kortopates

I've never seen anything like it either and wonder if its really approved. If you don't get a good answer soon, I'd recommend sending your picture to Continental tech support for their answer - or call them, but they may need the picture too. If its approved they'll have a name and a supplier and maybe service bulletin on its use. Here is their contact info: 800.326.0089 or 251.436.8292 or cmcustomersvc@cmg.aero

Sure, they still work without modification. But since they barely fit through the spark hole to begin with they aren't to mobile once they are in the plug hole. Therefore its best to dremel off the top protective plastic of the wand starting about a 1" above the camera and light. Then cover the exposed wires with heat shrink tubing. After doing so, you'll have much more side to side mobility to help you get better angles when the narrower wand is the plug hole. There are picture of the modification on Beechtalk as well and recommended names of models/suppliers for these.

You're right joegoersch - the approach title doesn't say ILS/DME or LOC/DME. But the approach title only tells us what equipment is required to fly the final approach course and nothing more. So its telling us you can fly final with ILS only or LOC with DME. So we technically don't need DME to fly the ILS. But again that's only specifying the final leg required equipment and does not include equipment requirements to fly transitions nor missed approaches. Any additional equipment that is required for a transition shouldl be noted in the notes section or plan view; except VOR nav is never listed, but ADF or DME will be. Sometimes there is no transition course at all, in which case the plan view will say RADAR REQUIRED since you'll need to be vectored to the ILS. If DME is required for the missed it should be listed in the notes section. Since it's not in this case I'd expect there is either an alternative missed approach that you can ask the controller for or this chart is simply non-conforming. Either way, assuming this is local to you, I'd call the Boston center and verify but I'd bet they have an alternate missed without DME (even though its not plotted for when RUT goes out of service) or can provide vectors.

I'd recommend against wasting your money on the HF tool - we've seen far better borescope tools become available than these requiring the mirror attachment making these a needless risk. The one cited by Marauder above is the best one currently available and a real bargain since it's fully articulating and performs as well as the best borescope out there for 10x the price. It displays on a android cell phone or tablet as Chris noted above but for another $100 you can get their accessory to attach it to an apple IOS device. If you don't have the $150 for the above, then I highly recommend one of the cheap dental scopes available online which are well documented on Beechtalk. These cost only about $30 and like the above come with a USB connector to connect to a PC or android. To perform at the their best they need to be slightly modified with a dremel tool and some heat shrink which only takes minutes. But they take good pictures sideways of the valves - which is what you really need. Also Mike Busch wrote a good article not long ago on just how good the Able scope is - you should be able to google it. The HF type scopes can be helpful for inspecting your tank sealant and occasionally checking in wing inspection holes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One thing you can do easily is order the new bolts from Mooney and nuts from them or Spruce (the AN365-918 nuts are certified versions of AN364-524 as you probably already noticed). Then next time you get it up on jacks you can easily replace bolts and nuts after jacking it up just enough to get the required clearance. I had to replace my shock link towers last time I did mine because of corrosion inside at the bottom of the tower. I think they get rain in them on approaches. So like you, I squirted a good dose of LP-3 into the towers and will do that at annuals. Plus Mooney also sells covers for these which are available from LASAR and very inexpensive. Don't know if they apply to the F, but they are good for mid-body's and long-body's. Don't know why, but Mooney made these optional on current production aircraft - so new ones are missing them.

Sorry to hear about your mom and loss of your best friend. We flew with a large 70 lb Labrador, Bailey, for years. No doubt the dog had over a 1000 hrs before he passed a few years ago. Mutt Muffs weren't invented when he started flying but I felt convinced he was telling us he didn't appreciate the noise. So we used knee pads at first and then switched over to the Mutt Muffs when they became available. Of course I can't say with any certainty, but I felt the dog was happier with the muffs on. But after takeoff and climb out, and he would lie down, one of would need to reach back and make sure the the muffs were properly situated for the flight. Once in cruise, they would stay put for the duration. Like others, we use a harness, not just a collar, and a leash we tie to a fixed shoulder belt. Its loose enough he can get up and move a bit on the back seat but to short to allow him to get to the front seat. Labs are especially calm dogs so we've never been concerned about him trying to come forward, but the primary concern has always been him becoming a flying object in an emergency off field landing. In addition to our safety, we sure want him to survive one too and hence the harness rather than just a collar. Our vet recommended a liquid sedative and anti-nausea medication for the first couple of flights. Which we used. But our dog did so well I don't think it was necessary at all. After twio labs we decided we had to go with a rescue next and now have a more Mooney sized 35lbs little girl; is much easier to accommodate weight wise. Layla took to flying right away and we use the same set up with her.

If you want the brightest lights, you'll want HID's rather than LED's, but more $

No speed benefit - the rational for removing it is explained in the first line of the SI as minimal, if any, benefit in MAP increase but requires maintenance.

Not true!! Not for fuel injected engines! Remember what happens after you shut down a heat soaked engines - what happens to the fuel in the lines - where does it bleed into??? This is why its so important to test the p-leads on every shutdown before you get out and push your plane back. So often before we push it back, we move the prop out of the way. When we do, we should always move it backwards to prevent an impulse mag from engaging and thus firing if we should have a bad p-lead that is not grounded. (don't worry about the OWT about hurting your vacuum pump doing that - its a myth.)

That is the most common way our ignition switch will fail. Just some corrosion on a single contact for the Left or Right key position will cause the switch to prevent grounding the p-lead while all other positions function correctly - kinda minimally screwed up :). I have yet to see one that was screwed up in multiple positions at once.

That doesn't make any sense, not doubting you, but I did some quick googling since CO detectors have become required in most every home in CA for a few years now. The real issue seems to be that the law requires that units sold in CA are all listed as approved by the CA Fire Marshall. Thus this one didn't meet the CA requirements and is simply not on the approved list and therefore can't be sold in CA. Don't know why this one isn't approved but there are lots of battery powered options starting at less than $20 at the local HomeDepot. Plus there are other options on Amazon that will ship to CA. Flying high, i take the threat very seriously and use a CO Guardian panel mount unit: https://www.guardianavionics.com/aero-553-panel-digital-display-multi-function-co-detector-tso-certified-aircraft

Don't know but we have lots of airports with AWOS without 3-letter designators. "fess"???

That will be amazingly lucky ending to a power off landing in the dark with a sleeping pilot! And explains the wife's comment on CO poisoning. Here is an update in the news that affirms this: http://www.kttc.com/story/34416465/update-pilot-walks-away-from-plane-crash-near-ellendale

More info here: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/02/accident-occurred-february-02-2017-in.html FAA report indicates serious injury's - which I was surprised to read after reading the pilot walked 500 yds for help. News sources now say he is in fair condition. But apparently those were 500 difficult yards for him since they also report he was airlifted out to a hospital. He survived a dark off field landing and looks like he did a good job yet the cockpit damage suggest his head took out the windshield - he said he thought he passed out for awhile too. His wife has already said she suspects it may have been from CO poisoning? That's rather curious. He was in the air over an hour.

Hard to tell without touching them, but that looks more like corrosion treatment spray (e.g., AC50, Corrosion-X etc) wicking up through the rivets and seams which is normal after treatment for quite some time. When you look at the seams, you see the same oily looking residue on both sides and that's what what leads me to think that. If the a rivet is indeed smokin, it'll be a bit loose in the hole - these don't have that appearance nor the smoke trail that teg916 is showing - which is what you should see.

Better yet, attend a MAPA PPP, the flying by the numbers presentation will provide this PAC information for most every Mooney and the provided book has all the details.

I use the LOP Mag test in the air as well but I never skip on the run-up. I've managed to foul a plug in the descent once when I got a slam dunk approach and I've managed to lose a magneto on startup. If I shutdown, I perform a run-up. Its a simple cost vs benefit - I am not that much in a hurry. But as has been mentioned, my runup is based on being in normalize mode looking at EGTs and if I look what i see wrt to EGT rises I don't much care about RPM drops. I've caught other non-ignition issues from the runup including a partially blocked injector in a company aircraft not long ago. If I am departing from a dirt strip, then I'll do a rolling run-up, preferably while back taxiing again to check for EGT rises. A lot can happen between starting the descent and the next takeoff and as 201er points out there is a lot of checklist items that should be checked before departure to avoid creating an unnecessary emergency. Its really another topic, but instructing I see too many pilots that don't know how to properly use their analyzer for the runup and are only focused on looking for the RPM drop rather than the EGT rises and don't take advantage of normalize mode to ensure they don't miss an issue. At least its very rare these days to meet a pilot that doesn't believe they need an engine monitor; even though most of survived fine without one years ago. But it really helps opens up our situational awareness of how the engine is doing which translates into safety - if we use it.

I would suspect the ignition switch isn't grounding the left mag when in the right position. You can confirm it with an ohm meter after disconnecting the p-lead. If so the bendix switch can be dissembled and cleaned up and you'll probably be good for a long time.

