kortopates

That's highly unusual that a seller would help subsidize PPI cost. Heck, many brokers squawk very loudly at even taking the plane off field for a PPI in fear of the possible cost they may incur to get it back if something goes wrong away from their home base. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Kortopates. I didn't know you could do a one time STC with the help of a DER. I spoke to the original installers today, and they will make an appointment to get a FAA Field Approval. I'm just hoping this works, otherwise I might have to pull out the HID's and intall LED's to make it legal. I'm told the FAA in Georgia is General Aviation friendly. Thanks again for your assistance. That's great news and really the best way to resolve this. The shop should not have any problem getting a field approval since the STC covered the K whose airframe is identical to the J model. ( and the F model too). You misunderstood John though - he has an F model that he installed the Ovation wing light housing into his F wing and then installed HID's into the housing. His field approval may be helpful if your lights are also in the wing which I am assuming they are. But your installer really won't have a problem getting approval with the Precise lights. The FAA is much less sympathetic with folks that buy unapproved HID's when there are approved options available and then want their help to install - that's when they don't care but you're not doing that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paul, JPI provided me with a snubber valve that fixed the fluctuating MAP problem several years ago. Chasing a different problem (OP, as I recall) I shipped them the unit and the transducers. While they had the unit they updated the firmware which was nice in that the new ver. allowed flipping the RPM & MAP displays. Do you know if they have to have the unit to update firmware? I know with the non-TSO'd units that the firmware can be updated in the field quite easily - because I have done it multiple times. But I can't say for sure on the the TSO'd units but I haven't updated one them yet and since they have locked down a lot of what used to be configurable claiming it would violate their TSO requirements it makes me wonder. They certainly have the means to support it but it would probably take a call to JPI to verify. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suggest making an appointment at your local FSDO to get their advice for options here. There is always the option of getting a one time STC with the help of DAR but it will cost $. LED's are an option too but not cheap and a significant down grade. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With so many different options for iPad mounts, cases and glare protection it's not surprising many of the combinations used are prone to overheating. But given so many of us don't have overheating problems I do believe if you select all your accessories carefully with regarding to overheating you should avoid this issue; even if you have it always on and charging - just in case you do need it as a backup unexpectedly. Mine is securely mounted on the yoke with a MyGo flight mount in my personal aircraft, my preferred method, on Velcro'd around my thigh in students airplanes. Never a problem. I also use the MyGo Flight glass protector and glare shield. I know there are many others solutions that will work too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't go back to the original installer in GA to get the paperwork straightened out? That would be the most straightforward and logical approach unless there is more to the story? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Am I understanding the engine and prop haven't been been overhauled since 1970; thus 46 years old? If so I'd price it as a run out engine and prop. I personally wouldn't even fly it if the hoses are still that old till they are replaced. I'd doubt the engine would last more than a year due to corrosion if it's truly that old with so much time sitting. But hope iam wrong but you'll find lots of stories here of people that suffered that fate. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Use the search function. This has been covered. You can send it in the OEM who will rebuild in about a week and at a great savings - you'll get the current production version too. The company's name is Globe motors. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aerodon's advice on adding FF to the JPI is spot on but also make sure the unit‭ has downloadable memory, preferably via USB, or its value will be severely limited. But it should still be upgradable or at least useable as a core for the 830 display which was ~$1200 the last time I noticed. Most installers do not shorten the harness, just bundle it up, so I would expect you'll be okay as long as it's in good shape. Or just buy a new harness, they are not expensive. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course, everyone's favorite blonde Mooney pilot!! [emoji846] and you got her out of Dan's 201 with the longer leg room to boot! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By the way, the lost display columns are almost always from an installer tightening the screws too tight and cracking it. They rarely fail otherwise. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While they have your unit be sure to talk to them about upgrading it to support FF and make sure it has downloadable memory on it too or it'll still be useless. You really can't record much useful info in the air. You need to fly it and then download the data on the ground and look it on your computer. As you talk to JPI, consider upgrading the display to the newer color 830 display. You can look on Spruce to check prices for any sensors including FF and the upgraded display which is a trade in and you will see all parts are cheaper through Spruce than JPI. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I only update the Nav Data through Jeppesen using their JDM software which painless. Terrain data, or scorched earth heights, just doesn't change much. Obstacles of course do, but frankly I am never that low except on takeoff and landing and don't really care. Your need very well be different.

First thing I would do is consult the IPC to see how the rear was configured from the factory in '63. If it did have a hat rack, now you know what parts you may need; especially plastic parts and you know you won't need any approval beyond A&P supervision and signoff to install. But if not you can look at the IPC for the C model too see what it would take to modify accordingly and again work with your A&P but he'll likely feel comfortable doing it as a minor mod especially if its done to Mooney's spec.

The "current" ICA is officially the one that Mooney published when the aircraft was manufactured. The manufacturer can update the ICA all they want after the aircraft has been manufactured but we are only obligated to follow the "current" which means current version at time of production. The point of the article is that the FAA legal counsel has ruled the manufacturer can not legally make updates that retroactively now apply to us. Only the FAA can do that in the form of an Airworthiness Directive (AD).

I what way do you believe that Mooney is obligated to provide updates to the ICA post production and in anyway make as owners in anyway obligated to follow them? The reasoning you are quoting all stems from the misunderstood term of "current" as used in the context of Section 91.409(f)(3) of the regulations, which permits the operator to rely on “the current inspection program recommended by the manufacturer.” The FAA chief legal counsel memo has held that "current" as referenced makes it clear this phrase means the program at the time it was initially published, and it does not include the subsequent amendments to the program. The chief counsel memo goes on to explain that "if "current" was allowed to mean an ongoing obligation, manufacturers unilaterally could impose regulatory burdens on individuals through changes to their inspection programs or maintenance manuals. In essence, they would be making rules that members of the public affected by the change would have to follow." Which thankfully the FAA realizes none of us really want. For a good read on this see: https://www.aea.net/AvionicsNews/ANArchives/LegalEaseSept09.pdf So clearly Mooney is not legally able to issue updates to the ICA that we are bound too. And although I am not an attorney, I have seen no valid argument so far that convinces me that Mooney has any legal obligation to provide a WAAS update based on ICA requirements or FARs. Their legal obligation may be limited to what marketing promises they make at the time of sale. But as Bob has pointed out, if such an obligation did exist, even these are likely no longer appliacable to the new Mooney company currently responsible. I think in truth, Mooney only has a moral obligation and one to maintain their marketing reputation. I certainly have no inside knowledge of their plans but I believe like most others here they will eventually get to it. But we have also seen Garmin provide an ADS-B solution for these with the Gtx-345 - it just needs the optional WAAS gps and will not entirely integrate its functionality till the G1000 can get the newer s/w which I presume won't be till the Mooney G1000 WAAS update. But meeting ADS-B compliance is doable right now. Which unfortunately kinds takes off some of the pressure for Mooney to certify the WAAS G1000 upgrade.

We see them both ways, higher and lower. I would never have them on my aircraft since with these you never know what the real CHT temperatures are. This problem of co-locating a heater element in the cylinder bayonet hole with a CHT probe has been solved by Tanis, which is what I use. But I don't know if they are compatible with your Reif but they just need 120v for the heater portion and Tanis makes them for all kinds of engine monitors and power sources. Here is an example of one of there threaded heater elemts with dual probe in K type probe http://www.tanisaircraft.com/tt02633-uk-115-50.html

No, 30 gals is the max additional for 252's & Encores because they all have speed brakes installed, but the 231's or pre '86 airframes without speed brakes will get 36 gals additional with the mod.

You may not really care, but when useful load is at a premium it pays off not to round off to whole numbers when doing your calculations since you will gain 15 lbs of payload with long range tanks filled. For example, using the proper fuel weight for 100LL your payload with standard tanks only filled is at 394.0 lbs and payload with long range tanks filled then becomes 219.4 or 15 lbs more than you were giving yourself. I'll personally take every pound i can since I rarely fly solo. My 252's useful load is 892 lbs with 115 ft3 O2 and all the other options including dual alternators. And about to grow by another 230 lbs max gross increase from the Encore mod. I keep my plane on a diet!!

Actually Mike, that wasn't in Slims upgraded 252 to Encore (which was sold to Henry) but in his new pressurized PT6 Meridian (or maybe Malibu) at the Grand Canyon airport taxing off the runway as you describe. I remember pretty well because I was next door hangar neighbors with Slim at MYF at the time - but this was over a decade ago!!

Finding problems early is when you can save yourself from big expenses later; such as corrosion. Plus the issue found early could save you from a real emergency in air later. Just saying but wanting to truly know the condition of my aircraft and intimately know it's systems is why I went to A&P school (nights after my engineering day job). Sorry, but I don't even know anyone that has used Foothill. I can only recommend CrownAir further south in San Diego. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very cool! Plus the chart can be displayed as overlay on the map or in split screen mode next too the map. Don, have you seen if the Jepp documentation also comes across into Garmin Pilot? (Wondering if I can ditch JeppFD?) Marauder, $149 for the entire US coverage is a good discount. I pay more just for the West but it includes displaying them on my panel so I get 4 devices. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with Andy that this is likely from operating at too high of TIT. I prefer to see TIT limited to below 1600 except for short periods during leaning or doing LOP mag checks etc. I don't know specifically about the exhaust part shown, but it's generally always more affordable to have it repaired by an aviation welder. They can replace whatever amount of material is needed to make it like new. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Both Voltage regulators are intended to be set to the same bus voltage. On a 14V system they should be set in the range of 13.8 to 14.1 V for battery longevity. That said, Alternator #2 will carry most of the load because it is belt driven and running at a higher RPM than the engine driven #1. But during your run up, part of your checklist is to fail #2 (by turning off the field rocker switch for #2) and you should see #1 pick up the load. Bus voltage should remain in the proper range above on either alternator alone.

I believe its a 1/2" to 3/8" adapter i.e. the male end is 1/2" ( not a 3/8" to 1/2" which has a 3/8" male end). Its mandatory to fit the 3/8" torque wrench into the 1/2" size gear rigging tool. But I don't recall mine changing the clock position - but I could be wrong since I have never really thought about it. I have always been able to put the torque wrench on at the 3'oclock position to the gear rigging tool on the mains (which is the only one of the two tools I use on mine).