kortopates

Two different alarms. One is to warn you to put the gear down controlled by a micro switch on the throttle. Another to prevent premature gear retraction controlled by a gear squat switch in the older vintage Mooneys or a air pressure switch/airspeed switch on the back of the ASI. Since it goes off at 105kias I was assuming the latter but the OP doesn't mention year and model. Missile or Rocket doesn't change anything other than indicate it is a J or K system suggesting a airspeed switch. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It shouldn't be doing that. The service manual specifies the speed range it should be operating in - which you will find is much lower. Hopefully yours can be adjusted to be within spec by a qualified tech. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Enjoyed - Nice job! What's with the captains swivel seat??? Or is that just an illusion of the video. It really looks like your seat is canted to the right?

I've flown down to Guatemala through Mexico and its not a problem. Obviously from the east coast, Oscar's route was the most direct route and fastest way there but did involve a lot of over water with lack of landing options. Flying through Mexico gives you lots of options along the way without a concern for long legs and less expensive fuel is readily available virtually everywhere. Being on the west coast, we entered from Southern California (MYF) and flew down to MGGT via Ciudad Obregón MMCD (3:25) where we cleared, then flew on toi Puerto Valarta MMPR (2:38) where we spent the night, the following morning we picked a more inland route to avoid coastal rain and flew to beautiful Oaxaca MMOX (3:11) flying around the weather to Guadalajara before heading back on course. At Oaxaca we did the exit paper work and flew the relatively short leg to La Aurora MGGT (2:28), arriving well before dark. So basically a couple 3+ hr legs, and a couple of ~2.5 hr legs. If you're able to enter from southern Texas, you'd have a shorter flight time to get down, perhaps entering MX at Monterrey MMMY, but certainly not in one leg as Oscar could do via the Caribbean. All of our legs were on IFR flight plans at 17K. We didn't spend any time sight seeing going south, with just one night enroute since we had already been to each of those destinations previously and just wanted to start our touring in Guatemala. But on the way back we took much more time to enable visiting some places we hadn't yet been too. The flight planning is not complicated but unlike Mexico though, you do have to apply for permission to fly into Guatemala in advance (like the majority of Central American countries). It used to be a pain to fax their form, but it has gotten much easier these days through the web. MGGT though is a very friendly airport and even has a FAA certified repair station on the field where we were able to refill our O2 tank for the return trip north. Probably the most challenging is aspect to the flight planning is just learning how you'll get access to weather and if you're new to it, the regulations you'll need to know for each country you visit (mainly entry/exit requirements). Mexico is still is very easy with fuel that is generally cheaper than in the US. But Central America has gotten less and less friendly towards GA travel. For example, Nicaragua is down to one international airport (where you must enter and exit) and for quite some time had no av fuel, but now reports indicate it's available for $12+/gal, and Costa Rica has gone to ridiculous parking rates for GA charging over a couple hundred dollars for 24hr day for transient ramp parking. We had plans to spend a couple weeks down there and worked really hard to find reasonable alternatives at FBO's and national airports with very limited success. Guatemala remains quite friendly as does Panama, but sadly that's not the case throughout CENAM. That said, I wouldn't discourage anyone for making the best of it. Just the opposite, I encourage everyone that enjoys a little adventure to travel internationally with our birds. But it really doesn't get any easier than Mexico (or Canada).

Try installing an altimeter that only goes to 18K. Regardless though, don't you think future buyers are going to really wonder about a turbo that can't go to 18K? Curb appeal will probably be on par with planes missing ADS-B out.

IMHO, the whole point of FAA Chief Counsel letter is to advise pilots that are unable to use a safety pilot or CFI that starting an approach in IMC that quickly turns VMC well before minimums should not count for proficiency requirements. They really want you to put a hood on with a qualified pilot in the right seat so that you can fly the entire approach to minimums (land or fly the missed also under the hood); regardless if you are able to start the approach in IMC. Undeniably, anyone flying the approach without a hood and safety pilot is still getting great practice but of course its not adequate practice to then go fly an approach to minimums in IMC which is what the FAA is worried about making the point for. (And of course does not count towards currency requirements). Unfortunately the same holds true for the pilot whom mostly relies on the autopilot to fly the approach and then find the autopilot is not working properly in IMC conditions. But that's another topic.

