kortopates

We all know it will do the job, as I already mentioned above. But it wasn't approved that way. A little bit like your earlier question upon learning LASAR has lost their PMA status to repair/make gear trusses and you asked do we know the correct heat treatment method. The answer to that is irrelevant, the correct practical question is there anyone else approved to repair a Mooney truss? It could really only be a repair station (or manufacturer) that has an approved documented process for repairing them in order to provide a return to service documentation.

I don't think pushing the nose over is exceeding any limitations here, zero G certainly isn't. It was a hilarious video though. The only question would be if the pax weren't in on it

I really doesn't matter. They were never certified/approved to run off the electric standby pump only.

The Precise STC doesn’t allow for it to run the Speed brakes off the electric standby vacuum- it’s got to be driven off the engines vacuum pump. Even though we all know it’s makes no difference. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A bit surprised to hear we have 2 Weather Spork app users. Don't get me wrong but Scott D, the meteorologist behind Weather Spork, divorced the developers and developed yet his next generation aviation weather product that he's continuing to grow. I encourage anyone to try it out https://ezwxbrief.com/ Its a website, but is easily setup to run just like any app. Scott also put out daily morning weather briefs on youtube which highlights using his app. The only limitation for me is that it only covers the US.

Actually due to the overhead of the turbo, the loss of MAP is going to even bigger than @rbp example above by an 1-2". But your FF & pressure will be fine showing its not a fuel pump issue. But what's even more important to recognize is that with the loss of MAP the mixture is going to be way too rich and you'll have to lean the mixture to get power back and in the process see the EGTs come back up - leaning by EGT. Although its possible to figure things out without it, a good engine monitor is really helpful in recognizing what's going on quickly so you can restore power to some degree. The other main turbo power losses are due to fuel where the monitor comes in again to tell you what to do. Many of the turbo failures I see, and I see quite a few, were actually preventable if the pilot noticed his declining oil pressure before the turbo seized. One nice if you will with a turbo is its actually the sacrificial part that fails first due to declining oil pressure saving the rest of the engine - if the pilot pulls back power at that point and glides it in to an airport assuming you have the altitude.

@PT20J Skip beat you too it yesterday in the GFC-500 Problem thread. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, but the question remains if the hardware changes were to change or improve functionality or improve longevity issues. But we should hear soon. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, but If you look at your main wheels you can probably tell what’s going on without changing the nose tire tube to see the 90 degree bend inside. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really odd at all, i assume you have a ‘75 model manufactured in ‘74. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was an accident a few years ago of a 252 taking off on short field for the weight. It didn’t clear a berm. The front 2 occupants survived but the rear pax died from a broken neck. I forget if the rear seater was even wearing a lap belt but the NTSB claimed the fatal injury was due to both lack of head rest and shoulder harness. The plane was equipped with head rest but all had been removed. I was surprised how important both where to a rear seat pax. Pilot had survivable but fractured neck injuries too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LASAR has lost its PMA status since moving to Oregon and is supposedly going through the process to get it back. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing is lighter, nor better and takes up less panel space than the WX-500 since it displays on an existing MFD or GPS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But since none of your LPV approaches are good down to precision minimums of 200 1/2 the infrastructure improvements will also provide for better minimums on your LPV approaches. For example you need a approach lighting system to get minimums down to 200 & 1/2 so i bet these changes will help the GPS approaches too

Personally, I ditch the 900 and put the money towards upgrading to a WX 500 if you can find one. A far better solution that is integrated with your panel GPS and PFD. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t really know how reasonable it is, only that the crew did it twice before the accident successfully during Day VFR and both times in front of the hills. The FAA doesn’t have an issue with it though since they provide for both category C and D minimums with 3 mi visibility on the approach. Circling wider a bit behind the hills is fine too as long as they don’t get too low and stay above the hills. Category C/D minimums are 500’ higher to reflect this as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, the 27 Right VFR pattern is Left traffic SS to SR (27L is closed) and Right Traffic SR to SS. Unless forced to extend for traffic, left traffic always turns base in front of the two little hills. Right traffic must go around the big mountain without prior permission to do a short approach. But circling to 27 L/R on the 17 approach is always done to the south (left traffic) due to circling restrictions which is NA at night.

The last one in particular is an example of how insidious a legal VFR METAR can be and fail so terribly to tell the whole story. The Lear was coming back to its home base and although it came in on the RNAV 17 approach, RWY 17 being wet, made it too short for the Lear. But circling to 27 IFR is not permitted on 17 approach at night. So it cancelled IFR first. Despite the fact the METAR reported a ceiling at 2K, the Lear descended 400' below minimums in front of the MAWP and continued to descend as it approached the airport at less than 400' AGL over the runway. The pilot asked tower to turn up the lights which were already on high. The pilot flying, apparently right seat, while circling left, was unable to duplicate how they has practiced circling in the past before in Day VFR conditions. Surveillance video caught the lear going through some small clouds while circling which where probably a factor in the accident. Since this time they went too wide (for the altitude they were at) which put them behind a couple small hills just before the final turn onto final. Then the lear from getting too low found it boxed in a bit below the small hill with much higher terrain directly in front forcing the pilot to both pull up and over bank in order to turn onto final. Of course it stalled out instead. I'll spare you of the radio audio from the last couple seconds. The accident highlights in my opinion how critical it is to have a plan for how you'll go missed any where along the circling maneuver; and especially for once you descend below minimums far way from the MAWP. In hindsight their only chance to survive was to go missed when they were directly over the airport. Trying to continue to get home while 600+' below circling minimums was a terrible lapse in judgement and good lesson for us all.

Is the runway fenced off, or does that not prevent deer getting on the runway? So glad it was as a miss! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easy peasy, it’s to far LOP when power drops off such that you can’t sustain level flight! Or maybe you just don’t want to go that slow. Now if your a turbo pilot you have much more air to work with and can run deeper at higher power settings unlike the NA engines. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’d be surprised. All it takes is a trace of ice to block your pitot tube and then have your pitot heat fail. We shouldn’t forget the legacy Aspen STC allowed no back up’s with multiple Aspens yet when lost pitot pressure the entire Aspen Red-X’d out entirely - didn’t matter how you had. Never understood how the FAA approved no backups on multiple Aspens. It was only fixed by the newer Max Aspen. At least Garmin only lost attitude for a few minutes to re-align and now that’s fixed without having to buy a next generation unit! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With all that time in a K are you sure you want to go back to NA? I would not. I’d think if your willing to go NA that you’d want to wait for a nice J. Or remembering the challenges of a fixed or manual wastegate, go for a 252/Encore. After all this should be a long term commitment. Lastly, an F will be much more familiar than a E. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True, but that’s a mode most others didn’t support and my BK KFC-150 didn’t support it till it was driven by my Garmin GAD-43e, using pitot. Do any support IAS or FLC without pitot? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What are you thinking is different with Garmin AP’s? Most autopilots installed by Mooney where the BK variety which Garmin pretty much copied for their installation. Your Century was the exception. Quite possibly the BK might of performed better if they used the pushrods install method that Century did. But BK still had the superior performance. Given many porpoising issues where fixed by better lubrication of the pitch controls it seems control stiffness and free play could be a factor. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you nailed it. Mooney installed all the AP at the bottom, so those of us used to that after decades of use probably would find it odd to have to reach up. But if that is what you’re used to, familiarity is key. With the new GFC AP’s there is much more interaction with heading and alt bugs than ever before making easy access even more important. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk