kortopates

Finally, someone with some sense All the above has been very good with the exception that the 45 degree is "standard". Frankly, as Cyril described the Canadian rules above, their guidance is more in tune with reality. None of this is to say their any thing wrong with the 45 degree entry every time since their isn't and that is exactly what we teach primary students. But personally, my goal in the pattern is to fit in while minimizing how much maneuvering I need to do, to fit in safely. On the radio I try to be informative yet brief. I sure don't care what your N number is, but type and position is most important and color is helpful. Nor do I care how you intend to enter the traffic pattern while 5-10 miles out, since I'll likely be on the ground when you arrive anyway; save it for when you are entering. Heck, I don't even care what runway you say you intend to use 5-10 miles out, since I expect you to listen up on the radio and use the runway in use when you arrive. I realize many believe they are trying to be informative, but way too many tie up the frequency needlessly and too many are not listening before they speak. And lastly I don't know what to say about the pilots with a phobia about announcing at all except please talk. Getting back to the 45 and the standard pattern, I personally recommend this Deakin article which instills common sense into the discussion http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182100-1.html

For the K models in particular, yet the J's are nearly identical wrt to 2 more considerations I haven't seen discussed above yet, but what have been the con's wrt MT's composite offering to: Maintenance wrt to R&R the lower cowling. The 252 lower cowling is already far from easy in getting on and off with the 2 blade. 3 or 4 blades has to appreciably change the process. After much experience I can single handedly R&R my cowling, although an extra hand is always nice. I wonder how much more difficult it will be with 3 (or 4 blades). The longer body mooney's intended for 3 blades have the lower cowling terminate at a lower height which really helps with this. (4 blades isn't a possibility for me with the TSIO-360) Drag impacts to best glide angle and distance. Three bladed props are like an added speed brake when you pull the power back to idle or simulate a engine out for power off landings. Have any of you actually tried to measure the impact. In my K, with 252 prop, I get 2 nm for every 1000' agl. Any idea how 3 blades would effect that? Incidentally, Mooney did a lot of prop testing for the 252, they did go with a better performing 2 blade McCauley back in '85 that improved performance over the 231 prop. The factory at least never suggested or used a 3 bladed prop till the long body's. Of course if they had what they have today to work with back in '85 their is no telling.

I am sure I would whole heartedly agree but you must mean something from chapter 4, perhaps 4-1-9? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is a great short article to show you the basics and get you started: https://www.savvyanalysis.com/articles/in-flight-diagnostics

That's excellent. All my primary and instrument pilots are required to verbalize this prior to every takeoff. Its imperative to have the plan in mind before takeoff so that when the day comes and it happens the decision has already made been made so we're not just turning back to the runway without altitude. Plus not climbing at really steep attitudes helps not stack the deck against you when we have so little precious time to push the nose over. Before take off, it'll go like this: Departing Rnwy 27, we'll need 55 kts before taxi way C (we need 2/3 to 3/4 rotate speed by the halfway point, vocalize what these are) to continue the takeoff roll or abort, after take off if we loose power we'll land straight ahead (small turns only) till we have 1400 MSL (1000' AGL), above 1400'MSL with expected right departure we'll turn right for runway 17. Then on the go, it'll go like this "Oil pressure in the green, Airspeed alive,... we have our speed to continue, ... rotate speed, (Vx is used limited to clear (simulated) obstacles, then accelerate to Vy+10-20 kts) (Iam not a Vx, Vy climb believer, and personally subscribe to John Deakin's Climb Faster method, see http://www.avweb.com/news/features/Climb-Faster-221694-1.html)

Mike is looking for people to help sponsor him in writing his new book "Engines". As most know, all of his article writing, seminars, webinars, blogs etc that he does monthly for AOPA and EAA are done at his own expense including most if not all travel. He coming down to San Diego to present next month to present a Wings seminar to our local pilots and he does this sort of stuff all the time at his own expense. Given all he does with his income limited to Savvy Aviation services and his legal expert testimony I believe he is looking at the Patreon program as a means to back off on the legal expert testimony so that he can free up enough time to dedicate to getting his next book on Engines. Mike is a super busy guy, and it made getting his Manifesto book out a real challenge and expect his forthcoming Engines book is a much bigger project and hence the need for some relief to dedicate time too it. Unfortunately even if its a best seller among us GA pilots, we all know its not going to generate the kind of sales a book company would be able to grant Mike a sizable advance to write the book like a best seller novelist would get. Hence why he's looking for help. But I think you'll find this web page very helpful https://www.patreon.com/savvyaviator Already the support has been awesome in just the couple days since announcement.

Pritch, you gotta try out www.savvyanalysis.com/ An account is free and it provides free archival of your data and the online tools blows away EzTrends plus its makes its easy to share your data with your maintenance professional or anyone you want - or keep it private. Of course I work for Savvy, so I am bit biased, but its all true.

Not sure what year the ventilation ports got added. Mooney significantly improved the midbody glareshield sometime in the early 80's, not sure if the earliest K's had it but not the earliest J. Another possibility is your OEM glareshield got replaced by an inexpensive aftermarket called the Ashby which is sold by Spruce. ( http://www.aircraftglareshield.com/Mooney_M20.htm ) if you had an old style they weren't too bad of a replacement. But frankly compared to a modern one I looked at it a downgrade and was going to stick to factory if mine wasn't repairable. But new factory replacements are quite expensive.

Mine has been continuously hangared as well, but here is the before picture on the back side that shows the warping damage from constant heat/UV damage from almost 15 years of high altitude flights; averaging about 175 hrs a year. On the ground away from home the plane was always covered. When I originally sent mine to Aerocomfort I was concerned I had a unrepairable glareshield and would need to purchase a very expensive new one. They performed a miracle though. I don't have a picture of the front side but it just shows the leather shrinking up over the edges and some fading. The new Ultrasuede fabrics are supposedly shrink proof.

Perhaps even more importantly, whenever you see TIT climb above 1450F in climb, the low boost should come on. All of these are too suppress vapor formation in the lines (vapor lock) as the fuel is being sucked up from the engine driven pump at high FF into hot heat soaked engine compartment. Usually this use is recommended only as needed as stated by Continental in their Operators manual, but Mooney seems a bit unique in suggesting this a normal procedure. The truth it is should only be necessary for a heat soaked engine and once cooled down in cruise (assuming not running it real hard) the low boost should be able to safely turned off. There is one more usage of the TN low boost for in-flight non-emergency conditions that also applies all the big bore Continental installations: changing tanks, just like most lycomings.

Growing up in the LA basin I had no idea Cal was also big in San Diego and Phoenix! Even more impressive but being a little kid then I knew nothing of aviation but sure liked his pets. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Be sure to read the POH, especially the systems section. And any good transition training CFI will/should clarify this as well as cover emergency procedures and ensure you have a good checklist tailored for the equipment in your plane.

It was in the shop for most of a week. They smoothed out or flattened quite a bit of warping from prior leather covering from 2003 that had shrunk quite a bit. Now they use Ultrasuede fabric that does not shrink yet has the look and feel of leather. My cost was $575 + shipping.

I just got mine back from Aerocomfort. Mine was in far worse condition than yours though and came back looking great. See http://aerocomfort.com/

Are the kids to short for the shoulder belts in the back seat or is that an illusion? Great to break them in young though. Any of them want to be a pilot yet? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you have any kind of warranty from the engine or cylinder overhauler, their opinion is the only one that matters. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The other way around, the model numbers are confusing since KFC200 pre-dates the KFC150. The KFC150 evolved from the 200, then the 150 was followed by the digital 225 - which is the ideal one to have but needs a newer model Mooney to get.

With three senders per tank it should work fine. Problem is the factory set up only has 2 senders per tank and the Monroy extended tank STC does not add support for a 3rd sender - so he'll have to get approval for installing a third sender. With just 2 senders though it won't be perfect since the extended tank is further outboard and behind the main tank. Exactly how much fuel that has be drained or burned from a full extended tank before the outside sender starts starts to register a drop is still an unknown for me with my 2 sender Monroy configuration. ( Long story but I still haven't been able to move onto fuel calibration till the shop & JPI resolve fluctuating readings on my left side -right side is good. JPI took responsibility week before last and provided a firmware fix pretty quickly but it didn't fix it and shop has been given a list of additional checks they should be looking at today). But when we get past this, the 2 sender CIES/EDM-900 configuration is still going to be far better than the factory gauges since we'll be able to calibrate the system to indicate actual fuel on board much higher than just the half tank level I had with factory gauges and I expect probably not more than the last ~5 gallons per side from full will be indistinguishable from the 2 sender system. But that's just a guess till we get to move onto calibration.

If you go the GDL-39, consider the GDL-39R remote mount for a clean hidden install with an external antenna. But they should verify you won't have any bluetooth connectivity issue on their intended install location before they install it. GDL-88 is somewhat obsoleted by the GTX-345 which also provides bluetooth connectivity and will integrate ABS-B in wx & traffic with your 430W. In fact it includes everything the FS does except for flight plan sync which keeps the FS210 still desirable. But of course its a big jump in cost from the GDL-39 or 39R to the GTX-345 and the GDL will give you all the same products on your iPad, just not the panel 430W which frankly has limited display capability anyway.

Don is right on, the technique you describe is for a Lycoming so I assume you formerly flew something like a Lyc IO-360. The Continentals have different procedures and need a number of seconds to prime. I use the same 6 sec that Don refers too above. A good review of your POH should be a big help.

There are lots of threads of this topic on Mooneyspace. Google is your friend, start with this one: In all likelihood your conduits covering cables has disintegrated and if so these are available from Precise Flight. You can see the cables in your gear wells.

I continued to be delayed frequently. But usually the delay is much shorter than prior to being instrument capable and flying a well outfitted aircraft. But even as a IFR pilot I still have you beaten on delays by a long shot. My biggest delay comes from one winter when I was down in Monterrey Mexico and I wanted to head home but south Texas was having a major ice storm that went on for weeks. I am not FIKI and couldn't see how to get into Texas where I was pretty constrained with my first airport of landing for customs. Since to my west, I had a large mountain range with no weather info my only way around the weather was to go south before I could west and back up to CA. But I just needed to get back to work at this point we took a commercial flight home. The drive would have been 2-3 long days. It wasn't till a couple weeks later the ice storms left and we spent a weekend to fly back to Monterrey commercially, and fly our Mooney home. Most other delays have been hour or two waiting for ceilings to come high enough to allow for a return landing versus waiting most of the day which often would have likely cancelled the flight when originating from home or added needless time to our trip. With out a doubt, it has greatly enhanced our dispatch-ability. But as for safety the many prior post quoting the accident stats speak for themselves and we all agree for the most part those are avoidable with better ADM. So there is no reason to be bummed. I know many VFR only pilots that are very safe pilots. Do I believe they could be better pilots if they were IFR trained? In many respect yes, but not in all ways. For the record, I feel a lot of instrument pilots are a bit short on aerodynamics and stall/spin training concepts; even CFI's sadly. But if I was going to pick on any one sector of the pilot community I would hazard that the instrument rated pilot that has not been current for years is the more likely pilot to get into wx related accident from being overly confident in their abilities.

I can't say with certainty, but if they did, Avidyne would be the first to do so. So far to my knowledge only charted departure procedures are included in the database. You have to manually set up the ODP's in your flight plans.

Since you had a recent top done, be sure the intra-cylinder baffles are all in place properly so that air is not lost without going through the cylinder fins. Also as Peter said above, make sure your take off full power fuel flow is up to spec. For the 310 HP, we (at Savvy) want to see 0.5 to 1.0 above TCM's spec or the Mooney STC AFMS higher number which is 27.4 GPH - so we prefer 27.9 to 28.4 GPH to help with cooling.

Quite interesting but after doing a little research its looking a bit sensationalized. For example from 8900.1 http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.6,Ch1,Sec4 its also says regarding part 91 ramp checks: 1) An inspector must not open or board any aircraft without the knowledge and consent of the crew or owner/operator. Some operators may prefer to have a company representative present to answer questions.