Does your GMX-200 have XM weather? If so there is a known buffer overflow bug causing crashes for all installations. Its been a known bug for over a year now and the fix won't be out till end of the year, or so we hope. You can email the error ID to Garmin for confirmation. If that is the problem, the work around is to keep it on a page that does not display weather while you really can't afford to see it crash. For example while doing approaches, you can put it on the IFR map page and it will still display approach charts, but the custom map page has access to wx so that page will still allow it to crash.

I'd guess all these variations of the TCM Hot Start procedures originated from TCM literature. The TCM hot start is well documented in your specific TCM engine operations manual which you can order from the TCM Power store online. TCM engines are unique in that when you pull the Mixture to ICO, it prevents fuel from flowing past the fuel divider. TCM takes advantage of this of by recommending before you hot start the engine, to first put the mixture at ICO and operate the High Boost for approx. 1/2 minute, as it will replace all the hot fuel in the line up to the flow divider with fresh cool fuel, the hot fuel is sent back to the tank. It doesn't matter where you put the throttle while just running the boost pump in an injected engine, no fuel is running past the fuel divider and the throttle doesn't control the electric boost pump output - only the engine driven pump. Using the low boost pump to recirculate the fuel should work too but not as effectively and probably why its taking twice as long as needed with the high boost pump. Anyway, its a good idea to go back to the original source of these methods since Mooney didn't choose to include them in the POH's since some of the popular internet versions seem to misrepresent some of the details based on some the interpretations you see. But once you have a reliable starting method like Erick and David, you know what works for your engine and that's whats important. Perhaps one caveat to the last statement in regards to the cold start. I know some pilots prefer to use the high boost to prime their cold engine rather than use the low boost prime circuit when they have one. Using the high Boost is certainly an effective way to get the job done, but two points. Our TCM engines like a lot of prime fuel to get started and the high boost is pumping fuel directly into the cylinders. Some of the cylinders will have open intake valves allowing any excess to drain out into cylinder drain tubes and onto the tarmac (or even onto the engine if any of the lines are in need of maintenance). So just be aware using the high boost can put you at the risk of starting a fire at start up which I believe is a principal reason why our installations have a boost prime circuit that pumps fuel into the induction system instead eliminating the fire risk. So although it works effectively, it has additional fire hazard risks. It happens, but fortunately quite rarely.

They 're Mooney parts, and can be ordered through your favorite MSC or the factory directly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not that I have ever heard of in the last 15 yrs. But if you broaden the question to include prop strikes, the only injuries I have heard of is when the pilot elected to continue a late go around after striking the prop and the plane didn't make it around pattern sometimes resulting in fatal injuries. I know of at least one lucky pilot that pulled it off and landed after another circuit in the pattern with curled prop and swears they didn't realize the prop strike on a bounced landing till after they landed; despite the ruptured nose gear donuts. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I also installed my Halon extinguisher on the floor between the rear two seat I/A/W the mooney drawing in the IPC for the M20K. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur with Bob your TAS cal is low and being above standard probably more like 165 ktas. But that still below expected. My 252 POH value calls for 174 with 1" less MP (78.6%) and really faster if I could determine your DA. I also concur with checking more accurately with GPS tracks and if really off (compared to the other 2 folks with TKS) would look for sources of extra drag i.e., besides cowl flaps, jack it up and see if the gear doors are fully closing (easy to fix) and verify the ball is centered in cruise when you collect data. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is probably heresy on a list like this. And of course many have their own favorite Mooney MSC they prefer for maintenance. But unless you intend to turn the PPI into an annual, there is no maintenance associated with an PPI. And as an inspection it only scratches the surface of full annual inspection yet may include items that an annual would not e.g., pulling a cylinder to inspect internals for corrosion for an engine that had been sitting or not flown much the last few years and closely examining the condition of the tank sealant. So personally any good knowledgeable Mooney MSC has the experience to look the plane and its maintenance logs over and then advise you. More important in IMHO than where you take it, is being pro-active about what the inspection will include. There is no official PPI inspection checklist, so no one does them exactly the same. Therefore its really important you go over the details of what and how thorough of an PPI you want to accomplish with whomever you select to do it. Better yet, go in with a list of items, such as Lance's list he posted as a starting point and review the Mooney annual checklist (downloadable from the factory website) to see a full range of possibilities. But that's still incomplete. Since you don't yet have any flying history with it like current owner its just as vital to have someone that knows that model well that can fly the plane and evaluate its avionics; especially its Autopilot which can't be checked on the ground. Seemingly little things like that can get very expensive to repair.

CrownAir in San Diego is a lot closer (1/2 hr by Mooney) and also a very good Mooney Service Center. There is another MSC in LA area, Foothill, that I have no first hand knowledge of.

I see what you mean WRT to the Lycoming data. Interesting how the POH contradicts that, their tables show the same fuel flow for the same % power level, independent of RPM, and the same speed for the same altitude. Although its best power, versus peak or best economy in the lycoming book, Its probably interpolated data rather than real. I'd trust the Lycoming data more with respect to % power you refer too on page 33. The APS guys are always talking about faster RPM being more efficient due to delaying the spark a little so I am surprised and I also find at high power settings I can't get as smooth LOP ops at low RPM. But I like to go fast!

If you want to run at 60% power for better fuel saving (miles/gallon) then why not run it at Peak. Once you're below 65% there is concern for running in the proverbial red box since it no longer exist at such low power settings and leaning further or even enriching further is just reducing the BFSC efficiency of your engine. You should be fine using the LOP formula for fuel flow which should yield 8.0 gph for 60% power. Similarly, I wouldn't assume 2000 RPM is more efficient than 2400, I would expect the higher RPM would yield better results but I'd collect some data and see to be sure if you haven't yet.

BigTex, my apologies for apparently confusing whom reported the bug. I had thought it was Oscar earlier, but probably not and I had forgotten you were the OP having the issue. Also I think I misunderstood your original issue or perhaps heard elsewhere that the JPI interface to Garmin for FOB info had been broken by the update. From re-reading your post, I understand you don't have anything connected to your 430W to provide FOB and manually set it? If so, what I did will be of no help to you. Regardless though, IMHO, if your using your Garmin for approaches the 5.1 update is well worth the sacrifice of loosing FOB till the next release - I wouldn't hesitate for a second. Incidentally, Oscar had me worried about the EDM firmware upgrade (in another thread), but I had no issue there either - thankfully.

Not quite, my JPI 830 provides current FOB to the 430Ws and constantly keeps it up to date while the 430Ws provide ETA of my final destination to the JPI so that tell me how much of a fuel reserve I have at my destination. Or I could go to a 430 fuel planning page for that info and more. The bug that Oscar reported broke the interface between the JPI and the 430w. I suspect Oscar's JPI may have been using the default protocol which provides fuel remaining at next waypoint since a different protocol is used to provide fuel remaining at the final destination and that protocol does not have the issue Oscar reported. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, both 430Ws Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen this happen due to oil leakage past the turbo on the induction side (as opposed to exhaust) and going into one of the 2 front cylinders - which are most susceptible since there induction tubes are the lowest. Oil reduces the octane and the detonation event didn't begin until leaning the mixture in cruise. For this, look for an oily induction tube or an oil puddle behind the turbo controller (another low spot). Another possibility is a clogged fuel injector. Yet with this you should see an elevated CHT with any moderate or higher power setting - which didn't look like the case here. Magneto timing would not affect a single cylinder. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have the 5.1 firmware update and do NOT have the FOB problem. I suspect it's because there are a few different protocol options that can be used to configure your fuel monitoring device to communicate with the GPS and probably the bug is limited to a specific protocol. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See 39-10-03 along with fig 39-2 and there is no other way. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's pretty involved to pull back the circuit breaker sub-panel. In addition to the few screws on the front there are two screws coming inside from outside of the fuselage and an Adel clamp underneath towards the rear of the tray - plus a plastic insulator that is pop-rivetted onto the right hand side. Then you'll be surprised to see it may only pull back about 4" or so and you'll need to remove adjacent breakers to get access to a middle breaker. The hard part will be aligning the fuselage screws with holes in the sub-panel tray to get them back in - use an awl to find the first one. If you pursue this, be sure to follow the maintenance manual steps. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course the source for the official and current PDF versions of your maintenance manual, IPC and POH's is the Factory. Contact them or your favorite MSC for them. They'll come on a Mooney thumb drive . Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been using Aero Accessories in Van Nuys, CA for 500 and 100 hr inspections. (Pressurized mags take much more abuse than those used in your NA aircraft) they specialize in mag work and will replace virtually every moving part and re paint and re-time them in 24hrs. You may be close enough to them for one day shipping by normal inexpensive ground service. I am very happy with their service - think it was ~$325 a mag for their 500 hr service. Their parts priced are also much better than what Byron quoted and cheaper than what you'd pay at aircraft spruce. Search for their contact info on other threads with other favorable comments. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk