kortopates

I have no idea, but that this very common with with parallel runways to keep the patterns as far apart as possible, but they don't go to right pattern on 12L either which would also make sense if that was the reason. They are only keeping 12R/30L traffic entirely on the south side which is may not be for noise since its further away from the center of the airport but it still could avoid flying over some of the residential area. Ground freq could probably have explained why if not busy.

Indeed it was Phil's C model before his Eagle @mooneyflyer

I didn't even know about the movie till this thread which inspired us to watch it last night on Amazon. Thanks for the post! You'd think filming the takeoff through the tree tops would have led to the real accident posted, but I assume that was pure Hollywood. Couldn't imagine a plane not coming down in those circumstances though. Trying to look up the accident airport, i did find this short video of a C172 doing a touch and go there and it does look like a pretty short field but doesn't really look like the strip they filmed the scary takeoff from either.

All the K's are 42 psi on mains and 49 on nose (nose is same as J) . Even the Encore's increase to max weight of 3130 didn't change the tire pressure which is heavier than the Rocket's landing weight (3083 lbs - the rocket's take off weight is 3200 lbs - or 70lbs more than the Encore). But I see no mention of tire pressure changes in the Rocket POH supplement - perhaps @Yooper Rocketman miss recalls that or I missed it in the supplement?

Too funny, I am always pointing out the importance of using TRK and DTK for real world partial panel. As long as you have WAAS with TRK being updated at 5hz, who cares about a bouncing compass - at least until you loose all electrics in which case a review of compass errors with turns and timed turns is still worthwhile. But I encourage using TRK & DTK on all approaches - partial panel or otherwise. Non-WAAS though is too slow at 1hz to be helpful.

250 lb increase from weighing it does sound excessive. But is also crazy to weigh a plane and not expect it to go up in weight, which is reason enough IMO to stick to calculated W&B updates. I'd carefully go back and review every superseded W&B update looking for mistakes and if still convinced the 250 lb weight increase is not justified, I'd re-weigh it or even re-do it by re-calculating the last update based on the Turbo STC info for weights. If you know the paint job included a full strip before re-paint, then that shouldn't change W&B. And of course there is nothing wrong with weighing it to verify the CG is very close to the calculated CG and using the weighed version for informational purposes only -i.e. not using it officially.

I agree with Henderson. Since I started flying into Vegas it was initially McCarran when prices were quite reasonable and very convenient - but that didn't last. Then it was VGT, but these days Henderson wins easily with the free shuttle to the strip hotels as well as easy car rental access. Its been a while for me, but I recall needing to call ahead to reserve a seat on the shuttle or you would lose out.

Yes composite tanks have an age limit of 15 years. Others can be 24 years or even unlimited depending on markings. Here is handy chart: Hydrostatic Test Requirements CYLINDER DOT TYPE TEST INTERVAL LIFE LIMIT DOT 3AA 1800 5 years Unlimited DOT 3HT 1850 3 years 24 years DOT SP8162 1850 5 years 15 years DOT SP11194 1850 5 years 15 years DOT 3AL 2016 / 5 years Unlimited 3AL 2216 There are even lighter carbon fiber wrapped cylinders out now, but so far I haven't seen anything bigger than 48 cuft but its only 6 lbs! Can't say on your Charlie weights but very possible. all the later model K's had much more weight in the tail to begin with given their electric Standby vacuum system and at least a 77 cuft tank.

I would expect steel is rare. Mooney list 3 cylinder models in the IPC, a 76, 77 and 115 Kevlar cyl, I can't really tell what the smaller cyl materials are without doing more research. But if for example the 76 is a steel tank, the Aerox version weighs in at 25 lbs. In contrast my 115 cuft Kevlar is 18 lbs. Much lighter at near double the capacity for a few hundred $ more.

Sorry, but insufficient data to tell if its ignition or mixture. EGTs need to be corroborated with CHT and FF. I don't see any of that, otherwise its too easy to draw the wrong conclusion. Without the dialog, I can say that I was led to think the graph looks like a mag test isolating one mag at a time suggest a bad plug and thus my first impression was an ignition issue like Ross @Shadrach questioned. But the dialog says that it wasn't that at all but leaning the engine from ROP to LOP, but I can't tell if FF is shown. Without the FF I am left more confused to understand the 2 peaks. Anyway, in the interest of helping, we can usually separate mixture from ignition by looking at CHT. If they both move together then we can assume its mixture as Anthony @carusoam speculated. But clogged injector won't cause it to peak much higher than the others EGT wise at the same time but it will peak much sooner time wise than the others (on less fuel) and because of that will be much lower on the LOP side since its running more LOP. But judging by the other EGTs they look to be peaking pretty close to one another (but again changes in FF is are unknown so there is too much speculation). On the other hand, if EGT and CHT are moving opposite from one another that a sign of being ignition induced. There is nothing there to suspect or eliminate induction leaks at this point - at this stage we need to think of induction as merely a mixture anomaly - and we're not there yet with this little to go on. Hope that makes sense. Personally, I would want to do more data analysis before turning any wrenches. Flying the Savvy Test profile would for example provide the diagnostic data to point in the right direction; if the plane isn't grounded at this point. Another oddity that needs to be considered and understood is that we're seeing significant fluctuations in all EGTs, but I am assuming "significant" without knowing sampling rate and scale. If this was during an isolated mag (i.e. mag check) this would be likely ok or normal, but if its truly during just a leaning period then this is not right and should be resolved. It could simply be excessive background noise by improper installation of routing the EGT leads along ignition wires too. But too hard to say with only a snippet of data.

Alpha Systems provided a heated pitot tube option for that reason.

$60 is a great bargain! I pay over $1K annually in county property taxes. Countys assess it's value; probably relying on reported sale information. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shouldn't be a problem. Mooney has been always been installing the magnetometer in the wing. They install them on the left wing same area but opposite wing of where the AP aileron trim servo is installed. Speed brakes are further inboard where long range fuel tanks are or would be. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Both for what? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apparently 1 inch Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve heard of pilots putting the gear down after the gear up landing. Doesn’t really help with the FAA nor the insurance company. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pre-Lim report says piloted by a “private pilot”, was there a reference to a student pilot? Report also says a teaspoon of water was found in the carburetor bowl. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't tell which Mooney model. But most modern models have them above the co-pilot knees under the the panel. Check for near battery voltage at the field wire on the back of the alternator with battery master and alternator switches on. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's easy, Top Gun is a very respected MSC very close at Stockton. Go there unless they've been maintaining it for the previous owner since a fresh pair of eyes is always a good idea. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur that 99% is fine, since it will get ridiculously expensive beyond that. But the concern would be what is the remaining 1% in case its harmful. ISO-HEET is 99& alcohol and 1% proprietary. The 1% proprietary part is a bit scary if its not compatible with our fuel system. But whatever it may be, its pretty diluted in a fuel tank. Yet its pretty expensive compared to 99% isoproyl alcohol; just package conveniently which can make it worth while to many.

Foremost, because I am not an expert on the sealant, the prohibition on Prist pertains to the current production aircraft - so its just as applicable to modern sealant. My limited understanding is that the non-modern sealant is the dating back to the vintage Mooney's. I believe all the mid-body's such as our K's since the 80's were sealed with "modern" sealant or material which is equivalent to todays but I can't factually say, except that is also about when the prohibition on Prist began by the factory as far as I know and continues in today's production aircraft. I personally have never used it, and I've only very seldom used IPA, but I am also anal about keeping the cap o-rings in good shape and use the more modern longer lasting material. But I know I have gotten a little water into the fuel system every time I remove the caps when they are soaked despite trying to mop up the water first with a towel. But I have never experienced the condensation issue flying in the flight levels for past 15+ years either. But through Savvy I see a lot of fuel contamination issues, so I am certainly not implying aircraft shouldn't need it. Many clearly do on occasion, especially since our fuel system is particularly vulnerable to it, but luckily I have managed to avoid any.

The retrofit drawing (with instructions) is available from Mooney for probably about $40-50. Don't know about this one, but all the ones I have are big fold outs making them hard to repro. They can be ordered from any MSC.

Just remember Prist is prohibited from being used in our Mooney's; its not compatible with our sealant. (I don't know about bladders compatibility). I would only use it in an emergency and after very carefully diluting with avgas before adding it to the fuel tank. Its probably safe enough after diluting it if you really needed it and it was the only thing available. Only isopropyl Alcohol is approved.

Last I saw, there were only 32 LDA approaches left, contrasted to 3900 LPV and many more GPS approaches. The KVUO LDA approach is special case though since most LDA's are in the database, but since this one uses the PDX localizer for 10L they can't also use the same facility with a different airport such as VUO. Ironically though both approaches of course have to use the same final approach course (since its localizer/LDA) and VUO approach waypoints are in common with the PDU 10L procedure except for the last 2 waypoints (min's and map). But I agree with you that we can still tune in the localizer, and although we don't have DME, we can load the waypoints in the GPS flightplan (since they are GPS waypoints) and use these solely to identify the waypoints in lieu of DME and still fly the approach legally based on the localizer. I can't say with 100% certainty this is legal, as I would want to do some more research on this if I was local. But since we don't need a database procedure to fly a Localizer or LDA approach, it seems we only need a means of identifying the 4 fixes to fly it without DME. After all we could also fly it legally with our second radio set to BTG and watching the crossing of the identified radials, but I'd prefer the GPS waypoints. Have you considered this? And the trump card on using the GTN is that you can still load the VUO LDA-A approach plate and see your geo-referenced position for the enhanced situational awareness. Thanks for sharing this rather unique LDA approach, its an interesting one!

My thought on why a slower cheaper taildragger plane would never replace a Mooney. I assume most of us like myself acquired a Mooney to travel. What make travel so practical in the Mooney is that they go fast and of course the ultimate travelling machine are high performance, preferably turbo, to top weather and have high tech avionics and redundant systems to be reliable IFR platforms in addition to being fun to fly long cross countries in. On the other hand the cheaper taildragger appeals to the pilot that wants to go low and slow and enjoy the scenery. But doing a long cross country in such a plane becomes very impractical for more reason than just the typical limited range. It only takes some head wind to greatly increase your enroute time to the point you'll postpone. Plus the long cruise times required and need for good VFR weather will dramatically curtail its utility. It's back to only being practical for those that enjoy that kind of flying. And that's really why a few pilots I know own both a cross country plane and a tail dragger to enjoy both types of flying. But I don't know of anyone that flies a small tail dragger as a traveling bird. But no question a small tail dragger can be much more economical to operate. But I expect trading down so to speak will come with giving up the long cross countries for enjoyment of low and slow local flying. That sure beats giving up flying.