Your decision is mostly personal preference. As many of you know, I analyze data professionally for Mike Busch. All of these units will provide equivalent analysis and diagnostic ability. It comes down to how much panel real estate you want to provide and how feature rich you want to go. The MVP50 is by far the most feature rich, which appeals to many pilots, but in my opinion is largely superfluous. I personally only recommend the GCR-30's in the tightest panels for their smallest foot print. But if that is not a concern, I would go with a larger display. My personal preference and it is only personal, is the EDM-900. its a large enough display that I can see everything easily for my turbo charged engine and doesn't take up so much real estate that I can't still easily keep it close in view. I also prefer JPI's choice of grounded thermocouples over EI ungrounded ones, at least for CHT, for their greater accuracy. (You might google around for a DER report that Cub Crafters did a few years ago citing differences in CHT indications between the grounded vs ungrounded probes.) The truth is though any of the ones larger than the smaller GCR-30's will do you well and EI still makes great products in my opinion. Plus I have found both to offer good support, and I use a combination of JPI and EI in my aircraft since I kept my original far right side MAP and RPM for redundancy, but just replaced them with EI digital units with identical form fit of the OEM gauges. The far more important thing IMO is to learn how to read or interpret it your monitor. Its providing very valuable data quite capable of saving your engine and avoiding putting your life at risk in addition to paying for themselves time and again in their diagnostic ability.

Although I have to agree with the total sensibility of that. But it's still a very fun personal challenge for oneself to make if off by the first exit by simply nailing the speed and not dragging it in.

How about some real data on the topic: http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_48_reliability-centered_maintenance_part_2_195969-1.html WRT to specific engine, the add mentions only 1750 SMOH without regard to calendar time. If the engine has 20+ years on it, I'd personally would value it as a runout engine, not one with 250 hrs left to TBO, but 0 hours left, because of calendar time. But I'd still fly it hoping for the best, yet primed ready to overhaul. That really reduces your risk too; providing you can afford the down time possibly sooner than later for re-doing the engine.

There should only be two sonic horns in C model. They are all the same decibel level. The stall horn is a continuous tone while the gear horn is a pulsating horn. So your "pretty steady" horn was likely the stall horn. Chris may be right, but I kinda recall there is too much distance between the pitot tube and the stall warning device but I am probably wrong as that is otherwise a likely scenario if it can reach. But it also could have been stuck in the up position on its own. Modern Mooney's will have a third and sometimes 4th Sonic horn. The third is used by some autopilots, including the popular BK ap's and not having the electric trim turned on will sound a continuous horn.

Yes, I believe that's all accurate including the flight time, which was only 13 min on the radar track plus the time to depart and climb 1260' agl for the first radar return. The TSP reported weather was overcast ceiling at 10,000 msl with field elevation of 4001'. There is an 8000' mountain just to the south of TSP, so the finally initially turned south east towards lower terrain and at an altitude of 7259' turned south to LHS VOR, and continued climbing to his high point of 7559' at 3+minutes after the first radar return. Then the plane began a gradual descent and leveling off to 5791' after 9 minutes. A minute later the plane began a gradual climb to its final return at 5991' which 0.3mi NE of LHS VOR. At that point if the mode C was accurate, the plane was level with the reported terrain height, and the reported impact site was only 70' below that. Which is still well within his altimeter error; especially if he was using TSP setting since he was not talking with anyone. This was 9 am so if the terrain was not obscured by clouds/fog he would have no problem seeing it and turning away from the highest terrain - which is what the plane impacted. He apparently flew this route 3 days a week to his job in Torrance, so he was very familiar with the route and terrain and his colleagues said he rarely cancelled because of weather. He was instrument rated, but fightaware shows no IFR flight activity over the last couple years. Very recent engine overhaul in December as Anthony noted, but no good evidence yet that it was related given the reported slight climb at the end of the radar track and severe damage to the airframe and prop all suggesting a CFIT.

The preliminary report is finally out https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170118X72227&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA Unfortunately it doesn't tell us much about the weather except that the TSP was showing lowering ceiling just before departure. Mostly it covers that the plane went down right by the Lake Hughes VOR LHS: LHS VOR is situated on a leveled-off mountaintop; its elevation is 5,793 feet. The wreckage was situated on the north slope of that peak, about 70 feet below, and 380 feet from, the LHS VOR. ....... The last radar return was received at 0904:52, with an indicated altitude of 5,991 feet. That last return was about 0.3 miles north-northeast of LHS VOR

Because the requirements are different for serving as a backup to glass than replacing gyro's since there is more at stake. Plus the STC's the primary's (Garmin and Aspen) have their own requirements for backups. The L3 LSI-500 was actually designed to be a full backup to EFIS panels, unlike the G5. And no, you can't install the G5, and call it your primary and your G600 and call it your backup. Placement position of your G600 settles that debate right away. In case you were wondering