kortopates

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.

Don nailed it up above. The key thing is that the pre-purchase inspection, which is not a legal inspection like an annual, should not be flipped to an official annual inspection until the buyer is the new owner since until that point, the buyer has no say in the annual inspection process - only the owner of record does. @glenn reynolds though has the right idea to do a through pre-purchase inspection in order to make an informed buying decision and be in a position to negotiate about the seller correcting all airworthy issues and also building a discretionary list to realize additional maintenance items he might be paying for if seller doesn't want to pay for these. But its all about execution and all of this must take place before flipping the inspection from pre-purchase to annual in case buyer decides to back out. Otherwise both party's could loose dearly, including the seller if the buyer backs out and and now the seller is responsible for an unexpected annual cost The buyer can loose when the owner only approves the mandatory airworthy items be completed with the annual while the owner is financially accountable for the annual bill - not the buyer. Leaving the buyer to pay to do his discretionary items after the bill of sale at likely additional expense. At Savvy Aviation we've seen these attempted pre-purchase annuals go sideways and manage them as suggested above to avoid these issues.

Great new youtube video on how to manage mixture and fly LOP and ROP: The most information dense filled video on the topic I can remember seeing in some time. The only real thing I would offer to add is Gami's recommend tablel on both how far to be LOP and ROP for any percent power; available here: afms gami injectors rev ir.pdf Incidentally the GAMI FAA approved mixture management is excellent guidance regardless of whether or not use Gami injectors or even if your not fuel injected. Its just that without good mixture distribution (<=0.5 GPH gami spread) an engine won't be able to fly very far LOP, if at all LOP (i.e. where all cylinders are LOP). But virtually any IO-360 can and most of the higher performance Continentals can but may require a little help. But otherwise Martin does a great job of both communicating and illustrating a wealth of information on the subject matter.

I would be really interested to hear how it works out. I get to fly with all kinds of avionics but can't remember last being in one with both DME and GPS, so its always one or the other except for the sim. And its only on the sim I ever get to fly what amounts to handful or conventional approaches in the US requiring DME but using the GPS without a database procedure to load. I don't have any nearby approaches that need DME GPS substitution without a database procedure to load like your VDU LDA. I am glad you brought it up, I am thinking of adding it to my class section on LDA approaches using GPS for its uniqueness.

Perfect, maybe your local community college has a aviation program with pilot classes since that would be perfect (I recall it doesn't have A&P classes so not sure). I teach exactly the class for this at my local college as an advanced IFR sim lab for IR pilots using Redbirds with both legacy instruments with a GNS530W and also G1000 setups. The class is all about using the GPS for pilots in exactly your position moving to glass panels or IFR GPS's. If your local college has the equivalent that would a very inexpensive way to to learn to master the box - only 1 unit in fees which is nothing - with 16 nights of sim time. Can't beat the sim for learning new avionics and procedures.

First an Instrument rating and now and IFR GPS ! Way to go!! You've probably done the BUELT Four departure many times by now, but now its going to be a snap to set up in your GPS to fly it. Enjoy it and access to what must be 10x as many procedures with an IFR GPS. A lot to learn, but an amazing more amount of capability comes with the knowledge.

Yes, but its all in the last paragraph that responsibility is delegated to the "sponsor", meaning the city of county to monitor use. Then the only penalty seems to be the last statement - the FAA will no longer approve AIP grant money for more hangar space -- that doesn't even include disapproval for other improvements that don't include hangar space. Not much of a deterrent. But I think we're well past SMO seeking future AIP grant money and the city appears to have no obligation to adhere to these guidelines. Sponsors should have a program to monitor use of hangars and take measures to prevent unapproved non-aeronautical use of hangars - Sponsors should ensure that length of time on a waiting list of those in need for a hangar for aircraft storage is minimized. - Incorporating provisions in leases to adjust rental rates to FMV for any non-incidental non-aeronautical use of the leased facilities NYADO FY2017-004 - FAA personnel conducting inspections may request a copy of the sponsor’s hangar use program and evidence that the sponsor has limited hangars to aviation use. The FAA may disapprove an AIP grant for hangar construction if there are existing hangars at the airport being used for non-aeronautical purposes.

Love your sentiment and couldn't agree more. One of the ways I personally learned the importance of plenty of altitude, as in lots of excess altitude, came not from stall practice but unusual attitude recovery. I like to give candidates a meaningful simulated runaway trim event and let them recover. Not wanting to take over too prematurely so that my candidate could learn the importance of a nose down unusual attitude recovery as the airspeed was building with nose down trim, my student was being way to gentle about pulling up and Va came and went and we were still accelerating towards redline. It was a never again moment for me since it took some time and a lot of altitude pulling up while ensuring we didn't over stress the wings. We both learned on that one and in only a C172. But if we didn't have lots of altitude we would have had to change more than underwear.

What liability coverage you opt to select has nothing to do with plane value but entirely to do with your personal assets/worth you are protecting. 1 mill with 100K sub-limits means the max your covered per person is only 100K. That's nothing in today's litigious society - if your worth many times that then you or your estate will be left paying for the remainder of the settlement. Smooth limits ensure you have the full million limit. Obviously a young person with little wealth accumulated doesn't yet have much to loose but as we acquire more wealth for retirement the more important smooth limits become to us recognizing one bad law suit could clean out a lifetime of savings.

I am glad @teejayevans commented on your earlier remark about doing stalls in the Mooney below 3K AGL. But yes, the ACS just gives a minimum of 1500' for single engine and 3K' for multi - but its an absolute minimum limit and your expected to use higher when advised to do so such as by the the warming in the POH such as you may loose 2000' as you quoted out of your POH - surely that's suggesting the minimum in the ACS is not enough per manufacturer guidance. And of course if you have Section 10 then that makes are accountable for not doing stalls without being above 6K Should you attend one of our MAPA PPP's, such as the upcoming one in Henderson, NV in April, you'll learn we require in excess of 6K for stalls for all models, just as the modern Mooney POH's suggest. In a high performance Mooney we can climb quick enough that using 9-10K' msl is a no brainer to ensure we have well in excess of 6K AGL. The other consideration as a CFI is, we want enough altitude that the pilot has some time to recover such that CFI doesn't have to take over if the pilot isn't immediate in starting the recovery. Otherwise there isn't much learning since our utmost priority to provide a safe environment for learning. As per Section 10, I don't know what year Mooney started adopting it. But recall sometime around 75 Mooney was pushed like all manufactures to replace their free format AFM manuals, and adopt the GAMA new standardized POH specification for content and format. As Mooney switched to the GAMA format, initially they didn't include Section 10 because it was optional, but obviously eventually they too included section 10 which contains a lot of valuable information in many areas in addition to stalls and spins. My later J model POH revisions in the 80's all have section 10. Regardless if yours doesn't have it, I think its worthwhile to obtain the latest for your model just too see and understand all the enhancements that were made in subsequent revisions. For the most part in my experience this equates to improved/refined and often additional emergency procedures. Of course you'll also see a few things that may not pertain to your model, such changes in Vspeeds, gross weights etc, but you'll also see many refinements to procedures that do apply that will probably be of interest.

Interesting comments. On the single alternator /single battery, issue it reminds me of when I did my first across the country flight in my new to me 231. IMC at night with everything turned on including lights, pitot heat, prop heat and the old radar (which was pretty useless but drew a lot of power). This how I learned the 231 electrical system could not keep up with all the factory installed systems. The alternator could not keep up and the battery mostly drained enough so that the Alt CB popped and most everything went dark. After shedding as much electrical demand as possible and recycling the alternator I was able to get what I needed back on and reverse the trend on the battery so that it was charging and continue the flight. But no fun. In fairness, with modern avionics and ditching the useless radar for nexrad the electrical demands were greatly reduced. But the 252 with the dual alternator option provides 28V with 2 60/70amp alternators which is 4x times the juice - so its never a problem and these days with LED or HID lighting and modern avionics I doubt you see too many complaints with electrical system in the 231's except for its lack of redundancy. Minor correction on the "The 252/Encore are both dual battery, dual alternator, 24 volt systems" The 252/Encores do not have dual battery's and not all have dual alternators - Dual alternators was one of the few non-standard options including differences in avionics packages. (possibly the later Encore make dual alternators standard, but not 252's) But dual alternators is perhaps the most sought after option. Since the belt driven alternator run at a faster rpm, the dual alternator option solves the higher coming in speed for the low voltage light to come on at low idle speed, secondly since the belt alternator takes most of the load, the gear driven alternator coupling last much longer and is cheaper to maintain long term (my near 1600 hr coupler is still going strong). Also all 252/Encores have the electric standby vacuum system. Personally, and my opinion, with dual alternators a second battery offers nothing more than ballast weight. And luckily the 252/Encore's don't need the ballast weight so we don't have the expense of replacing dual battery's like the Rocket's and long bodies do but most of those birds don't have dual alternators so I would definitely want one and in my book and unlimited amount of backup current in the form of a second alternator beets out 30-45 minutes of backup battery reserve anytime. I came back from Central America once after loosing one alternator only because I had another one. I get FIKI envy in the winters too! It would be nice to have and luckily its an available option with the 252's with Dual Alternators.

okay, so on a practice LDA-A approach, while your navigating by the PDX ILS and using the KNS80 for DME distance, have you ever tried loading ILS-DME facility, i.e. I-VDG waypoint - not the airport, as the active waypoint and comparing the DME read out distance to the GPS distance from I-VDG? (This goes to your original post earlier when you correctly stated that you can not use the airport waypoint for a DME distance - you need need to use the ILS-DME facility waypoint which is I-VDG). Since you have both, KNS80 for DME and the correct GPS waypoint for the DME facility I-VDG, you could enlighten us on what the difference is? Absolutely agreed ""Pilots are prohibited from flying any approach path that contains manually entered waypoints." But no one has suggested loading one or more waypoints into the GPS flight plan and then using this flight plan to fly the "approach path" which means to use the flight plan for lateral guidance. All that has been suggested is 1) setting the GPS to have the active waypoint the DME facility GPS waypoint to display the GPS distance and 2) while flying the approach using your CDI/HSI ILS signal for approach path guidance. How is that flying an approach path with manually entered waypoints?

Of course if you load the full procedure to include an IAF on the Arc, you will no longer need to turn 10 and twist 10, the GPS will give you lateral guidance along the arc. The ability for the unit to update OBS is actually a plug for the autoslewing capability of your CDI or HSI. All modern GPS's are capable of that, its the CDI or HSI which may not be. But if learning DME arc for your IFR checkride, of course you'll want to learn how to do them manually as well without following the GPS lateral guidance to fly them. Also to clarify an apparent misunderstanding - A DME Arc does not constitute lateral guidance. Lateral guidance refers to following a course as depicted on course center line or lateral deviation indicator i.e. your CDI or HSI. I think the original remark was meant to say that GPS can not be used to substitute for lateral guidance provided by a navaid on final approach segment; which is applicable only to VORs, LOC's, SDF, & LDA's only - again since DME is only distance. Further, the MTN VOR/DME final approach segment consisting of an DME arc isn't lateral guidance either - this approach has no lateral guidance.