kortopates

Not confusing - just a typo that I really thought I had corrected but will go back to correct again - yes I meant critical altitude for sure since I was referring to climb rate - not ceilings. Thanks!!

The 231, unmodified, is very limited with its incomplete turbo installation and why its critical altiutde is only around (IRC) 15300'. Contrast that with a real full turbo installation of the 252 with many other enhancements that raise the critical altitude to 23000'. Here is the 252 rate of climb chart. At 14000' the 310HP R/S model ROC has dropped to approx 525'/min while the 252 is doing 1000'! 252 Rate of Climb.pdf

I think this is spot on. I am midway into a short-term gig flying for Mooney Intl in China and I am super excited about Mooney's prospects here in China. GA is truly on the verge of an explosion here. There is a growing affluent middle class in China that is developing a pent up demand for GA. Not just to become pilots but also to leverage the potential utility of GA travel by hiring both plane and pilot for travel. But just looking at the growing pilot training interest here the only real competitors are new Cessna and Cirrus. China doesn't have an old 60's to 70's era GA fleet to draw on for training here; all GA training is being done with new imported aircraft, mostly Cessna and Cirrus. We all know the new Cessna and Cirrus trainers are very expensive. From my view, only the Cessna Turbo Skyhawk JT-A. and the Mooney M10T & J are positioned for success here because of their diesel engines. AVGAS is available but still rare here; giving a strong edge to those powered by Jet-A. Both Cessna and Mooney are using the same Continental CD Diesel engines. But just like in our beloved M20's series, the M10T & J should should provide much improved efficiency and economy with their modern sleek composite lighter airframes. The M10J retractable will use the same larger CD-155 used in the Cessna but have a 11" wider cabin and in theory cruise over 30 kts faster than the Cessna. The fixed gear M10T uses the smaller more fuel efficient CD-135. I am making these comparisons solely to make the point that here in China the bar is not as high as you might think to be a big success in the GA training market that will explode in a few more years. Currently there are no 2+1 modern trainer airframes available here. My sense of the Chinese culture here is that although safety is very important, speed and efficiency far out weights concerns for a parachute and the M10T and M20J really look to blow away the foreseeable training competitors here. In addition to the aircraft, Mooney is also able to provide Redbird Full Motion simulators for their M20's due to their teaming with Redbird. I am sure that will enhance their competitiveness here in the training market; which is not individual owners but flight schools that will operate at the fleet level. For the advanced pilots, the M20's will of course have to compere head on with the Cirrus here just like in America but personally I think Mooney still has a lot of time to work on improving its competitiveness if it really needs too. Its already getting lots of interest for being the fastest production aircraft. But I agree with Scott that improving useful load is more likely the bigger market factor. Still though success here in China is not just in the hands of the manufacturers. Unlike in America, it's seemingly much more complicated here by vast restricted airspace, government regulations and the military use of the airspace. I have been told that the government here is very committed to opening the airspace and claims they will within a few years (around ADS-B time in the US). A greater uncertainty though is the military's willingness to share the airspace with GA. Currently the government really has no control over the military, that is really going to have to come down from upper level government in Beijing. Air pollution is the other red herring that will challenge initial training that requires VFR conditions; especially to get away from the traffic pattern. So there are a lot of other complicating factors out of the control of airplane manufactures adding a lot of risk to the future GA timeline here. I suspect these issues will slow things down some but I really doubt they can stop the inevitable explosion of GA here. And for that I am really excited for Mooney - from my view they seem very well poised to be a winner.

I'd like a copy too if possible? But thanks for pointing this out as I was unaware but I imagine I could get one from Dan at LASAR too.

Honestly George, you don't have to live at a high density altitude location to benefit from the turbo and the redundancy of the 252. I have no disagreement that many turbo flights are done low. But on an average most of us make many more short flights than the make longer x-country flights and those short flights are usually done low for obvious reasons. But I can't recall ever a time that I went of any distance at or below 12K; I am always higher regardless of the direction. Plus I can't tell you how many times my flight would have been delayed at least a day if I didn't have the turbo capabilities to get on top and fly over the weather rather than it. And with the potential threat of icing, typically a NA aircraft evening with service ceilings in the low flight levels can be very disadvantaged with poor climb rates when they need to climb quickly. And like Jack expressed, redundancy has bailed me out numerous times being away from home, including having lost an alternator once in southern Mexico. It's something I would think you would value more as I assume your background is multi and turbine than single engine piston - but I may have misinterpreted your comments. Don't get me wrong either though, I think the 310 HP S & R's are excellent planes. But I also fly a new Acclaim for Mooney and I love it, but given the trade off's between the economy of operation and the faster speed of the Acclaim, I'll keep my 252 for now - which is also nearly fully converted to the Encore, which in IMHO. As for the O2 cannula and mask - using O2 has never bothered me. I don't know why some people don't like it and refer to it as a negative as you do. Even the NA crowd (which I like to poke fun at - all in jest :)) would benefit from less fatigue on longer x-country's in the lower teens if they used it. Known Ice FIKI is available for the 252 & Encore; so didn't understand your comment unless you were referring to a specific installation (maybe Jack's). I do agree entirely though that we may all prioritize our needs differently. For me, I could never imagine going back to a normally aspirated engine.

I can't see the gap, but I assume from the picture you are referring to a gap in the rear engine baffling - probably on the center side where its close to the engine and alternator. But this isn't the firewall but rear engine baffling. Good job though in finding and plugging the air leaks. At Savvy, we are always telling our clients to focus on the baffling after we have ruled out the other items as you have and we see symptoms like yours. Many A&Ps tell our pilots the baffling is fine, but the clients that persist and persevere as you did often make very significant progress. I am not sure what the tape is doing on the upper rear flexible baffling material - possibly covering slits? But this is a very common overlooked area. One really has to check this area carefully with the top cowling in place - putting a shop light where the alternator/oil cooler helps since if you see light coming through from the front air inlets then you know you have significant leakage. At least that how I suggest checking that area. One also has to ensure the flexible baffling is either not so worn and flexible or too far from the top cowl mating surface that it can easily fold over in flight allowing huge air flow losses. Newer stiff silicone baffling usually cures that if the gap is not too large.

Really it's all about Anthony's #2 - the only real effect is that it will seem like it takes forever to accelerate to rotation speed as a lot more runway goes by and once airborne it will seem like a long time to accelerate to Vy - because it is. But the difference is entirely because the higher the DA the more TAS becomes greater than IAS. The airplane pretty much performs identically at any altitude at the same IAS - it obviously just takes a lot longer to get up to a faster TAS. #1 is actually a plus and why a TC aircraft will go ~2 Kts TAS faster for every 1000' DA increase in altitude with the same power (IAS will be the same) which is why us turbo guys don't like to stay low and share the crowded sub-teen airspace with the likes of the NA crowds that have no clue on what they're missing out on. [emoji846] The inexperienced NA pilot will suggest a turbo only becomes useful with a tailwind - typically going east. Although there is some truth to that, the reality is more often the NA pilot will be flying lower under, in or between layers with the weather and turbulence while the turbo pilot will find smooth sunny VMC conditions on top of it all. What about those fierce head winds? They're there alright, but rarely does the head wind component go up with altitude uniformly and faster than the 2kts per 1000' we gain in TAS meaning that by closely looking at the winds aloft you'll find an altitude that minimizes the headwind component and very rarely is it less than 10K out west were I fly. (Good flight planning apps take this into account for us). But even when it's is, I'll gladly take a few minutes penalty to climb to smooth sunny VMC air than cruise in the bumps to save some time. After all, the bumps rob you of a significant amount of airspeed anyway. Read the other thread of the K owner that just bought the 231 and flew his first x-xctry trip from Ohio to the west coast - he sure gets the utility now as you will hopefully too. Lastly I highly recommend you skip the 231's and go for the 252's or MB modified 231 (e.g. 262 mod) if you can afford it. With the MB you get a true complete turbo with a hydraulic controller that is often referred to as the "set and forget controller" which makes its an entirely different engine with numerous advantages discussed at length elsewhere. But they're rare and hence why we have many more 231 pilots on these pages that will argue they'll get much of the same performance with a highly mod'd 231 - there is a lot of truth to that but the MB is vastly simpler to operate and much better adapted to flying in the flight levels. If useful load is a concern; go for the 252 encore conversion or encore. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's highly unusual that a seller would help subsidize PPI cost. Heck, many brokers squawk very loudly at even taking the plane off field for a PPI in fear of the possible cost they may incur to get it back if something goes wrong away from their home base. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Kortopates. I didn't know you could do a one time STC with the help of a DER. I spoke to the original installers today, and they will make an appointment to get a FAA Field Approval. I'm just hoping this works, otherwise I might have to pull out the HID's and intall LED's to make it legal. I'm told the FAA in Georgia is General Aviation friendly. Thanks again for your assistance. That's great news and really the best way to resolve this. The shop should not have any problem getting a field approval since the STC covered the K whose airframe is identical to the J model. ( and the F model too). You misunderstood John though - he has an F model that he installed the Ovation wing light housing into his F wing and then installed HID's into the housing. His field approval may be helpful if your lights are also in the wing which I am assuming they are. But your installer really won't have a problem getting approval with the Precise lights. The FAA is much less sympathetic with folks that buy unapproved HID's when there are approved options available and then want their help to install - that's when they don't care but you're not doing that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paul, JPI provided me with a snubber valve that fixed the fluctuating MAP problem several years ago. Chasing a different problem (OP, as I recall) I shipped them the unit and the transducers. While they had the unit they updated the firmware which was nice in that the new ver. allowed flipping the RPM & MAP displays. Do you know if they have to have the unit to update firmware? I know with the non-TSO'd units that the firmware can be updated in the field quite easily - because I have done it multiple times. But I can't say for sure on the the TSO'd units but I haven't updated one them yet and since they have locked down a lot of what used to be configurable claiming it would violate their TSO requirements it makes me wonder. They certainly have the means to support it but it would probably take a call to JPI to verify. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suggest making an appointment at your local FSDO to get their advice for options here. There is always the option of getting a one time STC with the help of DAR but it will cost $. LED's are an option too but not cheap and a significant down grade. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With so many different options for iPad mounts, cases and glare protection it's not surprising many of the combinations used are prone to overheating. But given so many of us don't have overheating problems I do believe if you select all your accessories carefully with regarding to overheating you should avoid this issue; even if you have it always on and charging - just in case you do need it as a backup unexpectedly. Mine is securely mounted on the yoke with a MyGo flight mount in my personal aircraft, my preferred method, on Velcro'd around my thigh in students airplanes. Never a problem. I also use the MyGo Flight glass protector and glare shield. I know there are many others solutions that will work too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't go back to the original installer in GA to get the paperwork straightened out? That would be the most straightforward and logical approach unless there is more to the story? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Am I understanding the engine and prop haven't been been overhauled since 1970; thus 46 years old? If so I'd price it as a run out engine and prop. I personally wouldn't even fly it if the hoses are still that old till they are replaced. I'd doubt the engine would last more than a year due to corrosion if it's truly that old with so much time sitting. But hope iam wrong but you'll find lots of stories here of people that suffered that fate. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Use the search function. This has been covered. You can send it in the OEM who will rebuild in about a week and at a great savings - you'll get the current production version too. The company's name is Globe motors. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aerodon's advice on adding FF to the JPI is spot on but also make sure the unit‭ has downloadable memory, preferably via USB, or its value will be severely limited. But it should still be upgradable or at least useable as a core for the 830 display which was ~$1200 the last time I noticed. Most installers do not shorten the harness, just bundle it up, so I would expect you'll be okay as long as it's in good shape. Or just buy a new harness, they are not expensive. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course, everyone's favorite blonde Mooney pilot!! [emoji846] and you got her out of Dan's 201 with the longer leg room to boot! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By the way, the lost display columns are almost always from an installer tightening the screws too tight and cracking it. They rarely fail otherwise. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While they have your unit be sure to talk to them about upgrading it to support FF and make sure it has downloadable memory on it too or it'll still be useless. You really can't record much useful info in the air. You need to fly it and then download the data on the ground and look it on your computer. As you talk to JPI, consider upgrading the display to the newer color 830 display. You can look on Spruce to check prices for any sensors including FF and the upgraded display which is a trade in and you will see all parts are cheaper through Spruce than JPI. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I only update the Nav Data through Jeppesen using their JDM software which painless. Terrain data, or scorched earth heights, just doesn't change much. Obstacles of course do, but frankly I am never that low except on takeoff and landing and don't really care. Your need very well be different.

First thing I would do is consult the IPC to see how the rear was configured from the factory in '63. If it did have a hat rack, now you know what parts you may need; especially plastic parts and you know you won't need any approval beyond A&P supervision and signoff to install. But if not you can look at the IPC for the C model too see what it would take to modify accordingly and again work with your A&P but he'll likely feel comfortable doing it as a minor mod especially if its done to Mooney's spec.

The "current" ICA is officially the one that Mooney published when the aircraft was manufactured. The manufacturer can update the ICA all they want after the aircraft has been manufactured but we are only obligated to follow the "current" which means current version at time of production. The point of the article is that the FAA legal counsel has ruled the manufacturer can not legally make updates that retroactively now apply to us. Only the FAA can do that in the form of an Airworthiness Directive (AD).

I what way do you believe that Mooney is obligated to provide updates to the ICA post production and in anyway make as owners in anyway obligated to follow them? The reasoning you are quoting all stems from the misunderstood term of "current" as used in the context of Section 91.409(f)(3) of the regulations, which permits the operator to rely on “the current inspection program recommended by the manufacturer.” The FAA chief legal counsel memo has held that "current" as referenced makes it clear this phrase means the program at the time it was initially published, and it does not include the subsequent amendments to the program. The chief counsel memo goes on to explain that "if "current" was allowed to mean an ongoing obligation, manufacturers unilaterally could impose regulatory burdens on individuals through changes to their inspection programs or maintenance manuals. In essence, they would be making rules that members of the public affected by the change would have to follow." Which thankfully the FAA realizes none of us really want. For a good read on this see: https://www.aea.net/AvionicsNews/ANArchives/LegalEaseSept09.pdf So clearly Mooney is not legally able to issue updates to the ICA that we are bound too. And although I am not an attorney, I have seen no valid argument so far that convinces me that Mooney has any legal obligation to provide a WAAS update based on ICA requirements or FARs. Their legal obligation may be limited to what marketing promises they make at the time of sale. But as Bob has pointed out, if such an obligation did exist, even these are likely no longer appliacable to the new Mooney company currently responsible. I think in truth, Mooney only has a moral obligation and one to maintain their marketing reputation. I certainly have no inside knowledge of their plans but I believe like most others here they will eventually get to it. But we have also seen Garmin provide an ADS-B solution for these with the Gtx-345 - it just needs the optional WAAS gps and will not entirely integrate its functionality till the G1000 can get the newer s/w which I presume won't be till the Mooney G1000 WAAS update. But meeting ADS-B compliance is doable right now. Which unfortunately kinds takes off some of the pressure for Mooney to certify the WAAS G1000 upgrade.

We see them both ways, higher and lower. I would never have them on my aircraft since with these you never know what the real CHT temperatures are. This problem of co-locating a heater element in the cylinder bayonet hole with a CHT probe has been solved by Tanis, which is what I use. But I don't know if they are compatible with your Reif but they just need 120v for the heater portion and Tanis makes them for all kinds of engine monitors and power sources. Here is an example of one of there threaded heater elemts with dual probe in K type probe http://www.tanisaircraft.com/tt02633-uk-115-50.html

No, 30 gals is the max additional for 252's & Encores because they all have speed brakes installed, but the 231's or pre '86 airframes without speed brakes will get 36 gals additional with the mod.