kortopates

The simple solution to the "hot" recognition lights is to install a Precise Flight flasher for them. Then they pulse like strobes which improves recognition and keeps them cooler so they'll never melt the lenses if you forget to turn them off after landing. Plus the bulbs are cheap if you are willing to grind down the edges and solder on wires onto the original projector bulb. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Inexpensive paper POH's are available from https://www.esscoaircraft.com/ Or official POH's and digital copies are of course available through Mooney which can be ordered through any MSC or LASAR.

This is what I measured Time: 01:01:18-01:01:53 EGT2 peaked at 9.2 EGT1 peaked at 9.1 EGT3 peaked at 9.1 EGT4 peaked at 9.1 GAMI spread is 0.1 Although fairly quickly done, FF was monotonically decreasing as they were peaking and MAP and RPM were constant. So nicely done. But would really want to see an average of a few sweeps to ensure consistency. But it looks like good data too me!

@Jim F nailed it. The state property tax is 1% ever since Proposition 13, but every county has add-on's from various bonds voted in bringing it up to maybe 1.1% or more, so just google the property tax for your county/city. Then each county has their own method of assessing value which they will do on their own. The only thing the purchase prices seems to really count for is the sales or use tax you will owe the Ca Board of Equalization (BOE) - which is based on your city/county sales tax rate for the purchase tax from the bill of sale. There was a program that allowed private owners to avoid CA sales tax when I bought mine (which I took full advantage of) but that program was ended years ago. From what you read on the internet, it appears a fair number of owners try to escape the sales tax by not reporting it but that's silly as there is no way to hide it unless you are parking your aircraft in your garage or something like that. Every airport FBO, hangar lessor etc is required to know before renting and report to the county the N number for any space or hangar they rent/lease. When they figure out the sales tax wasn't paid for whatever reason, I hear they stick them with penalty's and interest just like any past due tax. It doesn't matter if you bought it out of state, acquired it under a LLC, or even registered it in another state. You rent a hangar or ramp space to park it her in CA you'll owe the sales/use tax unless you brought it under the remaining tax free program with letter of exemption from the BOE which these days is limited solely to business use. But another crazy thing discussed here regarding CA is that some airports are known for passing on the hangars annual property tax bill to the renter. Seems crazy, although we know we're paying it as well as the utilities regardless of how its billed. if anyone is spending multiple hundred thousands I'd recommend contacting a professional in this area; especially if you can claim business use. Some other states are even worse, we've read here on MS owners parking their Mooney's in FL for a few months for maybe maintenance and then getting a property tax bill from FL.

LOL's, Thanks Jim, I corrected the typo. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TCM's spec for metered max fuel flow for the 310 HP IO-550 in the -N configuration is 25.6 - 27.3 GPH (just as @M20S Driver and @StevenL757 pointed out above) and we at Savvy like to 0.5 to 1.0 GPH above the high number yielding a target max FF of 27.8 to 28.3 GPH for exactly the reasons @kmyfm20s cited above, and essentially exactly where @Jeff_S is at. (knowing the kind of summertime flying @kmyfm20s does out of the desert, I can understand exactly why he's pushing his to 2 GPH above). But one gallon above isn't going to rob an appreciable amount of power but it will sure help keep the engine running cooler till you are ready to lean further. We'd really like to see the 310 Ovations in the low 28's GPH. Apparently JPI is trying to stick to the middle of the range which makes no sense.

Its in the back, very close to above the sump, and where the remaining fuel is in level flight. But also where you need it in climb and climb gets my vote over descending.

Hi Jim, Not really a leaky exhaust valve per se but a burnt valve. Although once a valve is burnt, if its not leaking yet it will be very soon. Our FEVA software detects many burnt exhaust valve as it sticks while rotating, momentarily heating up, then cooling back down as rotation resumes. It creates a symmetrical signature that our software detects and alerts us. Unfortunately its not perfect, not all burnt exhaust valves exhibit the pattern. But we've also been able to save a number of exhaust valves with our maintenance clients that lap the valve in place when caught early enough to clean it up and stop the sticking. But even if we don't detect it early enough to save, its still much better detecting it before the cylinder swallows part of an exhaust valve! Incidentally, I am not referring to "sticking" as in sticking in the closed position as seen in a cold engine at startup (e.g., morning sickness) but sticking as the valve rotates as it open and closes as it is designed to do. Hope that answers your question. Paul

One of the things many of us do, often as pre-flight check, is to turn the prop backwards through 2 complete revolutions. You should feel 6 compression strokes of similar resistance every 120 degrees of rotation. But in this case one of them would have had no resistance or a soft spot gap of about 240 degrees between more obvious compression strokes to alert you of the situation.

