kortopates

Doesn't appear that you were getting a accurate oil temperature. Whenever you see escalating oil temp in the air look at oil pressure to collaborate. With those temperatures you would see oil pressure falling into the yellow arc and certainly not holding steady in the green/normal range. If OP is falling too, then you do need to be immediately concerned. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brass makes good sense when you consider the clutch needs to be sacrificed in lieu of damaging the electric gear if it becomes mistakenly or unknowingly engaged (by typically a rear seat pax). then when the pilot goes to retract the gear electrically and the binding caused gear actuator CB to pop damage should be limited to chewing up the clutch a bit rather than the gear. See post in the annual thread for more details if desired. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Curved approach paths There is more than one type of Approach with Curved Approach path - although the curved approach path segment is referred to an RF - or radius to fix leg. These are: RNAV RNP approaches. Currently all RNP approaches are AR or Authorization Required. Currently these are all RNP 0.15 and RNP 0.3 approaches which we can not do. However we are capable of RNP 1.0, but its doesn't make any sense to add RNP 1.0 approaches because WAAS approaches are essentially equivalent to RNP 0.3 - so I doubt we'll see RNP approaches we can do with our WAAS GPS since an LPV will provide lower minimums anyway). So currently we can only fly RNP terminal departure and arrival procedures (RNP 1.0 & higher). RNAV GPS approaches - We're beginning to see RF legs used in RNAV GPS approaches. These are not AR or Authorization Required (for us Part 91 operators) and thus we can fly them if we have the equipment to do so (as cited in the navigators AFMS). I have one locally at KCRQ RNAV GPS X 24 which is an LPV approach with a RF leg. Support for these RNAV GPS approaches with RF legs began with the Garmin GTN Navigators with the recent 6.x s/w release. As far as I know, that's the only navigator & s/w capable of flying them. Its also the only approach capability the GTN has over the GNS boxes. So with GNS boxes were limited ti flying the KCRQ RNAV GPS Y 24 which has the same LPV minimums as the Xray version of the approach. The Zulu version which is an RNP AR approach with RF leg has higher minimums than our Xray and Yankee approaches - so our WAAS approaches without AR win anyway! As for there practicality, the few I have seen thus far don't add any yet - at least not to us as pilots. But I expect that over time they will provide tangible benefits for us to airports with significant terrain or obstacle concerns. As for getting vectored past the RF leg to final anyway, we already know the term "never" has no use in aviation I routinely fly multi-leg approaches in my area of SOCAL. I'd say it varies based on the traffic demands of each approach and the controllers needs. It will even vary on the same approach at different times. Plus we can typically ask to fly the full approach for training and we often do with it being granted when traffic allows.

Your unit doesn't record data?

If the intended question was how high can the Ovation go, that's generally referred too as the Service Ceiling - which is actually the altitude at which Vy climb rate drops to 100FPM. Of course it will even go a bit higher to its Absolute Ceiling (max altitude the aircraft can sustain level fight) - but you likely won't find any data on that. The Service Ceiling though is in your POH and is just a bit over 20K Feet in ISA conditions at max gross. Critical altitude doesn't apply to normally aspirated engine since its the altitude ceiling at which the engine will no longer produce 100% power when exceeded - which is sea level for a NA aircraft. If you've only been up to 9 or 10K so far, you have lots of usable altitude above you but will need supplemental O2 to take advantage of it above 12.5K.

Regarding "WAAS in Europe is almost useless" I thought you folks have been getting EGNOS (your equivalent to WAAS that's compatible with WAAS receivers) deployed everywhere by 2016 and supposedly LPV deployed by 2018. I know it's been slow coming to you, but isn't the capability growing rapidly at this point? As for the policy, I have been very satisfied. I had Dual GNS430 installed before WAAS was available but Garmin promised us all to upgrade them within a couple days turn around time for discounted $1500 each - for a limited time of about a year or more. They were true to their promise including a new warranty of some kind. Only those that didn't do it while Garmin was set up to do the upgrades in mass forfeited the discount upgrade price and had to pay the $3K - which of course was factored in your used market price. Navigation Data for the GNS series had always been through Jepp - they are the originators of the data after all. Garmin didn't really get into the data side till the GTN series and can really only do it when you subscribe to updates for everything - which I have always felt is superfluous. Scorched terrain doesn't change that much and honestly I don't fly low enough to be concerned about obstacles. Anyway, data cost are what they are and not really do to Garmin but Jepp. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That attached photo shows my installation. It fits perfectly behind the emergency gear extension. But you could also mount it laterally further back per the Mooney drawing but then it impedes the rear pax foot space. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally wouldn't worry about the lost com scenario. Sure it's a real possibility and it's happens. In fact it's happened to me twice in my 26 yrs flying. First was my fault for not recognizing the alternator was not charging in a rental - till the battery discharged. Very stupid and very embarrassing on my part; especially since this was a night time IFR flight and everything went black instantly. But I did have the handheld at the ready and used it to return for landing and I was lucky enough to still be VMC before loosing all power. Second time I was VMC daytime and no big deal - squawk 7600 and look for a light signal for landing. Of course that wasn't a com loss due to power loss but an intercom failure (that supposedly has a fail safe mode). Anyway, what I am leading up too is the following comment or opinion - it's nice to have the handheld and ability to plug my headset into it. But it's way down on my priority list. If I've also lost instruments, or my AP and not VMC I am not going to reach for the radio, but I will squawk 7600, if I can, and fly the plane. I know they'll clear traffic out of the way for me and my #1 job is to fly the plane till we're down safely. I am not too worried about ATC or even tower - and even less so if I am confident they know I lost comm; from squawking 7600 or from being on an IFR flight plan. My first plane had a splitter installed on one of the nav/com antennas which allowed me to hook my handheld into the ships antenna. It makes a big difference but if I need to fly the plane I am most likely not going to bother with it unless I have help on board. I never needed it. Anyway, just my thoughts on why lost comm is pretty low on my list if I also need to be flying the plane. To put it another way M201ktTurbo has his priorities exactly right by practicing and maintains his Partial Panel skills Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Practice partial panel approaches!! Know how to use your panel mounted IFR GPS data to maintain heading in the form of DTK vs TRK instead of just relying on the compass with lead, lag and acceleration errors. It makes it easy to fly partial panel to ATP standards with some practice. Terribly sad that the Bonanza pilot was ATP rated, past CFI etc yet managed to over stress the airframe so quickly. Practice Partial Panel!!! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know what model you have but there is a drawing for installing one with parts list in my Mooney IPC (illustrated Parts Catalog). Which is on the floor in the back row middle - easily in reach from the front seat. Mine is installed there as well.

Reading this thread gives me the sense that folks expectations on the cost of WAAS upgrade are way under reality. I would estimate more like $40K and up. Its not going to happen for $20K. This shouldn't be a surprise. G1000 were used on many airframes that have already been through this. Take Cessna for example; it cost $20K back in 2007 for the upgrade kit that included 2 GIA 63W - which are the main guts of the G1000 which include the entire nav/com/GPS and data aggregation services. Now fast forward to more recent Mooneys equipped with the G700 AP that Mooney has certified and began offering kits in 2013. One MS'er reported cost at $29K for the upgrade w/o vertical approach capability and $35K for with vertical approach capability in 2014. Its 2016 now and Mooney has yet to test the system with the STEC AP - you know the cost is going up from 2014 prices since it requires additional testing for the STEC AP. Personally, I'd think as the price climbs closer to $50K its going to make more economic sense to yank the G1000 and replace it with its equivalent in the form of a G500/600 with a pair of GTN navigators, GTX345 (or substitute another manufacturer's equivalent boxes) and a approved for Primary engine analyzer and modern digital backup instrument(s) - because that's about what a full premium panel would cost including a 337 field approval. I know we haven't seen it happen yet, but I bet its coming.

Its possible in that Continental allows it and provides guidance on how to alter that engine data tag in the field (unlike Lycoming whom does not allow it), but its not practical as it would require altering the engine so that it entirely conformed to the MB specification which would include at least the exhaust, induction, intercooler, controller, wastegate, and starter adapter and probably much more. It would likely take salvage parts to make it even possible from a dollars standpoint and then you have the 262 STC for the airframe which I don't think anyone is providing anymore. Much easier to upgrade by trading up.

