kortopates

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

I would also add, if all the damaged parts and skins were replaced with new as is typically done for a minor gear up landing, I personally wouldn't see a problem. Generally there is no structural damage, just replacement of the belly pan, some plastic flap hinge fairings and other minor parts. Nor are the repairs very invasive. And after several years the stigma of the properly repaired damage evaporates. Meanwhile you get to take advantage of the stigma discount now. Just get a proper PPI to check it out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those are just inspection panels. Plus those areas wouldn't even be damaged by a gear up. The area originally damaged would be the belly behind the engine and at this point you would have to drop the belly pan (which would have been replaced) to see the quality of the repair and extent of the repairs. Plus you could look for the 337 documenting the repair. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I still can't get over the fact that they took off without shoulder harnesses! So unbelievable that in this age people don't think their lives are worth the cost of shoulder harnesses - or that it could never happen to them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you compare your TB to the J what altitudes are use considering. If you compare at Sea Level and I can imagine the stock J out performing you. I have no time in the TB but the turbo itself doesn't add horsepower - in fact it generally robs you of it down low for the added overhead of spinning up the turbine - unless you can totally bypass it. But if you operate it altitude as turbos are designed for you should have no problem beating out a stock J. For example, you should do much better taking off from a high density alt airport such as Big Bear or Mammoth, and cruise much faster up in the middle to upper teens. But I wouldn't expect improved performance below 12K. Its important to know your birds critical altitude and take advantage of that when the winds aloft allow. But down low you are likely paying the overhead cost without any of the benefits. If I had a performance concern the first thing I would likely do is fly it up to its critical altitude to very its performing as expected. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Robert, next I would suggest turning things off and on one at a time to see if you can isolate it. For example, It could turn out to be the strobes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had that happen to me once coming back home from Central America in Mexico - but it was food poisoning after a lobster dinner. Luckily just me and not my wife. She enjoyed a couple extra days of the beach in Mazatlan while I remained in the room chained to the toilet. Then it was home in one more long day. Get well! I see you are a wiz with Photoshop! Unless your bride took that photo of you landing again. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Without wiring to existing strobes you'll have to have wires pulled out to both wing tips and tail. Your current wiring to your existing position lights would be usable for the position lights on the Orion 650. The Orion's have 4 wires: ground, position voltage, strobe voltage and a strobe sync wires to optionally enable the strobes to flash all at the same time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically you are following all MooneySpace but I have not seen the sub-forum feature work since the last upgrade to MS. I follow using the Timeline feature. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Mandatory" service bulletins aren't mandatory because we operate under Part 91. I don't think Part 23 vs CAR 3 has anything to do with it. I was referring to placing the requirement to replace the life limited part in the ICA section of the Maintenance manual (chapter 5) which would make it as Mandatory as a AD. That's what makes it mandatory on Cirrus and where they also limit the total number of airframe hours. It's not an issue for our CAR3 aircraft. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk