kortopates

If I understand you correctly, the date information is still there in two places. See the top right hand corner of Chris GP chart - "16259". The 16259 is the chart date code for 2016, day 259 of 365/366. The second date is much more readable on the lower left bottom. It shows "Amdt 1b 15Sept16". So although it doesn't show the print cycle, it shows the revision date of the chart. FWIW, Jepp charts do not have a print cycle - just a revision date.

I popular option near me for exhaust repair work is http://www.customaircraft.com/ But they are not an FAA repair station, so you will not get a 337 form back with the repair. They actually used to be years ago, but the FAA requirements to separate their experimental work from certified work made it too difficult for them and they dropped their FAA status. So you would have to rely on your A&P's approval of the work. I will add they do a lot of repairs for certified aircraft including even the military. Plus they have made the very repair you need now a number of times - unfortunately its very common. Make sure the installer follows the maintenance manual on re-installing the heat shield not to tighten both fasteners tightly; one side needs to have some play as the exhaust pipe expands with heat.

I don't expect too, just informally to help out some from time to time. My thought exactly!!

The Chinese Mooney brochure is out and attached. About 7 of your photo's were used - sorry they weren't larger photo's. These used include: N111ZX (APTUS Pilot), N706WC (Whiskey Charlie), N694KT (Rszent), N57CV (jacnolasco) and even last minute addition G-OBAL (Hyett6420), Maggie II (Mooney Girl) and my N252AV. These are all on page 30 of the brochure. mooney brochure.pdf

All of the very few people I knew that installed a wet vacuum pump never got anywhere near 2000 hrs on it. But I am kidding a bit, because they all went back to the dry pumps since they got tired of cleaning up the oil that the wet pump constantly leaked onto the belly. Therein is the con, they are very messy. You may not care but you should be aware. If you can, talk to your mechanic and other local pilots and you may be able to look at a local plane that uses one so you can see one for yourself. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Congrats! Now comes the fun part and the hard part - staying proficient. Don't loose those partial panel skills you worked so hard to get - your life could depend on them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1 Furthermore, have you considered how expensive it would be to even move the heavy equipment from Kerrville to China? Then you still need the technical capability of Kerrville's staff to build them. Then you'll need Chinese production authority for the Mooney TCDS - which is no easy task and probably more expensive their than here at this time. At even much improved production levels than current it just doesn't make any sense; especially at less than a couple planes per month. I am not at all privy to such information, but I doubt the factory is profitable yet; especially with all the capital improvements Dr Jerry Chen made to get the production line moving again with greater efficiency. Certainly, plane sales are not funding the design/engineering team working to get the M10 production certificate in Chino, nor is it supporting the similarly sized team in China preparing to introduce the M10 and M20 to the Chinese market. That's all funding provided by Veronica's Meijing Group. So personally I think we have much to be thankful for regardless if we see much M10 production in the US after China gets approval. But foremost we need to see Mooney become profitable again soon just to ensure continued support and production of our M20's. A lot is resting on getting the M10 approved and too market.

What I am trying to suggest is different perspective that rather than looking at trends or peaks of individual values or channels like CHT, that you need to look at the data in terms of how different parameters behave relative to something else. Because so much is interrelated, we have to recognize very few single sensor values are important independently; especially with respect to their absolute values. An example is EGTs, we don't really care what their actual values are - they aren't even a real measurable physical phenomenon, like Cylinder temperature. Instead EGT is a measure of the exhaust gases for only a very small period of every 2 crankshaft revolutions when the exhaust valve has briefly opened. They aren't anywhere near the temperature of actual combustion. But what makes them important is their temperatures relative to peak. The next thing to realize which goes against the value of just tracking trends, is that because everything is so interrelated we really find very little diagnostic capability by just monitoring cruise data statistics. In order to really learn about how our engine is doing we need to fly some specific kinds of regimens that allow us to look at different things in isolation. Some examples of this are mixture and ignition. We may see things in cruise that make us suspicious of one of the other but to apply the science so to speak we can tell much more when we collect data for a specific flight profile that allow us to isolate exactly what we want too see. So next to actually see how we put this to practice I suggest you read this primer at Savvy on in-flight-diagnostics. It will step you through the big ones. (Of course I am largely simplifying, there are some exceptions to the above, but that's the big picture.) After that I suggest you read any of the many find articles available to you on the internet for free. This includes John Deakin's Pelican Perch articles on Avwebs, Mike Busch's article on Avweb, and in the EAA monthly magazine and all of webinar's archived on EAA's site, and lastly but not least the Advanced Pilot Seminar site. The latter site has an excellent online and in-person class you can take that Paul above also recommended. But I would encourage you to read all about mixture, how it affects the combustion timing and especially from the perspective of ICP (or Internal Cylinder Pressure). By doing so, you'll also learn the relationships between EGT, CHT. ICP, HP and BSFC - just google "Red Box" if the latter is new too you and you'll find some good articles with the graphs to show these together. With that knowledge I think you'll want to concentrate more on actually periodically capturing data for what Savvy refers too as the Savvy test Profile. Savvy didn't invent it, but they put the simple instructions together and that's the kind of data IMO you want to collect and monitor for changes in lieu of crunching cruise data. Hope that helps your perspective on how to use the data and as a disclaimer one of my jobs is that I work for Mike B at Savvy.

If you think $50K is over priced, you should see the for $60K one I just looked at for a friend. Great paint and interior with only 400 hrs on the engine but old tired avionics yet a STEC AP. I get the impression you guys would give it the thumbs down too? [emoji107]I don't have a link to it but it's based at KSEE. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Allow me to ask if you are already familiar with how to analyze your data? I. e. How you would use it to assess your mixture or the health of your ignition system, or your induction system or even the health of your valves? I ask because the really big ticket items can't be assessed by merely watching trends. If not I can point you to some stuff that will help. But for starters normal cruise flight data isn't all the interesting. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The concept of selling Mooney's to flight schools is exactly what Mooney is designing and building their new composite diesel powered M10J and M10T for. But at least initially, their immediate goal is for the Chinese training market where the perceived market demand is much higher than here. Their role there is not limited to manufacturing trainers either as they are investing in being able to provide pilot training and fleet maintenance management much like a FBO as well. As the GA pilot community grows, the hope is our Kerrville M20's will then be marketable to a growing number of Chinese pilots with excess disposable income. The M20 is already slated for a large flying club based in Beijing, (which currently is only large in members but small in planes inventory). The long term plans goes much further beyond that too. I know all of us here in America only think about Kerrville's M20 production, but the priority right now is in positioning Mooney to become a market leader in the GA explosion which is about to take off in China. I have to caveat this, as it is my opinion only since I am not and can not speak for Mooney. I am only a pilot that spent 3 months flying for and working with their Chinese team in China and is hoping to see them entirely successful as you all are. But with that success and seeing this business line become profitable I believe we can then look forward to seeing new innovations in the high performance M20 aircraft and even new designs come from Mooney as it builds on its success.

Also if the horn was pulsating on and off that would be the gear horn; if you can remember it.

Thanks for the offer. A month ago i would jumped all over that. I like being able to offer other countries too. Although I haven't herd back where they are on this right now, I think they are past the immediate need for material. But soon as I know more, and learn that they can use more I'll let you know. Right now they are just going home from what must be Asia's largest annual airshow - kinda like our Oshkosh. Thanks again, its much appreciated!

Not doubting you, but that's crazy. And surprising since we all know you must be the most savvy guy on Mooney space when it comes to panel upgrades, having purchased and sold more airplanes than I can count and probably doing upgrades on most of them if not all. I'd think the avionics businesses would give you the royal kit glove treatment when you walk in - you must be the last customer any of them would want to loose! Look forward to hearing how they work out for you.

Yes, here are two images below that I scraped from an iPad with Garmin Pilot. the first shows the approach plate loaded. Its in split screen mode but that can easily changed to just the map as shown in the second image. The later has the airport diagram instead superimposed on the map along with extended center lines to all runways (another purely optional feature). Sorry there is no traffic on these and the only wx I could overlay was metar info. Garmin was the first to utilize the vector graphics for GA since they came out with their portable GPS's and their first panel unit, the MX20 MFD, to display moving maps, charts, weather and traffic when their GPS's lacked the graphics capabilities to do so. So they have been employing this technology long before anyone else in GA. To the best of my knowledge this technology first began in the early 80's pioneered for military mission planners with the advance of fast graphics workstations (e..g. the original SUN workstations). It was revolutionary in the early 80's. And now after 30+ years its made it all the way to masses on cheap tablet and phone apps. Yet I think there are some people that still prefer the old raster graphics.

The s/w updates from Garmin are free. Shops are allowed to charge money for their minimal time to upload the new firmware and print you out a new copy of the garmin AFMS for your POH. But of all the avionics shops I have worked with not one has ever charged me a penny to do so. I'd bet any shop selling and installing a FS210 would have done this automatically as a matter of course. No one purchasing a new Flight Stream is likely going to have the latest firmware on their GPS to support any new product interfaces including Flightstream. Although still very capable boxes, I agree the GNS series is getting long in the tooth. But to suggest there hasn't been any upgrades to them is false. They are still actively supported devices with updates every year. We've seen very recent upgrades for LP approaches a number of times (due to changing requirments from the FAA) as well as enhancements to support the final ADS/B position source requirements so they can be used to provide position source to an ADS/B out device. There is still only one WAAS approach type that the GNS series can not fly that the newer GTN boxes can, the RF leg approaches. Last I heard the Avidynes do not support RF leg approaches either. I wouldn't worry though, as they are currently very rare for now. I certainly understand the appeal to upgrade with minimal install cost that doesn't require re-wiring. And of course I think Garmin really blew it by not doing what Avidyne simply did. In my case I installed new GTN's because I wanted to clean up the wiring for a new G500 install and I didn't want to spend the money on cleaning up and re-wiring my old GNS boxes & AP after so many modifications over the years.

I haven't tried it, but a pre-requisite of enabling the cross-fill capability between Garmin boxes is that they both have to be using identical databases. For cross-filling between the Garmin Pilot ipad app and the Garmin panel units you have to load the ipad with jepp nav-data to essentially sync the ipad DB with the avionics DB. Don't know how its handled in Foreflight other than I am sure both units must be communicating with the same database versions. That seems very logical and reasonable to ensure your certified GPS isn't allowed to become corrupted or broken in flight by allowing our ipads to pass unrecognized data to them. I seriously doubt it. Sync'ing is at the flight plan level only. A string of waypoints in the flight plan is merely a series of Lat/Longs that box calculates distance and heading between and primarily just has to model how to turn based on whether its a "fly over" or "fly by" waypoint. Approaches are much more complicated than a series of waypoints and there are many different kinds of approach waypoints since in the most simplistic terms they are are 3 dimensional and have lots of other approach considerations such as meeting criteria to ARM the approach arriving at the FAF etc.. Just try deleting certain waypoints out of an approach - editing of approaches is very limited. What you can do is select an approach and an IAF. You can then activate it by going to direct to any way point outside of the FAF but you can't edit an approach like you can a route. That would break them and likely create discontinuities (a term the old CNX480's used) . It seems very reasonable though that if our ipad allowed us to select an approach and where to start it within limits, that could be passed to the certified GPS. But I'd expect all the limit checking would be redundant with the certified GPS probably preventing the practicality of us seeing it. I am puzzled by this. WingX also has this feature which is one I use but I never saw any value it the feature. In my ipad app, I have the route loaded, typically just as I filed it to an IAF to start the approach and nothing more after that than the airport. Once I have loaded the approach on the panel GPS I'll also have the geo-referenced approach plate loaded loaded on the ipad showing my location on the approach plate. How would loading the specific approach waypoints on the iPad help? They are already all shown on the plate with my position so I can only see the value of the specific waypoints sequenced on the ipad if the ipad wasn't already displaying the chart with my position. My nav data for time to the next waypoint, track info etc is all on the panel GPS. Frankly I am too busy flying the approach to use the ipad for anything more than displaying my geo-referenced approach plate with position at this point.

Not at all true Paul, Foreflight makes no such claim. What they did do was introduce vector graphics to provide a world map - finally. Its a great start but something that Garmin Pilot has always had; except for very large airport database which appears much larger than other base product. I for one, also commend them on integrating airport diagrams into world map. That is very slick feature. But Foreflight's international planning capability is still in its infancy unlike Garmin pilot. Just look at their IFR nav-data charting options. Its limited to the US and Canada; the latter for another $100 (which is very reasonable). It takes much more than a world map to support flying. So far Garmin Pilot is the only iPad app that uses Jepp nav-data and therefore can provide the most complete and current nav-data for almost any country you want to add support for. Give Foreflight more time though and I am sure they will eventually get there too. I prefer the Garmin interface, but the more successful apps there are the more innovation we all will benefit by.

Difficult?? Not at all, nor should you need the "advanced" holding feature of the GTNs or Avidyne. Its as simple as what Jose describes above. Plus its how you should be able to one on your own to be proficient enough to get a IPC signoff. It will work with just about any GPS because its the same way we did it with VORs (except we can do it on any GPS waypoint as easily as if it was a VOR). The only reason IMO that the "advanced" holding feature of the GTN's and Avidyne are even useful is to allow your autopilot to fly them for you; assuming you have the rest of the hardware to do so. But hopefully you have learned how to hand fly them (i.e. how to enter a hold) maintain proficiency before you rely on your AP. I am certainly not meaning to pick on any one but its critical for all of flying in the system to know how to use our equipment, and not become dependent on it.