The 231 with the Merlyn is not a automatic controller - its still a manual controller - it just gets rid of the fixed bolt wastegate replacing it with a pneumatically controlled wategate. But it does raise the birds critical altitude substantially. You can still overboost and still need to continue to adjust the throttle to maintain a target MAP as ambient air pressure or anything else changes (such as while climbing or descending) but its still far from the hydraulically controlled automatic wastegate used on the -MB and -SB engines that is a "set and forget" controller that will not overboost and really reduces pilot workload. The MB engine provides a critical altitude of 23K and service ceiling of 28K.. The later TSIO-360-MB & -SB also include a tuned induction system and many of them have dual alternators. Also the 252 were equipped as standard with all of the optional upgrades on the 231 including electric standby vacuum, built-in O2 systems, prop de-ice and speed brakes and rear folding bucket seats. The dual alternators and electric standby vacuum really adds to their redundancy for IFR flying and the dual 28v 70 amp alternators allow them to FIKI equipped. Plus 252's are field upgradeable to the Encore version to increase max gross weight by an additional 230 lbs. Perhaps your best bargain out there is to get the 262 which is a 231 converted to the -MB engine rather than finding one with added merlyn and intercooler. Then you'll have most of the benefits minus the 28V system and dual alternators and perhaps some other optional items. However, if you don't think you'll ever get above your present altitudes of 10-12K there is no point in going turbo. You'd be better off in a NA engine model.

Only need the special tool to do the nose wheel. Weight on mains is sufficient to compress the mains and it's faster that way. Be sure to inspect the inside bottom of the tower that holds them though since corrosion is very common there. LASAR sells rebuilt ones if you need them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every avionics or radio switch I have seen has to be pulled out before it will change positions. I think your recent experience just showed why they are done that way you just need the proper switch so that won't happen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Personally I think you just got yours for below market price; especially with an engine below mid time. Although lack of modern avionics is big part of its low price. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you referring to the 3rd gear door that closes with both gear down and up - assuming yours has 3 doors? If so, I would avoid that. A spring to the door keeps the bell crank moving in the proper way, without it it could bind. So I'd recommend testing it on jacks first and watching it closely Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But when you consider that you loose everything in the Aspen should you loose air-data (e.g. Frozen pitot tube - maybe pitot heat has failed); your second aspen won't help you either. Now what do you do without anything? But another non-aspen attitude indicator would save the day.

Well said [emoji4] On the other hand when I first got my PPL we had no such thing as GPS in the cockpit either. I like to think I paid my dues that go round. I'm now in the camp if there easy anything that will make me competent, but also help push the cart at the same time I'm all for it.. -Tom Absolutely, that's great for training since those skills are critical. But then so is using proper procedures for flying approaches with the AP. But after training, one is going to want to avoid all but the easiest IFR weather flying single point without the AP. Don't wait till turbulent IMC and you need to divert to another airport alone and no AP to make that point very clear. It would become really hard to stay ahead of the aircraft in a prolonged IMC situation even in smooth air.

Although the duel mag has its own set of challenges, separate mags still have a single point of failure in the drive. And yes, it can be converted but at considerable expense best offset while performing an overhaul. What single point of failure are you thinking of with the 2 separate mags? The idler gear? Pretty catastrophic to both mag set-ups. I am probably missing your point but just see the 2 mags in providing added redundancy for some but maybe not all failure points of the Dual Mag What I find ironic is that it's generally not one of the mags that fails in the Dual mag, but most common catastrophic failure we hear is the entire dual mag assembly falling off that usually was fine except for its securing hardware. The redundancy it provides is probably fine except for its apparent ease in coming loose. Yet it's really rare to hear of a single mag coming loose - but I doubt it's because it's less of an event since it too will lead to a loss of oil pressure pretty soon. My thought is it probably would have been fine if it was more reliably secured to the case as our single mags seem to be.

Are you looking at Gordon's 231 at MYF?

Suggest you check the logs to see who did the last annual first. But CrownAir is the only MSC in SD and I recommend them if they didn't do the last annual. Which model? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it has to be the Flightstream 210. The airways routing is represented as a series of fixes which of course isn't a problem for the 430/530's that doesn't know airways. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are two different items being installed here and actually only the Guardian docking mount is really being installed. So the mount installation is the only item needing approval. That's my take anyway.

Great story Amelia, but you left me curious of the details between headed VFR south at 2500' and at least 1400' below the bases and suddenly thick mixed ice! Did you hit much lower ceilings or climb up for your IFR clearance or maybe I missed something; especially since you mention a descent too. Good move though and sorry for your loss. Btw, don't forget the prop heat although I am sure you didn't. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk