kortopates

Yep, they are all over the place in your wing if you care too look closely. I've replaced many. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First, Swageloc has brief instructional videos on their website on how to tighten their fittings. Review that for their official guidance. They also have it documented in writing. A solution is available for O2 leak solution, which is what use since I can't afford the gas detector. The small copper 1/8 HP line is always live with tank pressure - it has to be to allow your cockpit gauge to always read tank pressure. In contrast, the larger aluminum Low Pressure line is only live when the regulator at the tank is turned on from the cockpit. The main thing they drill into new techs in A&P school is that you can't do anything unless you have the approved documentation for the job and follow it. It's a good rule for hangar ferries to follow too despite even if they don't seem to need it. I don't say that to sound mean but to stress its importance to safety - yours, your pax and the future owners and pax. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that I have been through this job I can say because its such a huge job, I am very thankful I did all 4 seat rails. I'd hate to have gone to all that effort and only have done one side. My co-pilot side was actually more worn than the pilot side. I am also thankful I got the rails from the factory. I've heard horror stories on Cessna's pre-drilled rails not always lining up but the Mooney rails lined up really well for me. At the start I didn't realize to the extent that I was going to need to disassemble the gear as well as open up the bottom side skins by removing all the rivets all the way to the nose so I could peel back the skin enough to be able to get a bucking bar in there. Even after all that I still had to use a small number of cherry max rivets near the front of all of them but the finished product came out great. I also changed out all the deldrin rollers in the 2 seats (4 each), and re-webbed the seat belts and now the seats slide back and forth with ease and of course can't slip out of there holes. But don't even think twice about the cost of the rails, because its minuscule compared to labor to do the job. Thankfully I am A&P and only had to pay for the second person since every bucked rivet is a 2 person job. Plus with a pneumatic river squeezer the bottom side skins went back on very quickly - thankfully that was a one person job.

Frankly, I have been more than just underwhelmed by the factory's tow bar. I have long thought the Bogert tow bar for the Mooney was by far the best design out there and very light. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/bogibars2.php?clickkey=108556 The Gats Jar makes a similar improvement in fuel sampling http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/gatsfueljar.php?clickkey=2499782

Exactly right Anthony, but IPC rather than MM. It may not say Swagelock but it will have the fitting part no's that will match one of the manufacturers. If it every happens again, or to someone else, the loss of O2 out of the tank could have been prevented by disconnecting the HP line at the tank, A HP needle valve on the regulator prevents the tank from discharging. Its such a restricted orifice that would take several minutes to discharge anyway.

Why are we talking new or rebuilt on a 150hr engine? That makes no sense. Suggest starting with the tear down inspection. You probably need very little and frankly that's all the insurance co will pay for. Betterment is on your nickel. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is nothing unreliable about our built-in 02 systems in the Mooney. Its dirt simple and that is big factor in its reliability. That said I share Steve's opinion on a backup (and on speed brakes since I hardly ever use mine since learning to master my descent planning and not be shy with controllers but that's another story - although I do agree we can't get down fast enough if on fire). Rather than complicating things I use this simple and affordable device as a backup: http://www.mhoxygen.com/index.php/portable-constant-flow/emergency-systems/165-ntg-co-pilot-portable-o2-copilot It essentially guarantees the backup tank won't be empty since its sealed till usage and will provide plenty of O2 to get me down without being rushed. With many years flying on O2, which is what turbo flying is all about, I have seen many so called "failures", but non were even close to an emergency. The most common is pilot induced from not having the scott connector all the way locked into the fitting which prevents O2 from flowing. But that's pretty obvious with our flow meters and Pulse oximetry, and quick reach back to the back seat to fix it and Iam back to being good (I mostly fly in the right set where the O2 port is out of sight), in the pilot seat its even more obvious. But I suspect this is the sort of failure that has claimed some pilots flying high alone. The other thing I've seen happen is the hose pop off the scott fitting. I've had to fly once while holding it on till I got lower. I could have used the backup but holding it seemed easy since it didn't take more than light pressure to hold on. So what could go wrong to create a real emergency? Personally I think its much more likely when you add on these new high tech gadgets to save your O2 - now your failure modes can really grow - just loose electrical power for starters. But why do we need to save O2 with 115' cu/ft builtin tank? Last month we flew from San Diego to Cuba and back and still had plenty of O2 left when we returned. We've also flown to CENAM and back with one refill in CENAM just to make sure we had plenty. At home I fill it myself with a 2 tank cascading system - it keeps my O2 refills very cheap!. I used to worry that maybe my regulator could fail and block O2 but I am still waiting to read about the first such occurrence reported by the NTSB. As far as I know that's not a failure mode. I know my O2 system really well and know that a leak is not going to drain my tank in front of my eyes. Even a high pressure leak will take over an hour and a low pressure leak will take days. Only a ruptured low pressure line is going to prevent the flow of O2 to the cabin ports. The real emergency in my mind is a failure of the gauge indicating pressure when its actually empty and that may be another nearly impossible failure mode. Still though I don't want to bet my life on something I may not have thought up yet. Plus the added insurance and peace of mind of backup is so easy to carry and such cheap insurance I consider it mandatory, so I carry the above backup which fits in the seat back - even though I think the odds of needing it are infinitesimally small. I know many are very concerned about having only seconds of useful consciousness after reviewing TUC tables and being told they were based on young cadets and the average geriatric pilot won't last near that time. If you're really concerned you really need to take the chamber ride and learn the truth for you at 24-25K'. You'll be pleasantly surprised and will probably see all your fellow geriatric pilots exceed the tables easily. But more importantly, hopefully you'll leave with an understanding of your own symptoms so you can readily recognize yourself becoming hypoxic. If not and if your one of those people that doesn't recognize themselves becoming hypoxic I hope you set a maximum ceilings accordingly not to fly above it and in the flight levels without another person or pilot on board that can recognize it and alert you. Sorry to get a bit off topic....

Dave, I used Santa Monica Propeller when my prop was leaking oil a couple years ago. They picked it up here in San Diego and returned it about a week later. I sent them my governor too. I was very pleased with their service. I forget how many years I had on mine but it was about the same as yours. SMO is one of the shops that would not just re-seal a prop past TBO but as I called around I learned that more common than not. I was also surprised that they found enough corrosion in mine that they had to replace some hub parts - I was way past a prop-reseal. But from what I recall, both SMO and Redding send their truck to SD and you aren't that much further away. After Matt's comments that could very well scare you off from SMO but I was very pleased with the service and at the time I drew the conclusion that both Redding and SMO would do the equivalent job at the same cost but SMO could get it done a week or so faster and that why I ended up going with them. I've gotten good service from Redding too - they do a lot more than just props up there, but that's all SMO does. I suggest you call them both about truck service and get a better idea of your options. After 10 years though I really doubt you'll get away with just a reseal. BTW, while I had my prop off I replaced the crankshaft seal since the access was so good and the seal is pretty cheap. Both are doing great.

I would suggest the time most likely to really consider declining an inspection is when you have passengers and you have no idea what they have in their bags. This happened to someone I know. He signed the general declaration form saying "no" to the various questions including they were not bringing in fruits/food. Incidentally whether or not you are asked to sign the declaration form when you state you have nothing to declare is at the option of the agent. Anyway, this pilot signed no, they inspected his plane which resulted in looking through his and his passenger bags and yes, they found an orange or something like it in his pax bag and the pilot got fined for declaring otherwise . His pax had forgotten but they didn't care.

Hi Alan, You can get the IPC along with the current maintenance manual (they were all updated last summer) and POHs all on a thumb drive from Mooney through your MSC of choice. Not expensive. I am expecting on instructing at the PPP at Bull Head City but it all depends on getting enough sign-ups. We haven't done the PPP there in what seems like 5 or 6 years or so now. Hope to see you there.

Hi Jon, Yes I am back. Iam there a lot and should be there most every day this week but text me before you make the trip to be sure. I am most likely there in the afternoons. 'll PM you with contact info.

