kortopates

First it needs a good inspection to see the source of the looseness and in which directions. It may only need shims and/or proper torquing. If its truly worn to the point it can't be corrected with conventional means then absolutely sending off to LASAR for whatever it may need such as an oversize bushing. But that seems premature until someone goes through it first. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course you don't need to be anywhere near convective weather to experience severe CAT. Here in the west, I believe we have the severest turbulence thanks to the Sierra Nevada mountains which is found in the leeward side in the Owens Valley as well as further north. I've been using the drop the gear and speed brakes to help quickly slow the aircraft down ever since my earliest bad encounters - basic survival instincts. We've had many very rough flights returning from ski trips that I have had to fly the entire valley with the gear down the entire way which is a miserable hour. If I am not trapped in the valley due to icing above, the turbo allows climbing up yet while carefully avoiding the rotors which can do real damage. But once above by several thousand feet its easy to find a relatively smooth ride on the wind ward side, But when necessary, the added drag of the gear lessens the impact from vertical gusts to lift or drop a wing and helps with stability to significantly reduce pilot workload and maintaining a slower airspeed. (AP is always off in bad turbulence). If also IMC, I would stay on the ground, but in VMC its just no fun at all as long as you don't have unknowing pax to terrify. Try it sometime if you encounter bad turbulence. I don't know how true it really its is, but the Fedex caravan pilot that makes the trip everyday VFR despite the turbulence has been known say he wears a helmet on the bad days. I've thought of bringing a bike helmet as well but never did.

From memory there is a good trouble shooting section on this in the service manual in addition to what you copied above. As described above, there are many warning devices that come into play, but at only certain times, i.e. Gear UP, or Gear Down or Gear in transit. Following the schematic will show the exact circuit when the Gear is Down (gear down limit switch closed) to illuminate the green lights, but recognize the MAP throttle switch and sonalert are only in the circuit when the gear is UP limit switch is closed and thus should be immaterial for when the gear is down. So is the airspeed switch, until you move the gear switch to UP. So I'd bet its got to be in the circuit with the gear down limit switch closed (since your gear motor stops by the limit switch) - but referring to the schematic will ensure you don't miss anything.

The Vertical card compass is a big plus for instrument students because it doesn't turn the opposite direction like the Whiskey compasses. But they are notorious for being difficult to calibrate, hence the balls and sometimes magnetism of the steel cage makes it impossible. But there is a solution for this too using a growler. You're probably going to have to try re-calibrating the compass to find if it can be successful - or just send it back for inspection and repair/OH. The good news is, after you learn how to do compass turns you won't actually need to rely on in partial panel flying as long as you have a WAAS GPS in the panel. Instead you'll use that and discover partial panel is easy to do even to ATP standards with the GPS TRK/DTK info. Which is another reason why a IFR GPS is so vital in these days.

Although you don't need to use VOR navigation in the enroute structure, you still do need a current VOR test to fly any VOR approach since you need to have the raw signal displayed when navigating from the FAF to the runway. I assume that is what the OP was doing when he says it was off on a practice approach (but does not mention type of approach) but was not offset when doing RNAV and LOC approaches. Without a current VOT/VOR test, you would be limiting yourself to no VOR approaches, which might be operationally fine for you; except if you loose GPS for any reason since its still also our backup form of nav. But most of us train for proficiency in all kinds of approaches even though I wouldn't personally fly a VOR approach when I have a GPS approach option.

What does your VOT test show you in terms of number of degrees off? What does your 530 on the startup pre-flight test show for how close the CDI is to what the 530 displays for CDI course? These should have been the first checks and should isolate the issue, besides being required checks for IFR flight. ILS, LOC & GPS course guidance should always work fine since it doesn't matter where there OBS selector is positioned. Only VOR nav and GPS via OBS actually matter where the OBS is position for course guidance. If the VOT test fails, there is a resolver in the HSI that needs to be re-calibrated If the GPS is CDI is off (for OBS usage) then the GPS can be put in setup mode and re-calibrated, and if still off the issue should lie in the resolver along with failing the VOT test.

On the floor board bulb, suggest check the bulb to socket connection at the base of the socket by cleaning it up to make sure its not an intermittent connection. Can't be the gear down limit switch or the gear would not stop till the actuator breaker pops (from reaching the limit of a stop mounted at the gear motor). Since its stopping, the switch is working, but I suspect you have a poor connection with the floor bulb. 12V should be enough to power the bulb.

Thanks Anthony, I'd go for ride with you anytime [emoji846] But I am very familiar with the difference between DME slant range distance and GPS distance. In the example above, several miles out and down pretty low, its going to calculate out to within a tenth or two of a mile - but I am too lazy to do the math. My point is there is no need for DME with a modern GPS. But I would be surprised if the older KLN89 would have all the DME facility waypoints. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely, just as with an aircraft that is equipped with GPS, if your aircraft is equipped with an AP, it has to be part of your instrument training. DPE is tasked with ensuring you know how to use all of your equipment. As such he'll have you demonstrate its use on an approach and with a good 2 or 3 axis autopilot expect it will be on a precision approach so you can demonstrate how to properly intercept GS in addition to intercepting final. But all of this should be done well after the student can fly the approach without the AP. No question there is a lot more work to getting an instrument rating in a technically advanced aircraft with great avionics including WAAS GPS and a good auto-pilot. And that's the ideal time to learn to master the equipment. Its just that we all don't have the luxury of having such great equipment when we did our training. So many of us will have to learn the advanced stuff later, but it is a license to learn after all. But these days, unlike when I did mine on 2 VORs and DME (and without an AP), the standard is with WAAS, but still many, if not most, compete their IR with out an AP.

Definitely lack of an autopilot should not dissuade you from getting an instrument rating. Perhaps one of the biggest obstacles for new instrument students is simply getting the aircraft properly trimmed quickly so they can move onto the next task. Its the first obstacle keeping students behind the aircraft, with lack of understanding and proficiency with their avionics second. Using an autopilot for this would do the student a huge disservice since it would merely make them dependent on the AP rather than learn to quickly trim the aircraft on their own. We already have too many pilots that are overly dependent on their AP's that have gotten into the habit of using them from cruise on through the approach. As your training progresses you'll learn to stay ahead of the aircraft with a much higher workload that what you'll actually experience in a typical cross country IFR trip due to the artificial nature of the training environment . Although the more challenging the weather conditions the more difficult the workload can be; especially with turbulence or strong winds added in. But this is why we have personal minimums. But where autopilots become most important in on longer and longer flight so that the pilot isn't exhausted by the time they arrive at the terminal environment for an approach which will require their full concentration. Its also important in allowing us to monitor weather ahead on long cross country's and enable us to develop diversion plans for enroute weather or our destination . But after you get your IR, you'll be in a better position to set personal minimums based not only on your skills, but also your experience level and your equipment limitations. But certainly as you desire to fly longer trips with weather, an autopilot or another pilot right seat or even a capable right seat pax become more and more vital to keeping the workload manageable.

They have always had a small number of questions that they were experimenting with including a couple that weren’t counted. But as long as I’ve a pilot, perfect scores were unheard of but did happen. Probably getting harder too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not get together with your CFI? He’ll go over your weight and balance with you, help you get FF set up properly and make sure got the right data and doing it properly. It’s pretty important stuff to get right. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, we have a very good option at Aero Accessories in Van Nuys. They're a repair station specializing in mags and electrical components. Both UPS & Fedex ground will get it there overnight. They do a full 500 hr/5Yr IRAN in 24 hrs of shop time at very good prices. Call them for details: http://aeroacc-vny.com/

Cool, have you enrolled in Miramar's A&P program? Highly recommend it. You can do it evenings after your day job like I did and its almost free. The ground school for your IR at Miramar is a great opportunity too.

It would be helpful if [mention=6909]Cruiser[/mention] referenced the known Garmin alert. There was an issue a year or more ago that was blamed on IOS issues and prior firmware issues. But this is the first I have heard of continued issues and I fly with multiple people w/ FF and a FS210 or 510 or even just a solo GTX 345. I'd suggest all other background apps be closed on your device and make sure you have the latest firmware on everything. My GP with FS510 works flawlessly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I used a GDL-39 before I got my GTX345. Even with GTX and G500, I still upgraded my GDL-39 to the 39D just for the rare event I have a total electrical failure. I have battery backup for instruments but no navigation which is where the GDL-39D comes in. Sure, chances are rare, but I had such an event shorty after getting my IR leaving me with only a portable radio and it left me with a lasting impression. I originally planned on the remote GTX too, but heard way to many Bluetooth connection issues when installed in the rear, so I decided to keep mine up front. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Awesome! I didn't get a 100% the first time for my IR, it was a 96 or 98 - long ago. But I did get a 100% the second time when I took for my CFII.

Keep in mind the King Schools videos and the like are concentrated directly on questions on the exam. If after a practice exam you find your understanding of a specific area is lacking what you do next may be depend heavily on what kind of learner you are or what works most effectively for you. In addition to reviewing the video on that topic again, many of us would be better served by reading about the topic in detail as covered by the excellent free FAA bibles for the IR. These are the Instrument Procedures Handbook (IPH) and the Instrument Flying Handbook (IFH). These and all FAA handbooks are available for free download at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/ So I would encourage you to review any area you might need further understanding in the appropriate section of the either of these two handbooks. They should fill the any gaps. However, I am of the opinion every instrument pilot should have a hardcopy of these two vital handbooks. When I learned to fly and get my instrument rating the FAA didn't have anything like these and you had to find an independent author to get this stuff. But now days the FAA has commissioned these very excellent handbooks that cover everything you need.

At least in cruise, over square is good! Please check this article out. https://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184483-1.html But in climb, we should be at higher power settings between; preferably 90-100%. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what model you are referring too, but it certainly can be important. But in general, not limiting the discussion to fuel, it often isn’t and we can use a cockpit flow to help us remember everything when we don’t have time to review the checklist. But back to your specific question using the power loss on the takeoff roll - that procedure should have throttle being reduced first, followed by mixture and then the fuel off. Reason being it may not be a 100% power loss and throttle has an immediate impact to help us slow even more so than mixture. But mixture has a much more immediate impact over the fuel selector to shutdown the engine to help us further brake and reduce chance of a prop strike if we go off the end. Fuel selector off has the least impact at this point and frankly is in the nice to do if able. Fuel selector off time till engine shutdown will really vary. A carburetor will still have quite a bit of fuel in the bowl. A fuel injected engine will die sooner but not nearly as fast as using mixture. If you have an older model POH, your emergency procedures are limited and more general; so it certainly helps to ponder the various circumstances that can be encountered to develop a flow that will work in the majority of emergency. But if you have a chance to review the more modern POH’s you'll see significant refinements over the years that you can apply to your model with some common sense adjustment. Consider the Acclaim emergency procedures - they provide much more detail for a loss of power on takeoff breaking it up into 3 categories I) on the runway, ii) below 400' and iii) above 400'. The details may vary between models but the concept or considerations apply to all Mooneys. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, with your -MB climb at 36" WOT, but preferably at full RPM, yet if you feel the need to reduce power I am advocating reducing RPM only, not both. Your engine is designed and certified to run at 100% power all day long. However, if I feel compelled to reduce power in climb, such as for noise abatement purposes, I'll just pull back RPM to 2400 maintaining redline MAP for about 92-93% power while maintaining Vy+ ~15-20 kts. Not quite Carson speed or Vz but still at a good climb of rate. Although @rainman comments about Vz, its an important consideration, but my climb speed is much more biased to safety and other factor discussed in Deakins article Vx & Vy Debunked with less concern for optimal fuel efficiency. and perhaps more concern for engine efficiency. As for the POH's of the K's, all give a max performance climb with full power and a cruise climb setting, but the 231's performance tables only included data for the max performance climb at full power to the flight levels. Not till the 252's did the performance section also provide performance data for their cruise climb setting which equates to 81% power. There is nothing magical about the RPM and MAP combination that Mooney publishes for cruise climb nor the many more various equivalent cruise power combinations of MAP & RPM they list the cruise tables. The key difference is that any ROP power setting above the max cruise power setting should be done full rich, never leaned.

Carbureted Turbo's are indeed an added challenge. Frankly the carbureted O-360 can be challenging as it is to keep CHTs in check in climb. Have you tried or considered running at 29" and a lesser rpm. 29" and 2100 rpm should be very close to your 25 squared but cooler. Or the max MAP you can maintain with a lower RPM for equivalent power to make the comparison?

They don't refer to it as the hardest rating to get for nothing! It just takes time and although IFR training with an AP is very valuable its even more critical to have the skills when the autopilot fails or becomes inop from a vacuum failure. But don't worry, before you're done you'll even be able to fly it with your Attitude and DG covered without the AP!

It does from the standpoint that all our fuel systems are designed to run richest at full WOT redline. Consequently mixture is not exactly linear with MAP and should be richest at redline MAP. Further, if one is reducing MAP because out of concern for higher CHTs, they'll see better cooling by keeping the the MAP up and reducing the RPM. Here are a couple articles that will go into more detail: First, https://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182104-1.html this is probably the best example I can think of because it discusses what happens when you make any one change in isolation - discussing mixture, RPM and MAP one at a time and how they change the effective timing of peak ICP. It all adds up to make the point that greatest efficiency comes from WOT MAP and to use RPM to reduce power or speed if need be, not MAP. Another article that speaks to the efficiency argument directly is this one by Mike Busch. : https://www.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2012-10_flying-efficiently.pdf I somewhat stated the MAP effect on mixture backwards since virtually everything you'll read will say it the other way around, that the engine is designed to be most rich at WOT. So you might also look at your own EGT/TIT data from reducing MAP from WOT maintaining full rich and see EGT go up with MAP reductions. But both of the first two articles above make the point quite well. But perhaps efficiency make a more compelling reason to keep MAP high and just reduce RPM in climb out since the second article clearly shows by contrasting two different identical power levels with the same FF that the higher MAP results in lower EGT and CHT which equates to larger detonation reserves and lower and ICP - all good things. (although we got into this topic just on the basis of reducing power from 100%, my corollary point was to only reduce RPM is wanting to reduce power) You are probably aware of Bob Kromers article years ago about climbing all Mooney's at WOT and inn this article he specifically talks about climbing WOT in the 252 all the way to top of your climb; although no real science here but largely good advice from a past well respected Mooney test pilot. http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20K252_evaluation_report.htm I don't agree with all that is said but he has the right concept about how the engine was designed to run coolest and most efficiently.

I don't personally recommend using the cruise climb power setting but do recommend a cruise climb speed well over Vy. Instead I prefer to climb at WOT to my desired altitude yet may pull back the RPM for noise, but not MAP. The reason being is desire to be as rich as possible to keep ICP and CHTs as low as possible. Using the extra power to climb at a higher IAS helps further to reduce CHT and as @Jsavage3 says above, the loss of climb rate from the faster IAS in climb is pretty negligible. My advice is if you want to reduce power, do so with RPM only. Full rich at WOT will provide the lowest EGT/TIT's which is an indication of how rich your mixture is. 32" and 2500 rpm, being only 81% power might indeed be cool enough to climb at full rich since its just a bit more than cruise, but I prefer a faster IAS in climb with a small reduction in rate yet while also keeping CHT down. I would suggest watching out for any reduced MAP cruise climb power setting that pushes TITs to 1400F or above as I would really refrain from operating too lean like that. Not everyone has there max fuel flow set up quite high enough to begin with.