kortopates

+1 - I ordered a perscription pair with progressive lens at last years Summit in Long Beach and love them. They provide excellent contrast and are very comfortable with headsets. Prior to the Vedalo I used the Serengetti with vermilion lenses. Some years ago, Aviation Consumer used to quote NASA's research in recommending a rose colored tint for the most effective contrast in the cockpit and found the Serengetti vermilion the closest to NASA's recommendation - at least that's what I recall. Orange also provides excellent constrast but is optimized for shaded/flat light and doesn't provide enough protection in the bright sun IMO. Iam surprised so many are in favor of Polarized sunglasses in the cockpit - they are a definite hindrance in mine viewing panel displays. For those of us flying at altitude, its very critical that our sunglasses provide 100% UV A & B protection - luckily most do these days.

Nate, I use one of the popular Power Tows (40EZ) and I have yet to hear of someone getting less than a decade out of one. So choose wisely, any of the quality brands should last you a long time. One comment on the Lindbergh, I noted you need to bend down and screw the nose wheel attachment into position compared to the Power Tow unit I use that clamps into position held by spring force. I would be a bit concerned about denting the nose gear truss if the Lindbergh attachment holds on so well that it allows you apply force past the stops without popping off like my Power Tow unit. In contrast, the latter is held in place by adjustable spring tension that will detach before enough force can be applied to hurt/dent the truss. Secondly with all the units that you hold onto, you can feel the nose wheel hit the stops; but with any remote control unit one has to be extra careful not to allow it to overturn the nose wheel.

None here, but if you're looking at their remote control option you should also consider this new one out I saw at AOPA Summit last week: http://www.acairtechnology.com/ No idea how expensive the lindbergh model is but you'll see the price the AC Air Technology's tug. Pretty high tech - Its got to be the new cat's meow for a high end tug!

Another weather products that actually forecast clouds by layers (e.g., 6-12K, 12-18K, above 18K etc) is at http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/model/ That and Adds flight path looking at relative humidty are the better pre-flight planning tools. Of course, Satellite pictures with temps are only good for current tops

Exactly, the governor is an oil pump that boost oil pressure substantially above engine oil pressure to change the prop from fine pitch to a courser pitch as you pull back on the prop control. However after start up and assuming low power settings as you idle/taxi around, the prop governor hasn't yet been called into action bring the prop back off the fine pitch stops and has not yet built up the oil pressure to do so. The first time you do so takes a few seconds, but 10 seconds is excessive. A couple second delay is more normal. But since there is no hunting or surging, it appears to be operating fine except for the delay in building up oil pressure on first use. Minor terminology issue but you're c-model prop doesn't feather, not even close, but as you pull it back its certainly changing its pitch to a course angle, but no where near the 90 deg that a multi-engine prop will.

I see Preferred Airparts http://www.preferredairparts.com/ has 32 serviceable units in stock. You have to check with them for a price. But I'd suggest googling the TCM part number and you might get lucky finding a discounted source on a new one.

I'd be surprised if you'd need to send back the monitor, but obviously the TIT sensor would need to be added. JPI documents in the users manual that their gauge reads ~100F above the factory massive TIT gauge. That said, the factory gauge is the one with the legal redline limit of 1650. But I personally avoid operating above 1550F TIT based on my higher reading JPI, which is accurate. I just don't trust the factory TIT. Using 1550-1575F as a TIT target limit on my JPI (which would 1450-1475 on the factory TIT), I can run all day at 70% power 80F LOP (11 GPH, 32.5MP, 2400 rpm). That's my personal LOP limit as I can't get to max 78.6% cruise power without exceeding my personal TIT's comfort level, but max cruise LOP is still within the factory TIT red line.

Checked TCM web site, their List price is $683.49, which is what you should expect to pay from any TCM distributor. Unless you can find someone selling surplus units cheeper you probbly won't beat that price - or if your willing, you should also be able to find a serviceable used one.

Awesome Parker!!

I agree concern for slips is over exaggerated. IMO, they are a very important tool and most useful when the pilot wants to temporarily increase descent in a no flaps condition while maintaining a target airspeed, such as the (simulated) engine out landing that (I hope) we all practice. With the flaps up, there is no concern slipping at 80kts, your engine out glide speed. Speed brakes in this situation is too hard to control with any precision. But full slips with full flaps is another matter and would agree speed brakes is a better option. But such dramatic descent rates should not be necessary in the pattern and rarely ever if not on fire. I’ve used speed brakes and a full slip descending into a mountain airport in the Sierra’s due to surrounding terrain with and without the gear down (and no flaps) without any issue at approx 100 kts; but not out of necessity, just to save time.

Looking forward to it!

Yes, you can confirm by looking at your schematic. My mooney "hours meter" is wired into the tach. Its an electric tach working off a Hall sensor. The tach is measuing magento pulse through the hall sensor. Also note it doesn't come close to measuring 1:1 until you're at cruise power. Its only accurate when the number of pulses its measuring are at the rate of cruise power RPM, taxing around, touch and go's etc. and whenever the RPM is way back, the meter is not seeing enough impulses to keep 1:1 and doesn't keep up with clock time. That's why flight schools install oil sensor based hobbs time so that they do get 1:1 time when the engine is running at any power level. But their should still be a tach based timer there too, either on the tach itself or as a separate hours meter connected to the tach.. But like you say, hobbs can run off anything. The standard "hours meter" in our Mooney's is running off the tach but I haven't looked at your schematic to know what you actually have but would expect similar.Can you check your schematic?

After reading this thread some time ago there are two things that stood out: - This is a great example of why Transistion training by a Mooney specific instructor can be so valuable - many folks apparently didn't learn in their transition training that the Floor mounted visual Indicator is the Primary indicator for verifying the gear is down and should be checked before every landing - Hank above has it eactly right. Its great to use the annunciator when you first put the gear down, but we all need to check the floor indicator no laterthan short final before landing. - Secondly, from some of quotations from folks POH its evident you all didn't get the POH update that was first issued in 09-2001 in service bulletin M20-279 and now superceded by the latest M20-282-A. In it, on page 7, is a POH insert for all electric gear POHs that makes the above warning to check the Floor visual gear position indicator prior to ALL landings. If you don't have it , you can get for your POH at: http://www.mooney.com/images/pdfs/sb-pdf/sbm20-282-a.pdf

No, works quite well with good resolution.

Me either, nor do I understand the m20 Sloped vs J. You'd think a standard mid-body sized and fit to your antenna would work. But the key things are covering the windows entirely plus the baggage door. Can't tell how well your baggage door is covered in the photo, but the strap at the rear should be at more of an angle behind the step to get it to fit tight - when you have the proper length to do so. But that should be a big clue to them something is wrong. What's up with your missing N number?

I believe Fluffysheap(?) and Jorgen have it about right, and as Jorgen points out the low boost and high boost switches actually operate the same pump in different circuits and in different places or modes: For K models: The low boost pump is to mitigate fuel vaporization in the way that Fluffysheap very accurately describes above. Another indication of its need is a fluctuating fuel flow. The prime switch, or low boost pump's prime circuit, actually pumps fuel directly into the main induction tube inlet by the controller and the preferred priming method when so equipped. The high boost pump is for the emergency situation should your engine driven pump fail - its use is documented in the emergency procedures section of your POH where it also describes it limitations. Exceptions for other Models: Although the K does not use low boost for tank switching some of the long bodies do, such as the TN and S mentioned by c02Bruce earlier. Not all the Continental equipped models have a Prime Circuit on the low boost. For example the TN does not and relies on the High Boost for 5 seconds or Low for 25 sec; as compared to 5 to 6 seconds for the K models with the low boost prime circuit. If your Mooney has a prime circuit, it’s the preferred method from a safety standpoint. If the circuit has failed, then High Boost is the easy way to get it started. But be careful, this does work well but is risking a much greater chance of an engine fire because the high boost pump is pumping large quantities of fuel directly into the cylinders and over doing it could lead to a fire. Its also helpful to wait 30 seconds for the fuel to vaporize in the induction tube (or cylinder) before engaging the starter (after following the recommended number of seconds for priming based on ambient temperature from the graph in TCM Engine Operations manual if you have it). There is an additional use of the High Boost pump documented in your TCM Engines Operation guide and some of the later model POHs. This is specifically only for Hot Starts, and the procedure has been discussed elsewhere but is basically, pull the mixture and throttle all the way back (idle cut off), then run the high boost for approx 15 seconds. Running the high boost with mixture at Idle cut off prevents fuel from getting past the fuel divider (only on Continentals) and circulates the hot vaporizing fuel back to the tank replacing it with cool fuel to aid starting. After running the high boost at idle cut off, put the mixture forward and start up without priming. Lastly, running the low boost needlessly for very long isn't a good practice for the pocket book. I know of number of owners that burned out their electric pumps using it to drain their tanks. A neighbor of mine did that to a brand new pump - ouch! Also, having it on at idle shouldn't cause a properly leaned engine to stop, but you'll likely note the engine won't stop when you pull the mixture to idle cut-off if the boost is running. When it’s on, some fuel is going to dribble past the fuel divider into the cylinders enough to keep it running.

For a brief period that was true, but since Jan 16, 2009, the FAA Chief Counsel provided legal interpretation to AOPA that corrected the interpretation you quoted and brought reason and good aeronautical decision making back into the process. It says in part "Rather than specifically defining "known Ice", the FAA defines "known or observed or detected ice accretion" in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). In paragraph 7-1-22 of that manual the agency defines "known or observed or detected ice accretion" as "actual ice observed visually to be on the aircraft by the flight crew or indentified by on-board sensors". Actual adhesion to the aircraft, rather than existence of potential icing conditions, is the determinative factor in this definition....." It then goes on to give advice on how to assess the icing conditions by examining available data and concludes with "If the composite of information indicates to a reasonable and prudent pilot that he or she will be operating the aircraft under conditions that will cause ice to adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight, then known icing conditions likely exist. If the pilot operates the aircraft in known icing conditions contrary to the requirements of 91.9(a), the FAA may take enforcement action….”I’d post a link to the actual interpretation but just have a PDF copy of it handy.

The Mooney Hobbs meter (unless it’s been replaced) is measuring total tach time unlike the Hobbs meter installed on rental aircraft that measures elapsed time triggered by the oil pressure sensor/switch - thus total elapsed time the engine is operating regardless of power setting. Our Mooney Hobbs meter though is not a clock but designed to most accurately measure time when RPM is around cruise and is much less accurate at lower RPM settings. Thus when idling, the Hobbs is recording time at rate of approx about 40% of what it would in cruise (1000 rpm/2500 rpm). It may also be true that they have a minimum RPM but I have never seen a reference that states that. Regardless though, my Hobbs time always pretty much exactly come out to be .2 hrs less than actual clock time for just about any normal flight, short or long, because of the time to taxi to and from the runway from the hangar, do the run up etc. If the flight is a training one with many take-off/landings w/ taxi-backs then the difference between Hobbs time and engine running time can be much greater than 0.2. As a result, the Hobbs meter, measuring tach time like our Mooneys, is purely for measuring Time in Service for maintenance purposes. Thats why back in your student pilot/rental days you often recorded both a tach time for maintenance and Hobbs time based on the oil pressure to be billed. You were paying that extra .2 or more time per flight than what the tach time saw. (I've heard mention of Hobbs time based entirely on the master switch but never seen one for real and wonder if there is any real truth to that - if so, they're being robbed!) We have 3 ways of measuring “Hobbs” time on my aircraft as do most of you. We use the Mooney Hobbs time to measure Time in Service – not our pilot log time. We then use one of GNS-430, to measure engine time, essentially identical to the oil pressure triggered Hobbs, which is what we log as pilot time (our #2 GNS-430W timer measures time from startup, which comes on seconds after engine startup). Our other GNS-430W timer measures Air-Hobbs time with a timer set to start at lift off (triggered with GS>30kts), that way we get actual air borne time just as most advanced aircraft record airborne time based on a gear squat switch.

I got a Autel MV201-85 Video inspection scope kit earlier this year and so far like it. I first saw it on Aircraft Tool Supply ATS but bought it elsewhere since they were immediately out of stock. They are available in 3 different diameter sizes from many sources. I went with the 8.5mm for the higher resolution over the smallest 4mm size. The kit comes with mirror and other accessories (magnet, hook tip etc) and allows you to record video and/or pictures.

Speed rating really has nothing to do with it. The advantage of the Flight Custom III is the increased tread depth. Tire longevity is mostly the result of tread depth. This was born out by Aviation Consumers simulated landings and skid testing where these tires won due to their increased tread depth. I can't find the reference, (it could be in the original aviation consumer article) but I recall the III's where developed in response to flight schools and tested by Embry Riddle whom claimed 40% more landings from previous tires. Goodyear advertises a more conservative 20% more landings. With regards to tubes, a buytl tube is what is desired to reduce leakage. These are marketed by several manufacturers under different names but all perform the same; i.e. Leakguard, Airstop etc. I am on my second set of FC III's after getting over 800 hours on the first set with lots of landings.

Mike, My recollection is that you're at Montgomery? I used to be, and moved to Gillespie for a larger hangar. I am about to start my annual next week with a retired IA at Gillespie at my hangar complex, that used to be a Mooney mechanic and was even factory trained. He's truly an independent IA working out of his hangar but I only know about him in the context of owner assisted annuals at my hangar complex. If this interest you send me a PM and I'll get you contact info.

I think its awesome a turbo owner has managed to get 1800 hrs without topping; especially on a GB! That proves good sound operation and is very commendable. As for Diesel options there isn't even anything in the foreseable future that even a potential contender for us. Look at Lycoming's offereing that coming out on C182. It can't even maintain 70% power above 17K - that's a major step down from stock 231 with a critical altitude slightly above 17K. Continental is in theory developing higher HP diesels that are more likely a contender for our birds - but who knows when and if.

Its really a very tough call in my opinion, without the Merylyn you still have a critical altitude of around 17.5K, not terrible, but climb rate will really suffer climbing above the wx to clear air in the flight levels. But a Merlyn without the intercooler will get you up higher faster yet you'll have even bigger temperature issues (CDT) to manage without the intercooler. All trade offs of course. Jimmy Garrison's latest pricing from the MAPA Log is showing 252's starting at $139K now,

I can only tell you I started with a stock 231 and was dissatisfied with its high altitude performance. Rather than spend $ on engine upgrades to improve, I had an opportunity to upgrade to a 252 a year later and took it. 10+ years in a 252 and I am very glad I did. Besides a very improved MB engine with full turbo configuration with infinitely adjustable electric cowl flaps, I picked up 10 kts over the 231, got 4x times the electrical system capacity (12v 1 alternator to 24v dual alternaors), speed brakes included as standard, and enjoy the flexibility of rear bucket seats that fold down entirely (or easily removable). Plus the 252 is eligible for the Encore gross weight increase conversion to SB configuration and adding FIKI - unlike a 231.

I've had very good success using epoxy to repair the plastic cooling shroud on the alternators. I think I used JBWeld for plastic. My recollection is a replacement part was approximately $200 while repair cost was less than $5 plus my time. The hose leading to the cooling shroud is just SCAT - easily replaceable. I have dual alternators. Converting an engine without them to the dual configuration requires a replacing the entire TCM starter adapter since a different starter adaptor configuration is required, plus then you'll need what I understand is a mooney speciifc vacuum pad extension (its not a TCM part) to move the vacuum pump out a few inches and a new vacuum pump (different rotation). Most of the cost is in the starter adapter. Usng your existing one for exchange you'd have to call around to see what the dual alternator configuration would cost you - if you can find one.. I am pretty sure Don quoted Parker the $13K based on a new TCM starter adapter.