kortopates

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.

That was pretty easy to miss. I really doubt he was asked to read back the ODP, I have never heard that being done before and I have heard a number of visiting pilots that have needed to ask tower, ground or clearance delivery, to read it too them and that's all they do. Good point about VFR departure procedures at class B & C airports. I haven't done one of those in a long long time VFR, but its a real clearance, at least in Class B, and one that a VFR pilot can't look up so I assume that makes the read back necessary. S r i r a m and a M20J owner from LVK is familiar. I think my wife and I may have met you hiking around Mammoth Lakes area, this would have been many years ago - maybe a decade ago! Hi.

1) Towered fields with a TRACON. I can't say for every TRACON, but here in SOCAL that is the norm for the airports I frequent. They will either instruct you to fly the ODP or they provide an alternative such a fly a heading. 2) Non-towered with a TRACON, such as the same airports after the tower is closed. SOCAL doesn't as consistently reference the ODP as the tower does. But as you say, its our responsibility to look it up and fly it since it could be a while before we are talking to a TRACON or ARTCC. 3) uncontrolled field under ARTCC. I agree, I have never seen a center reference an ODP in this case. Its our responsibility to look it up and fly it till center gives us a vector.

83 years old

I think you may be confusing the "departure" procedure (although they called it "departure clearance") with the IFR clearance. They already stated the pilot had to read back his IFR clearance multiple times. I don't know if your instrument rated or not, but I'll answer as if you were not so anyone that is not will better understand the significance of this. His IFR clearance would have just begun with "Cleared to San Jose Airport via the Riverside Obstacle Departure procedure ..... followed by his route etc. Its the pilots responsibility to have the necessary documentation on board and know how to look the ODP up. We're told he bought charts at the FBO, suggesting he isn't using an iPad with all of this information available to him. So if he bought the approach plates Iam not sure why he couldn't find the ODP in the Takeoff Mins & ODP section or he may simply have forgotten where to find the ODP's. Regardless, he got to the runup area and couldn't look up the ODP and had to ask tower to read him the "departure" = ODP. If you don't have it on board, then tower will read it to us. That's what the report is telling us when they said they read it too him. He simply didn't have it or didn't know how to find it. As peevee says above, this is really not what you would expect from a current ATP rated pilot. Nor should the taxi clearance have been challenging at this airport, although depending on where he was parked,if it was at near the terminal or transient, his clearance would been which taxiway (e.g. H or G) to get on to taxiway A and then all the way to end of A to threshold. Good thing he was departing from a towered field or he may have needed to call FSS to get them to read it. I pasted the ODP below, he was departing from Rwy 9 and in all likelihood upon reaching PDZ he wouldn't be going east but west and would be climbing on course; thus not have to contend with the hold. Regardless though soon as he checked in with SOCAL and was at their MVA they'd be vectoring him on his way. DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 9, climb heading 089° to 1700 then climbing right turn heading 210° to intercept PDZ VORTAC R-093 to PDZ VORTAC, thence … Rwy 27, climb heading 269° to 2200 then climbing left turn direct PDZ VORTAC, thence … Rwy 34, climb heading 344° to 1800 then climbing left turn heading 230° to intercept PDZ VORTAC R-352 to PDZ VORTAC, thence … ... Aircraft departing PDZ VORTAC R-091 CW R-140 and R-231 CW R-280 climb on course. All others climb in holding pattern (hold NE, right turns, 210° inbound) to cross PDZ VORTAC at or above; R-321 CW R-340 7800; All others 7200 or airway MEA.

I responded on MAPAlist as to why I agreed with your mechanic on it being the gauge. Even a pinch in the line isn't going to block 1800+ psi of pressure from getting to the gauge. I suggest checking with salvage yards for a replacement. I have not looked up the park number but I suspect it will be the same gauge used in the same O2 Mooney systems used in many of the models K, M, R & TN and therefore not bravo specific and thus a bit easier to find. No, you will not need to drain the tank to replace the gauge. Your mechanic will simply disconnect the HP line from the regulator on the tank. A HP needle valve on the regulator will prevent the air from escaping the tank (just like a bicycle tube stem valve). Yes, their is a mil standard teflon tape specific for O2 applications that is reference in the Mooney service manual. My recollection is that the standard has been superseded by a newer one, but you'll find with a little searching its commonly available - even on amazon. But there is also a small o-ring that goes on the end of the HP line that inserts into the O2 regulator that should be replaced when the line is opened up. That can be found in your mooney IPC (illustrated parts catalog). In fact, searching on MS you'll find I cited the O-ring part # on another thread about O2 leaks for a K model; but best to verify what your IPC says.

The Prelim on this came out on this yesterday: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170227X34320&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA No mention on a possible miss-fueling. But they did verify the pilot was the 83 year old ATP pilot and registered owner (therefore we assume is PPL wife was not the pilot flying) and they describe the pilot's witnessed difficulty getting the left engine started after the right started. The most pertinent points they made in the report IMO was: " A preliminary review of ATC audio revealed that the controller issued an IFR clearance to the pilot multiple times before he repeated the instructions back to the controller correctly. Witnesses that were listening to the pilot's communications with ATC reported that the pilot required progressive taxi instructions to runway 09, the departure runway. Once the pilot reached the runway, the controller read the departure clearance to the pilot, verbatim. After an uneventful runway departure, the airplane began a left turn as it entered the clouds. A portion of the airplane's final moments of flight were captured by a surveillance video, which showed the airplane descend towards the ground in a slight left wing low attitude. The airplane disappeared behind a residence, which was immediately followed by the presence of fire and smoke." If you also add in what is only rumor at this time, but from comments made purportedly from someone working their, that when the pilot returned after an earlier attempt to depart with a IFR to VFR on top clearance, he went to the FBO to buy charts and asked the FBO how to file an IFR flight plan. This strongly implys he had not intended to make any IFR legs on this trip from SJC and even worse, implying the pilot may have lacked any IFR recency in experience. Only rumor at this stage but the prelim does seem to corroborate to some degree. But its now going to be a year or more wait to get the final report. Also sadly, one of the two woman survivors of the crash died on the 7th. This was the mother that suffered 3rd degree burns over 90% of her body that was pulled out of the burning house: http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20170308/riverside-plane-crash-victim-stacey-pierce-dies

It is full of legalese but their intent is right on. It's written in a sense to throw lots of caution to an inexperienced pilots. But it also gives lots of flexibility to an experienced pilot that doesn't simple stay in icing till it's an emergency and always has planned to give themselves a realistic out never has to worry about being violated. I.e. If the planning and decision making where prudent one shouldn't have to worry if things should go upside down. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed but I think it's even simpler than that. Once you use your Mooney as the very capable x-ctry plane it is its no longer practical to just camp out unexpectedly for multiple days because there are clouds. As delays mount I suspect the typical pilot will feel the pressure mount to move on and then the risk taking begins. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, you mean 91.527? At first it may seem pretty clear, till you look for a definition of known ice or icing conditions. But you'll find the FARs are pretty silent on that. That came from their legal council in a Info interpretation letter a few years back. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sure where your bracket is mounted from your description but in all likelihood the required access is from below the aircraft after removing the belly pan. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can think of 3 other Mooney's in the Vegas area, including one guy that winters his plane in Boulder City. But none of them use a username based on their real names and don't remember their user names (don't recall any recent post by either of the 3 I am thinking of). But I also know there are more than that too. Sorry that's not much help other than saying there are quite a few there.

Turtle, You are making it more complicated than what it is. First, its important to understand that the K factor has nothing to do with your tank capacity - just treat it as an unknown (since it is, till you measure). But what's important is how much fuel has been added to the tanks versus what your GEM says it burned. But the only way to get good data for how much fuel you have burned versus how much fuel you added is to pick the most repeatable filling method you can. This is easiest if you just use the legal POH definition of "full" which if the bottom of the filler neck that you can see easily. Above that point is room for expansion and although you can easily add more fuel you can't be assured you are always filling it to the same point since air gets trapped inside and it can be difficult to burp it without taking some time. Once you know how to fill it so you can be confident each fill is identical in quantity then you'll be able to do this with minimum error. Your repeatable full point doesn't even need to be official full but it does have to be 100% repeatable by you. Next is put a spreadsheet together. Its silly and just adds error if you try to adjust your K factor on 10-20 gallons of fuel. Instead use a spreadsheet to track every time you added fuel and what your GEM recorded as burned via remaining fuel. This way you can re-zero the fuel burned to zero every time you fill it. After you have gone through about 100 gallons you are ready to re-calculate the K factor. Waiting till you have gone through 100+ gallons ensures a 1 gal discrepancy between fills will be only a 1% error. You should be able to fill it back to your identified full mark within 1 gal to get precise data. This is only critical wrt to being identically filled on the first fillup and the last fillup. All the other in between fills can be filled to anywhere you want by anyone. But the last one need to be done identically to the first one, so preferably by you at your home base self serve fuel island where you have the best chance of repeating the same fill point. FWIW, the JPI procedure has you only changing the K factor by 50% of the difference you re-calculate it each time. They have you do this because pilots tend to introduce a lot of error. If you do it as outlined with a 100 gal or more you should be very accurate as long as you can fill it accurately. As a separate data collecting exercise, I suggest at some point drain your tank completely, level it, add the amount of un-usable back in and then see how the actual capacity compares to the POH as you fill it and make yourself a calibrated dip stick. Fill it to the the bottom of the filler neck and see how close it comes to your POH capacity. You can then see how much additional fuel you can overfill it by or what it takes to make up any missing capacity.

Awesome!

You got the first sentence right Henry. But you should have stopped there!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Aspen EA100 adds any AP functionality that the AP doesn't already have unless you count GPSS. It doesn't even add Flight Director functionality to AP that don't already have it. You'll still have altitude hold and attitude hold, but not Alt Pre-select which is an altitude to climb or descent too. The Garmin GAD-43E is as close as you can get to transforming your AP to the functionality of their GFC-700 AP. Edit: Ah, I stand corrected. Aspen offers a separate add on for Altitude Preselect but only for the KFC200 AP and for another $1500 on top of the EA100 ($2800).