[mention=12096]231MJ[/mention] It was the case with the original TCM pumps that with the mixture at ICO and the aux fuel pump engaged that no fuel was allowed exit the outlet port to the servo and was instead sent back to the tank. But in the latest generation of pumps with newer model numbers, a galley hole was added that does allow fuel to go to the servo with the mixture at ICO. So most likely, one of your pump rebuilds includes a model change to TCM latest configuration and therefore that's why yours will allow fuel to go to the servo and on to the cylinders. That said, for priming purposes, its safest to use the priming circuit that pumps fuel into the induction system tubes. This eliminates the risk of a fire from over priming with fuel dripping out. The priming circuit was only added to meet Mooney's cold temp starting requirements (which were over stated) which is why you won't find them on the later IO-550's and TSIO-550's since it added significant cost. But pilots love the high boost option for priming because it pumps fuel directly into the cylinders for an easy start, as long as it not over done. So be careful. I prefer the priming circuit and the waiting for 30 seconds before engaging the starter.

Although you need to find out if they started with 0 fuel after adding back in the unusable, (i.e. 0 fuel level includes unusable added), but I doubt a licensed mechanic would make such a mistake. But make sure the plane was leveled for calibration - both longitudinally and laterally. Keep in mind if fuel is added to only one side at a time, it will be no longer be level laterally. Thus during fuel calibration, fuel should be added in the same amounts to both sides to keep the wings level. That could introduce a huge error at around 1/2 full while little to no error near empty and full. Also, your fuel gauges, calibrated for level flight, will be a bit off on the ground since no longer level. 6 gallons difference doesn't seem likely though.

I Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you tried contacting the previous owner? Another possibility is theft deterrent. You don't see these on Mooney's but some owners of C210's & C206's install hidden switches to ground P-leads and/or disable the starter to prevent theft south of the border.

Yes, of course, and now I realize that's what @jaylw314 must have been saying since he specifically mentioned during the run up - my apologies as I wasn't thinking about the run-up even though that's exactly what he said until you said it again. But of course, by disabling one mag at a time you certainly are proving the P-lead is connected and the ignition switch grounds it. I was reacting to notion that the engine monitor showed us some indication of health of the p-lead when it does not but you both are so right that the mag test does show both are functioning together correctly; even if the P-Lead was barely hanging on. That's something we'll never know till it disconnected and why its so important for us to always treat the prop as if it could be hot and to check it again at shutdown if it still grounding okay before we get out and push the plane by the prop, even if we did a Mag check on descent 10-15 minutes earlier. Its only good till the moment its not. Thanks for pointing that out -my mistake.

Not true at all. The engine monitor doesn't tell us anything about the security of the p-leads since the mags will operate just fine with a broken or disconnected P-lead. Remember its grounding the P-lead that disables the Mag and which is why when we time the magnetos we either need to disconnect the p-lead to unground them or turn the ignition switch on to unground them so we can time them. further: "Shutting off by ignition switch tests for failure in the ignition switch." it actually testing both, the ignition switch to ground the p-lead and the P-leads. Failure to shut down could mean either - not necessarily just the switch.

FAA records shows pilot/owner was a retired airline pilot with several type ratings, was previously a CFI (lapsed in '93) and also an A&P. Only thing missing is a Medical Certificate. Could mean he was flying under the nee Basic Med, but even there, there are two things the FAA is tracking for Basic Med certification which are not included either. (although since I don't fly under the basic med program, I have no idea if the FAA's database is actually yet able to officially track that info for real - and thus it could mean nothing). Plus the registration shows he acquired the plane in 2011. Although it doesn't tell us how/why the plane came down, it does show it was flown by a very experienced and exceptionally trained pilot/mechanic and probably someone intimately familiar with his plane. Because of age there is always the chance of a medical issue, but nothing to suggest that currently.

Looks like beautiful VFR weather from a nearby airport: KHVN 162253Z 00000KT 10SM FEW030 SCT100 23/20 A3014 RMK AO2 SLP206 T02280200 KHVN 162153Z 19005KT 10SM FEW035 24/20 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP203 T02390200 KHVN 162053Z 18008KT 10SM SCT035 25/19 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP202 T02500189 56006 Since they're not releasing the pilot's name or N number there is virtually nothing to go on yet except for aircraft coming in nose first into a heavily wooded area. The report of one pilot going through the windshield suggest either no seat belt, which is unlikely, or enough G's at impact to separate the seat from the railing. These days part 23 requires handing a 9.0 G forward load but not sure what CAR3 required when the C was certified. But suffice to say it implies a pretty hard G loading at impact.

I don't think we're doing it any better here in the US and our 6th most common cause of accidents are fuel related exhaustion and starvation accidents. Don't think we can blame anyone but ourselves on that and the majority of our accident rate. I think it boils down to better pre-flight planning, recognizing the risks and applying risk mitigation strategy's in the form of leaving outs and options and being as dynamic as the weather is while flying change the plan as necessary. Just can't regulate ADM, nor is easy to gain the experience necessary to grow in such an unforgiving environment.

I got a chance to compare the radar track's last recorded position to the accident site in google earth and I came up a distance of about 6nm further south from the last radar hit and the accident site. 6 minutes before the accident, the radar data showed the plane in a climb to 6700' when ground speed dropped to the low 60's. Then just before the accident, it leveled, build up speed and then was climbing again at 9300' with airspeed decaying to the low 90's at the last recorded point. Straight ahead of them was higher terrain with a ridge line as high as 9500', which must have been obscured by the clouds. Impossible to tell at this point how much terrain clearance the plane has as it approached the ridge line and went over but it would seem not much at all; especially give the weather. Could the pilot really have been trying to stay under an overcast and clear the mountains? But the plane managed to make it over and came down directly on the the other side of the high ridge line. With the reported turbulence and strong winds, downdrafts seems very plausible at this point. But with no radar data near the crash site it leaves us with little to go on. The much taller Sierra Nevada mountains are in my backyard so to speak, and I've flown around them numerous times to my favorite skiing destination. 60 to even 100 kt winds in the passes are not uncommon when winds aloft are half that. Although wind direction is just as important as magnitude, I wouldn't dream of going near them with only 2000' of clearance - my profile is to cross at over 4K to 5K and also depart away from the mountains into smoother air to get to altitude in smooth air before turning towards them. Mountain obscuration adds another dimension to the challenges as well. Climb rate suffers dramatically in turbulence. Wouldn't even consider departing if flying an NA aircraft.

Thanks Urs and@neilpilot, D-EPPW was not one of our clients. Sad, just the same. I'll have to check out the radar data too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sure I like the flashing Red port light, it seems it could be easily confused with the red beacon anti-collision light rather than a red nav light. And of course it's not TSO'd.

Very sad indeed. Neither the article nor anyone implied it was a Swiss Mooney. Far more likely its German registered since the occupants were German and it departed Germany for Tuscany per Urs. My first curiosity was if the flight was VFR after Urs description on the wx. The article doesn't say but implies it may have been with this remark: "The accident is not yet clear. The weather was not perfect, according to Skyguide spokesman Barrosa but the conditions were fulfilled for a visual flight." It also says this was not likely to be a CFIT since "The fact that the pilot could still make a "Mayday" suggests that the pilot did not fly into the terrain in the fog, but saw the crash coming. The cause of the crash is now clarified by the Swiss security investigation center SUST." The one picture of the wreckage though suggest it came in at high rate of speed, perhaps pretty flat. Anyway, always sad to see these. I work with a half dozen German registered K's - hope it wasn't any of them.

Not extravagant at all! [emoji846] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since planes are insured with an agreed value that can range a 100% over nominal, i believe they estimate salvage value at 1/3 of their estimated blue book value for your plane. Then if repairs exceed the difference between their estimated salvage value and your insured value they write the check. Policy may vary with the underwriter. A claims adjuster or broker wouldn't really know, but I bet an underwriter would share the specific details with any of their policy holders facing a total loss.

That shouldn't be an issue. Neither valve is open anywhere near TDC on the compression stroke. Both valves are open at the end of the exhaust stroke/beginning of the intake stroke. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk