar with the how the tank gauges indicate differently as the fuel added to the main tank settles out into the extended tanks (since the extended tanks are a mere extension of the main tanks uphill and outboard of the main tanks in front of your speed brakes).

Interesting as its unusual, most Continentals have the transducer on the other end of the hose tee'd off the oil galley, which would be the same oil galley supply oil to the turbo. Most lycoming's have it right after the oil pump and regulator where it reads the highest oil pressure and they do run with higher oil pressure accordingly compared to Continentals.

Are you new to the plane and noticing this or are you describing a recent change? It is entirely normal for the main tanks to settle out into extended tanks. Since the fuel senders don't measure fuel in the extended tanks you only see the panel and wing gages drop in quantity while this happening. If you think this explains what you're experiencing the simple solution is to measure the fuel in your extended tanks and add that to what your wing guage is showing for a total. Your POH AFMS for the extended tanks will give you guidance on how to mark a dipstick for measuring your extended tanks. Then you can at least monitor the total volume of fuel in your tanks and know if you are really losing any. But after you fuel the mains only, gas will settle in the extended tanks and your fuel gauges will no longer be accurate until your tanks are about half full again, reading lower than actual. Additionally you won't be able to top the mains off until they are about half full either (if your intent is to only fill the mains) since there will be still be fuel that is in the extended portion of the tank. Thus you could get yourself into an overgross situation with more fuel than planned. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right, I stand corrected. The Continental server seems to be down for me right now which is why I missed this earlier. But your comment inspired me to look it up in my paper copy of the IPC and indeed there is a AN917-1 tee fitting coming off the turbo and a continental 631310 elbow on the Tee. It doesn't show anything but the one check valve hose connected to the tee though - so I can't tell exactly what function it serves to be there permanently and I've never seen an oil pressure reading for the turbo provided in the cockpit of any 231. So maybe its normally capped off. But regardless I was in error to suggest its non-standard. You could try some Loctite 565 Adhesive Sealant on the pipe threads.

I totally understand while enroute. I would want that fixed too! I only question the utility in approach mode. For example, there is no feature in GP to load an approach anyway, which makes sense to me. But arrivals and departures can be loaded. I find the pop-up of the route change on GP that I click "Ignore" too after activating the approach distracting enough. But you may be getting utility I am unaware of.

Since it may not be obvious if you bought the aircraft this way, you should be aware this is not a standard installation. Someone modified the installation; presumably perhaps to do some diagnostic testing. I assume yours is a unique mod. But you should be able to go to http://continentalmotors.aero/support/illustrated-parts-catalog.aspx and enter your engine (e.g., TSIO-360-LB etc) and navigate to the Turbo section and see the original configuration which just had an outlet and inlet hose going to the turbo. The actual pipe to hose fitting on the turbo may not be listed there if its part of the turbo itself, in which case you could inquire with Mainturbo.com and even buy a new fitting from them if desired. Also I'd check your logs to see if you have an entry for this modification. If not that should be motivation to go back to the original. This is certainly not part of Merlyn or Intercooler modification either. My guess is someone had a bad experience with a check valve clogging and cutting off oil to the turbo and decided this (perhaps unapproved) modification was the solution. I am skeptical and it looks like more trouble. The turbo gets its oil off an engine oil galley on the side of the engine and then goes through a one way check valve to the turbo. Changing your oil regularly should avoid any chance of the check valve clogging if that was the issue. (I can only speculate). All approved sealants are listed in Continental's M-0 maintenance manual. You probably won't find that for free on the internet, but since M-0 replaced the majority of all the SB, SI's you could also search for a copy of SIL99-2C which you should find easily. Its the original SIL that list all the approved sealants, lubricants, adhesives; which is now superseded by M-0

That's actually a good analogy if the issue going over 60 mph is limited to final approach, like a lower speed residential section. Admittedly I could very well be missing something more valuable which is why I ask. Don't mean too imply its a dangerous feature, but it does seems more like a distraction to me while on the approach. But I am curious.

I don't mean to sound overly naive about this but I think I understand your issue and it sounds like the its limited to approach waypoints? If so, I have never seen the value of my ipad showing me the specific approach waypoint routing while on the approach simply because I have my approach plate up with my location shown. I am navigating off the GTN and CDI's on the GTN and G500 and just using the plane location on the iPad Approach plate for situational awareness. But really my use of the iPad is checking stepdown fixes minimums, MDA/DA or circling minimums, missed approach procedure etc. But really not to navigate ever. All of my navigation is done by the GTN's/G500. I understand the value of having of the proper route on the ipad while in the enroute portion, since I can leverage the added utility while I have the time to do so. But once the approach is started I don't even accept the route changes on the iPad after activating the approach - it just seems superfluous and Iam too busy to mess with it. Its only being used as a EFB at that point. But then I do have a couple MFD's on the panel too. So am I missing something not having the actual approach routing on the iPad when we already have the georeferenced chart showing your position on the chart? The question is sincere since I work with a lot of pilots that only have a 430W or 650 on the panel to work with.

Very positive experience here and being in the Mooney community for a couple decades and also a CFI meeting a lot of new owners I can say they have among the best if not the very best reputation among Mooney brokers for being honest, straight and fair. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The value isn't in taking a lot, but ANY pax as in just one! $100K is nothing as a limit these days if you have any networth to protect. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect your airspace and opportunities for direct routings are really about the same as ours in that it's limited to the same constraints we have here. Perhaps though the biggest difference is that your TMA/Class B are much bigger than ours for the traffic volumes as are probably your Resticted areas and MOAs. We're very fortunate here that since we've always had a large GA user base that AOPA has been very successful keeping Class A airspace to a minimum size and with generally adequate ways to traverse VFR (when it is a large airspace like SOCAL). But it shouldn't be a surprise that every TRACON has its own arrival and departure routes or corridors that result in standardized clearances and routing depending on the runways in use. As such, aircraft not landing or departing in the B airspace are often just routed around it; especially the smaller ones. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree with Chris but would qualify that to what kind airspace you are flying into or out of with regards to who controls it and if it is controlled. I live under one of or the busiest TRACONs in the country and I have never gotten less than a full route clearance in or out of any TRACON. Center airspace is the land of direct routes but if planning to cross a TRACON's airspace get ready for an amended clearance. Small TRACON's are easy since often one waypoint to the side will be enough to clear it and then it's back to direct. But Altitude is important too since it's got to be controlled airspace and not a hot restricted area or MOA which we have plenty of out west. But out west direct of any distance is rare below the level of the continental shelf of class E airspace at 14.5k since we also have lots of G airspace too. So most NA birds get non-direct routings out west. But out east you can get direct routings at very low altitudes, altitudes we would never fly out west. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just renewed in Feb with USAIG via AOPA. They aren't the cheapest but offer expanded coverage to preferred pilots which is valuable for those that travel. Mine went down a few dollars but is essentially unchanged from last year. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That what I do, just combine the multiple graphics files into one graphic file layer out the way you like. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd expect Merlyn is the only player purely due to the economics. They brought a very low cost manual wastegate to market to replace the fixed wastegate. To do it it economically they use upper deck air pressure to control a pneumatic wastegate. Could they have made a pneumatic automatic controller to control their wastegate? I can't really say except as far as I know they don't exist but my guess is it would become just as expensive or more so than existing hydraulic wastegates still not perform as well. If you start buying parts like a automatic hydraulic controller outright, the controller alone is over $5K. Which somewhat defeats the 231 being the more economical entry into turbos. Even though its still a manual wastegate, as all those that operate 231 up high know, eliminating the fixed bolt wastegate significantly improves the engines critical altitude from somewhere around 15.7K (from memory) and thus greatly improves performance in the upper teens and into the flight levels. Its value is all about the altitudes you operate it in. But agreed if one is not flying up there I don't imagine one would miss it.

Doors look normal to me as well. But as others have stated its all about them fully closing without added/unnecessary tension on them.

I didn't know they had this now till your question prompted another look. But the same folks that provide the visitedstatesmap also now provide a comprehensive map for North America which brings in CENAM as well: http://visitednorthamericamap.com/ Prior to this, I used this for Canada http://visitedstatesmap.com/visited-provinces.php and this for Mexico http://www.visitedmexicomap.com/ and then combined them without CENAM and the islands. They now have Europe covered too, but nothing for Asia yet. Combining them seems to keep the footprint smaller, but I may have to do some experimenting.