There is no LED replacement. You understood correctly from Whelen that these are made for modern mooneys only. Therefore I really doubt we'll ever see a LED replacement for Mooneys given the small application. Google the part no. if you want to find one available quicker and I've found them cheaper than list price that way too. Or if you want to go Teejay's route and are handy with a dremel tool you can try grinding a projector bulb and lens down to size. I haven't tried that yet. They do last quite awhile with the flasher and Lasar is another source for the flasher device (IIRC less than $300 but call them). amillet you are referring to the rear white Position lights in the rear of the wingtips - not the front forward facing Recognition light in front of the Nav and strobes - completely different. Make sure you re-sealed the position lights with the 3M sealant listed in the IPC but not mentioned in the SM - otherwise flying through precip can lead to shorting it out if the socket the bulb holds get wet.

Jack is correct, but last fall it was updated to the G version.

Of course you are right. I tried it out as well after loading the new simulator and going through the manual. Like you, I never wait to load the approach till I am on it in some fashion. As soon as I have the ATIS and know what I want its loaded which could be 45 min out. I have a plan and I know what I expect to do. Its just that till I get the close enough to talk to the appropriate terminal controller, I won't be able to confirm. So how does this change that approach of loading well in advance? Well like you, I will often use the airport info in the GPS to load the freq - its faster than dialing in the numbers from the approach plate and reduces the chance of error. I can still do that as long as I do it before I load the approach. But I also noted loading the approach will NOT remove the airport identifier if it is current waypoint. (It will load it after your current active waypoint and if the current waypoint is the airport it will essentially not activate automatiucally like it would if the airport wasn't the current waypoint.) After I have ATIS and then Twr freq loaded on my #2 GPS, I'll load the approach. (I use GPS#1 for enroute ATC freq's and #2 GPS for airport freq's, so my airport freq are ready to go before I have talked to my last controller on the approach). Now with the approach loaded, if I am on the equivalent of a downwind past the FAF and not sure exactly where I'll be turned in to intercept final or an intermediate segment, I may continue to wait till I am get the base vector to the approach segment and then activate the leg I am being vectored too - or I will become more familiar with the VTF capability not to drop the IF waypoints and take advantage of that feature. That will require more study of the tradeoffs.(I.e. I need to see if I can still determine station passage of intermediate fixes without needing to rely on the moving map for "close enough"). But for easy access to the tower frequencies, since I can no longer get to the airport waypoint from the flightplan, it looks like we'll have to use the Nearest -> Airport page to get the same info requiring an extra button or two - which is disappointing to me. Also disappointing to me so far is that the Load approach function behaves differently depending on if the airport is your active waypoint (in which case the approach is not sequenced) or if it not. If not its removed and the approach is automatically sequenced or is activated. I may change my mind on this but right now feel I'd rather control it myself; especially since its behavior can vary. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! I am also impressed by the new RF capability, although I have yet to see a single approach with RF legs that did not require Crew Authorization - so its unclear if this will translate into anything useful but my guess is in the future it likely will. As for the create a hold capability - I have mixed feelings. Its so easy for the proficient pilot to use the Suspend and OBS capability to set up a hold and determine their entry and I fear pilots will loose their ability or never even learn this skill using this kind of feature as a crutch. But on the other hand if they can be proficient with the box and get it loaded in 5 sec or so I guess I won't be cringing watching the client just starring at the box and pushing buttons over and over again while not flying the plane and getting further and further behind. The simulator should prevent that - hopefully. We'll see.

As openwheeler stated, the Rocket conversion was done on both 231 and 252 airframes which means a 231 rocket conversion will have the 231 cowl with the manual 3 position cowl flaps and a 12v system and I believe limited to a single alternator (but not absolutely sure except the 231's engine and therefore airframe wiring only supported one alternator), The 252 airframe on the other hand includes infinitely adjustable electric cowl flaps which translate into far less speed penalty for opening them as well as dual alternators as an option. The 252 airframe includes many other airframe improvements to look at including rear bucket seats that fold down to provide flat cargo space and included as standard most of the options that were available to 231s' but not placed in every plane including: Speed Brakes, Built-in O2, Standby electric Vacuum system, and Electrically heated prop. Thus not all rockets were created equal. Also consider that going the STC's engine on the Rocket their are many drawbacks that come with it since Rocket didn't do the same kind of engineering for it Mooney does. For example when Mooney increased gross weight on the K for the Encore variant, and its only eligible as retrofit on the 252, they also changed the brakes from single puck to double puck and changed out the control balance weights to improve/maintain flutter resistance for the increased weight. Rocket Engineering just increased the MTOW without changes other than addressing the heavy nose CG by adding a second battery in the back to improve the CG. Parts for the Continental engine are not a concern, but what is the much shorter TBO time which will actually vary depending on if it is a Continental reman since they can increase it to 1600 IIRC.

There is no right or wrong answer - this is a totally personal question and your choice is probably going to be more up to how much money you want to spend on the initial acquisition and for your hourly expenses period. The only really hard decision point perhaps is turbo vs normally aspirated; then it's just a matter of how much you want to spend. Vintage Mooneys have been flying across the country since they came out of the factory so it comes back to what's the right choice for you. I fly a 252 and although I could tell you about its great capabilities while being perhaps the most efficient Mooney ever built instead I am going to suggest you spend some time learning about their individual capabilities and you decide what is worth the money to you. For example, just because the plane can fly in the flight levels doesn't mean the pilot is going to utilize those capabilities. Without specific questions though all you will hear, IMO, will amount to how what every owner is flying is the best choice. Perhaps it is for them, but you aren't them. Happy hunting. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are describing what sounds like a bug in that when you just load the approach it is also automatically activating; although perhaps not in the true sense where you are instantly navigating to the first fix on the approach. Still it's "active" even though you have not activated it. That can't be right and sure sounds like a bug. Have you called Garmin tech support yet to confirm? Something sure seems wrong but hopefully it's confined to the simulator or even human error - although I don't doubt you've carefully repeated it to make sure you did it correctly. I'd call if you haven't! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course, as an A&P I do all my own work and had the lower sidewall interior out very recently when I replaced all 4 of my seat rails; which gave me a good opportunity to look over the lower tubing. I do so every time I have interior sections out. But I still have some fiberglass blanket material on my right side that is still in pristine condition. Every time I have it opened up I consider replacing it but so far since its still pristine I haven't; instead I replaced all floor based sound/vibration/temp alum covered insulation which is pretty expensive stuff to get in the good super light material. I am getting off topic but I don't think shops are not going to be as thorough in complying with these things as much as an owner-mechanic/maintainer is that is going to take the long view; particularly when you get to elective options of replacing serviceable insulation. Kudos to you for being through; but I expect you'll still find a lot of fiberglass insulation including stuff that hasn't been pristine for some time out in the fleet despite previous SB compliance.

Their point is that all of the Mooneys with flush mount windows are also susceptible to the water leakage issue coming in at the skin and this problem is not due to the original poor insulation of what I think was mostly pre-'76 Mooneys that plagued your '67 F (but I am not sure about the dates on the problematic insulation usage). Thus my '86 K flush mounted windows makes mine also at risk. Don't really know why the SB wasn't updated to specifically include the longbody's due to the flush mounted windows when the SB plainy says that all Mooneys with flush mounted windows are included.

A couple points - although I agree its a very good practice to replace the old water retaining insulation and as I said above the older planes with it make this SB especially important - but having complied with this SB in the past does not mean as you imply that the insulation you are concerned with was actually replaced. The SB specifically states "fiberglass blankets may be THOROUGHLY dried out and reinstalled"; the new foam is only recommended - not required. Secondly, evidence of leaky windows seals is exactly what the SB calls out to look for during the inspection. I totally agree with you that getting the old fiberglass insulation replaced improved your odds of future corrosion, but no way does it eliminate the chance that it can't happen in the future. Note too as well, the SB calls out to be complied with annually,( although nobody does that), they certainly intended this to be a recurring inspection - not a one time look. I maintain the savvy buyer will want to perform the inspection during the pre-buy regardless of seeing earlier compliance; its too cheap of insurance too pass up.

I have not seen this so I don't know for sure but it sure makes sense that the slave function could do that if it had an intermittent connection. But you would need to talk to an avionics guy. There is also an indicator by the Slave switch with an adjustment knob - if the indicator is also moving around with the HSI that would sure seem to cinch it as the problem but absence of it wouldn't rule out it either.

Folks are making a big deal about the importance of complying with 208B; and rightly so. But it should be stressed that it means very little if at all that a plane has previously complied with it. That just means how ever many years ago it was corrosion free, but it could have begun corroding the day after the inspection due to window leak in a Mooney left outdoors. So its really most important to the savvy buyer as pre-buy inspection requirement and done in that context is not a big deal since the buyer just needs to get the inspection and will walk without concern of the consequences. Its a whole different matter though to the owner of plane that was never inspected or hasn't been inspected in decades or especially if it might still have the water retaining insulation that was used for awhile many years ago.

You do realize that you can replace a single wire lead on a harness? It requires some special tooling but they sell spare wires in different lengths to do the job. If you still have your original set it my be an option for you. If your harness was not old and just one wire got damaged, such as chaffed, that is the thing to do. If its an old harness then I'd replace both mag harnesses which are sold as a kit. Aircraftspruce has a big selection and your current magneto type and plug type (i.e. Bendix vs Slick mags; not engine model) will direct you to your kit options available pre-fab'd for your mag, plug type and engine model. It really comes down if you want to pay more for a nice colored leads (as I did).

I am still wondering if you got your clearance on the ground by contacting Albuquerque Center on the ground through the RCO or whether you departed VFR and contacted Holloman departure in the air. It makes a difference. But I am going to assume you departed VFR. But actually lets begin with how you could have most likely gotten the direct routing you wanted IFR and although I haven't looked but I'd assume going direct is going to be over lot of Class G airspace meaning you'd have to be at 15K (into the continental control airspace above 14.5K before you would be in controlled airspace the whole time, i.e. on O2). But not worrying about altitude for the moment, you most likely called Holloman departure (120.6) too soon (or perhaps you called Albuquerque Center but unless Holloman was closed they were the controlling authority there). By doing that, you really gave them no choice but to vector you south. I don't think they would give you the Corona Departure unless you had filed over 14K, but you would only get it if you got your clearance on the ground - not in the air. But they could not possibly vector you east because of the terrain; (you couldn't climb fast enough to get above their MVA) and as a IFR traffic he really needed to get you away from the airport. So what would have been your best option was to depart VFR and not call them till you got much higher and east bound. My performance based flight planning s/w shows me that a direct on course climb would not clear the terrain even in my Turbo, so I would expect to do one big circle in the climb up to about 13K. I would have waited till I was above 10K and clearly east bound away from the airport (but still less than 10 miles from the airport). Then with terrain separation assured I would contact departure and they would most likely clear me direct/on course to PIO but not till after reaching some altitude such as 13K (depending on their MVA there). You are still not out of the woods for a direct flight plan though because of the Talon MOA that begins at 12.5K, you might be able to go under IFR at 11K but I am skeptical (it comes back to their MVA) and that is leaving too much to chance, so to further get more options I would have included PIO in the flight plan which is right before the MOAs. If need be, you could go south just a bit from PIO till clear of the Talon High and once at the Talon Low MOA you'd be able to get on course again since you'd be above it and probably home free at that point. But the lesson here is never expect to get a direct route through restricted area, MOAs and high rising terrain without closely looking at your options and figuring out in advance what is going to work both for you and the controller. You have to really understand their limitations as well as just simple airspace limitations - as in no IFR in class G - so you may have to climb higher than you want when not on airways. Another consideration on long direct routes - if you find yourself going through multiple different centers its going to be problem too without putting in a fix at each FIR or Center boundary. Maybe their central computer s/w has finally gotten over that limitation, I don't know so I still try to adhere to get what I want. Another side note on this, is I never wait to get my clearance to find out what my cleared route will be. Ever since Flightaware has been in operation its been possible to get your cleared route via an email from Flightaware as soon as its accepted. Many of the ipad apps do that for you too now. But its easy to set up if you are not yet aware.

Did you get cleared as filed or a whole different routing to the south? Were the vectors for the cleared route or a change from it? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk