kortopates

Never seen the MX20 not above the GPS. I personally much prefer it that way and flew like that with a pair of GNS430W’s below the MX20 which became a GMX200. You might be a rare breed to reverse it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hard to follow what your asking for the final panel arrangement. Are you saying you have both a CNX 80 (also later known as GNS480) and a GNS430 below the CNX 80 and you want to move the GNS 430 above the MX20 and keep the CNX 80 below the MX 20? I started with a MX20 and CNX80 years ago, then went with a MX20 and dual GNS430Ws and the MX20 became a GMX200, but I always kept the GPS's below the MFD which was always preferable and I've seen many installations done that way with MFD at top directly blow an audio panel. Never with GPS above the MX20. To fit the Audio panel, GMX200, and dual GNS430W in the center stack, I did have to move the annunciator and autopilot to the right but with the 1980 K you wont have AP controls in the center stack but below on the console. Now its a GTN750 & 650 (w/ integrated GMA340) with the autopilot back in the center stack at bottom. Are you allowing room for connectors and cables in the rear as well?

So true! "While we're at" it is how I ended up with the GTN750 & 650 as well when I was installing the G500. My wiring for dual GNS430 had been spliced into so many times from prior staged upgrades that the wiring really needed to be redone and looking at the cost to do so didn't make any sense without upgrading them, so while I was at it I ... But even with the 750 alone, "while you're at it" you really need to consider the FS510 and integrated GMA340 audio, the 3D audio and Intelllivoice features are awesome and all controlled from the 750.

Only until your 430W fails leaving you only on the iPhone. If VFR no problem, but if IMC without a redundant GNS430W could be quite an emergency depending on what inopportune time it ocurrs.

Video looks great for showing the issue. Sure looks like a signal loss/noise issue. Vnav requires that VFOM (vertical figure of merit accuracy) not go above 30 something feet from memory, but yours goes briefly to 46 and 66', and we see it go up and down makes it look like interference or signal loss. However, rather than assuming its an antenna or coax issue the fact that changing Com freq's appears to set it off (assuming this is repeatable) suggest it could be a noise issue internal to the box. I'd suggest calling the Garmin Tech support Monday morning and get some them to look at your video for their suggested next steps. I am sorta expecting they may want to check out your the 530W. But if changing freq's was purely coincidental I'd be looking for a signal loss external to the box but see what Garmin Tech support suggest.

The way to do it would be via the 262 STC which is appatently orphaned. But besides converting the engine you’d be replacing at least the lower cowling too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The com antenna is a bigger concern but here is an excerpt from the GNS4xx install manual for what it calls out.

Call Lasar or your local MSC and they can get them for you from Mooney. They are not expensive.

Couldn't imagine so. I recall the only setting for the GPS is map datum year and antenna height. There are no interfaces to other equipment necessary for your GPS except for the anntena. Interfaces to other equipment are completely different and require ports to be configured properly for protocol and data format.

No question that you'll be fine in a Mooney, but you might want to add rudder extension pedals available in a couple sizes but usually the largest/longest are installed. We put these in for my 5' 2" wife as well. But with the fully articulating seats she can adjust the seat as high as she wants and is still below the max.

It should really only happen at the fringe area of WAAS coverage. I've reported loosing LPV200 service on the west coast a couple of times but that hasn't happened since the temporary period when we were down to a single WAAS satellite. That was quite some time ago. These days the fringe area is generally well beyond the coast lines. You can see the current real time status here: http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/ with many options including historical data. Highly unlikely a it was normal to loose LPV at KSAC but possible. Yet you can even run a video that shows the status changing over time and see what was going on when you were in the air.

I've replaced all 4 of my seat tracks on my K. The right side co-pilot was the side that was worn the most and prompted replacing them, but I do most of my flying from the right seat too. They wear out identically to the Cessna seat tracks, and essentially the same material as the Cessna tracks, but we don't have the same AD requiring them to be replaced like the Cessna's. Its a big job, made bigger with the electric gear actuator in the way too. I also replaced the seat roller with the LASAR rollers too at the same time. Huge improvement!

I wouldn't be so worried. I rode in the same chamber at Gateway, its run by ASU if I recall right. There were no less than 3 people in the control area managing the controls and observe the participants as well as one or 2 people in the chamber ready to take care of anyone that needs to get their O2 back on but became incapacitated. Worst case, I assumed from inside or outside they could simply open a vent line but I wasn't briefed on emergency procedures like you may have been. But most importantly, at any time while in the chamber you have a supply of 100% O2 to put back on or that one of the internal observers would do for you, which is how the simulated decompression test is ended by each participant. Anyway, I sort of recall they opened a vent line before they could open the door as well - but it was awhile ago. I thought they did a great job and it was well worth it. Although it showed me the TUC numbers are pretty meaningless since all but one participant went well past the charted time and was able to put their O2 mask back on just fine without loosing consciousness. Also it was probably the oldest participant there that lasted the longest contradicting the other wildly touted assumption that since those TUC numbers are based on young military personnel that older people are going to pass out earlier whereas the mountaineering community has well documented that middle aged climbers can handle the altitude much better than the youngsters. Perhaps the key point for doing it is that every ones symptoms and tolerance varies enough that its very worthwhile for each us to see how we individually do and how well we can recognize the symptoms.

Sounds like you must have a signal strength or signal loss issue in the form of coax to antenna or antenna problem. A change of coax was often required for the WAAS upgrade. But what you are describing is not at all normal. A good installation will never experience this. I much prefer the easier LPV over the ILS. Don't give up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So far we've had no restrictions to visibility due to the fires. However, we have a couple fires to the North and to the south and east but if you come over JLI to enter SOCAL you should have a clear ride. Winds have settled down now but forecasted to be breezy through the weekend. the main issue has been a large wind gradient between the relatively calm surface wind and much stronger winds at 2-3K' causing widespread wind shear. This should all be gone by Monday. Its a busy airport and is a bit chaotic when we're using opposite direction runways as we have been for the Santa Ana winds. Enjoy your trip in.

How about RF leg GPS approaches? That's a question because I don't know yet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you're placing too much confidence in the precision of the stall horn activation. From the maintenance manual: The stall warning should actuate at no less than 5 kts, nor more than 10 knots preceding the stall and shall continue to until the stall occurs in the power off configuration. That's a 5 kt range assuming all your reported data is based on properly configured stall warning horns of mostly 35-50 year old airplanes Much better to go by airspeed IMO and how quickly one does the roundout based on the height they begin it. From S&M manual:

There is so much variation in fuel tank capacity of same model Mooney's reported by different owners I would never trust anyone else data. The whole point of the exercise that Andy refers to above is to find out what your tank capacity is. Don't you want to know what your tanks really holds?

You just need a punch set and the proper drill sizes. To remove them out easily, first use a punch and hammer to push the inner pin back out. This is the center pin that was pulled to set the rivet. Push it back out all the out and through. Next use a drill that is smaller than the diameter of the pop rivet. It will drill through the rivet easily now that the pin is gone. Then put the punch into the drilled hole and work it around circularly till the rivet falls out. This will remove the pop rivet without enlarging the hole. Removing soft non-structural Avex rivets, as used in your dog house, is very easy and quick. In contrast, removing structural Cherry-max rivets is a much much harder job.

Your guy is limiting it to the middle of TCM's range of 25.6 - 27.3 and isn't even willing to set it to their high number of 27.3 GPH. I can understood why some A&P's are reluctant to set it above, and its true that if some one gets carried away adding too much fuel its reducing its max HP output. But especially with these high HP engines the need to keep it cool in climb easily trumps a couple horsepower. You'll find those that really know engines will target a max FF from 0.5 to 1.5 GPH over TCM's high number for the engine with some going beyond that. For example, when RAM does their overhaul for the TSIO-520-N & -NB's for the 340's and 314's they raise the FF from Continentals high number of 31.7 GPH to 36.0 GPH!

Mainly because there is nothing turbo normalized about the Acclaim, despite how Mooney marketed it as such. That is the biggest misunderstood myth about the Acclaim, what Mooney did was take the TSIO-550-G and de-rate down from 310HP to 280HP because they didn't need the full 310HP to claim the fastest single piston and management at the time thought 310HP was too much for the Mooney tail without beefing it up. Then to remove some of the stigma of a hot burning turbo, rather than call it for what it was, the marketing folks miss-represented it as turbo normalized because they felt that would help sell a cooler running engine after the Bravo's reputation for running hot and justified it by saying the maximum continuous MAP was only a little over sea level pressure. But the engine is a full fire breathing turbocharged TSIO-550-G complete with dual turbochargers and intercoolers using turbo 7.5:1 pistons. In contrast a TN engine begins with a non turbocharged engine with 8.5:1 pistons and then the turbocharging system is added on with redline MAP limited to sea level. All the STC did was return it to it full 310HP setup, but since this wasn't originally done by Mooney, they needed to get an STC approval. I guess you could add they proved the tail really wasn't too small too. Mooney later bought the STC but as the airframe manufacturer they don't need an STC. They probably just didn't want someone else profiting off of their design and short sighted HP limitation given the popularity of the mod.

I was teasing you about the gallon or two But to answer your question - that would be nice but the carburetor is not adjustable short of putting an unapproved different jet in. Usually the bigger problem is just terrible mixture distribution. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh!? Gallon or 2? Its actually over 5 more, from a high number of 30.7 GPH to 36.0 GPH, but I'd target it for 37 GPH.

I totally agree, but some pilots get carried away thinking they need to climb at Vx or Vy when it should be more like your normal Vy+10 to 20 for both safety and engine cooling. Then if you do have a loss of power you actually have a few seconds before stall if you don't recognize it fast enough and push the nose over. Deakin does a good job of explaining this with lots of analysis and show how you can trade off the excess speed to maintain alt as you slow to Vg. https://www.avweb.com/news/features/Climb-Faster-221694-1.html Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which is why it only has circling minimums and such a high mins. So the near 6 deg slope is only true for descent from the FAF to the threshold. Descending to circling mins requires only 3.something degrees. The max permitted glide slope for a straight in is 3.75 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk