kortopates

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

I can't follow what you were trying to do and got lost when you returned to your point of departure. Not sure what the alternative plan was but it couldn't be returning to your point of departure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no manual for vacuum speed brakes. Check the conduits to see if they have become so brittle that they are falling apart; eventually they fall apart and the cable hangs up during retraction although they still tend to deploy fine. Check the resistance by pulling the cable by hand at the vacuum bellows to see where any resistance might be. These are very simple - just like bicycle cables pulling the speedbrake open while a spring on the brakes pulls it back closed. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fixing leaks is a patch - not a reseal (for those that keep referring to the "reseal") 208B is only a couple hrs of labor - a true bargain compared to finding corrosion in the tubular structure after purchase. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are so right Byron and I feel so embarrassed I apparently don't know my right from my left from what I wrote. Of course I meant she owns the left seat, pilot seat, ever since we got "her" seat outfitted with the rudder pedal extensions and I am permanently in the right - except for the occasional solo. But of course its so worth it!!!

My wife went for a spouses course shortly after a couple flights with me at my suggestion. Attending the spouse course she decided right there; "hey I am physics professor, I can be a pilot too!". She went all out on getting her pilots license and then her Instrument and has since permanently taken over the left seat once we got her the necessary pedal extensions. My seat is now the right -LOL's; except for an occasional solo flight. Watch out, you may get more than you wished :) But its all good. Its true that 2 pilots up front can be a challenge at times; especially two married pilots! But when the weather is challenging is when we function best as a team and I am most thankful for her piloting and instrument skills. There is no question in my mind either that two pilots significantly enhances our safety. If that is not enough incentive; imagine how much easier it is now to sell my wife, as a pilot, on aircraft upgrades!

That's correct, the documentation Anthony posted is for older electrical speed brakes only which have nothing in common with the original vacuum brakes. There is no documentation to be had on the older vacuum brakes. The original vacuum brakes contain a sealed bearing that can be replaced but entire brake must be de-riveted to get to it - not an easy task. Since its a "sealed" bearing, lubing it isn't really recommended. The rubber vacuum bellows is no longer available from Precise Flight; one would have try to patch any leaks or tears (but I have not been down that road - mine from '86 still looks pristine). They still had springs and conduit cables the last time I talked to them not long ago. Installations from 80's would most likely be suffering from the conduits breaking down - they are just like bicycle cable and when the conduit gets brittle with age and falls apart it can prevent the cables from fully deploying the brakes and causes them to stick up since the little spring on the brakes are unable to fully overcome the friction in the ruptured conduit. Conduit cables are never going to need adjustment after installation - they don't stretch; appearance of such is pointing to a broken failing conduit cable. The first step in diagnosing any speed brake issue is first determining which type/kind you have and then familiarizing yourself without how the system operates.

I've heard first hand accounts that Pledge spayed on the leading edge actually works - as long as it last there. But I have never tried it. You'd think it has the potential to last much longer than WD-40 - not that either is likely to last very long. But maybe help you get on top. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They don't take tech support calls but they do answer emails. See their website and send them an email. Stacey will get back to you. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would as well. But why not value it accordingly and make an offer if it's otherwise what you want. Then do the engine to what you want. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe Mooney started offering wing tip VOR antenna's at some point. My 252 has them as original equipment. Since then they have been available as a retrofit into the plastic wing tips. The antenna's are very expensive to buy and pretty labor intensive if you were going to install after the wing tips were already on. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am glad Rick got it fixed as well. But many critical parts are not readily available; basic electronics parts are. The Achilles heal of these systems are the electric servo motors. When the electrical motor's armature wears out you'll learn Bendix-King/Honeywell doesn't sell or produce replacement armatures. You'll need a new motor when the armature is gone. Luckily I don't need one yet, but AP Central quoted $5200 to overhaul/remanufacturer the motor. I know a couple years ago they didn't even have that option. They consider that progress but at over $5K for a little servo that's hard to fathom!

Thanks, we did spend two nights in Homestead. Got there late in the day, rented a car and drove into the park for the day to the Flamingo Visitor center. We did boat tour in the swamps and hiked a couple of the trails including the highly recommended Anhinga Trail. I don't doubt Naples would have offered more at night but for access to the everglades we weren't sure where to go.

Call Jepp. They'll get you going. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk