kortopates

The CI-105 is perfect for the GTX-345. All the CI-105 are same except for method of mounting, possible connector and speed restrictions. Some are made to be compatible with a different brand of mount like a King antenna. So I would have your installer check your present antenna mount so he can match it up for an easy install but most likely the basic CI-105 will work for you.

I wouldn't worry about the instruction before purchasing, it's very hard to find rental Mooney's. And lets say you got 10 hrs in the B at Chino, your insurance company is likely going to specify 10+ hrs of dual in your "E" model before you can solo anyway. Plus regardless, even if not, you really don't want to be alone in a plane that new to you with little experience in the Model till you have a chance to get comfortable with the help of a very experienced Mooney instructor. On the other hand its going to quite easy to get a ride from an another nearby owner. That will enable to you to tell if its a good match as well as try out more than model. So I suggest let folks know what airport you closest too since SOCAL is a huge area and I am sure you'll line up a ride soonest. I'd suggest you check out both a E and mid-body F model.

By a far margin, the appropriate version of the Comant CI-105 is the most popular transponder antenna installed.

Regarding the iPad location, I'd be afraid of it becoming a detriment to my health in an off field emergency. On the CGR-30 combo, be aware that you'll end up with two different data files which makes data analysis a chore. If you have the time and are excel proficient enough, it is actually possible to merge the data into one combined file. But its a lot of work, not something one would do for every flight. I've only seen one client pull off the merge after working on it.

It looks too big to fit right behind the emergency gear extension - the only small rectangular section I can think of.

This recent service letter from Mooney appears to be the factories response to address the apparent increased gear incidents and focused on all kinds of causes from pilot error on up. Its also a pretty good comprehensive write-up on how both manual and electric gears systems work. David mentioned the ACO inspector didn't appreciate the worn down block issue but Mooney's SB sure does. The SAIB should have included a reference to this Mooney SB-344 SBM20-344.pdf

Sounds like your issue may be as simple as needing to lubricate the pins that the calipers slides back and forth on - what you referred to as the rods I believe. Suggest using some silicone DC4. They will often bind when your moving the plane by hand without them being properly lubricated. You may be replacing the pads just to be safe, but with the dual puck brakes you should be able to get much more than a even a couple annuals of wear on the pads before replacing them. Unless perhaps you live on a very short field and need to really get on the brakes with every landing. But if your able to land, use aerodynamic braking (hold the nose wheel off as long as possible) and exit with barely touching the brakes they should last you many years without replacing the pads.

Folks I assure you the FAA investigates every incident and they do their best to attribute a root cause to every one. That's not to say they get every one correct and have the resources to delve into each to be absolutely sure but every one gets investigated. In addition to interviewing the pilot they'll review maintenance records, visit the plane when possible and often interview the maintenance provider. The breadth of their review is determined by what they learn about the incident initially. I wish I could give you a copy of the FAA's reporting form to highlight better, but they have to address a broad list of potential factors for every incident/accident to determine if it was caused by the Pilot, Airworthiness issue, weather or even fault with FARs or combination thereof - everything is on the table at the start. For a great many they determine right away from the pilot it was human error and don't need to go further but being pros they certainly take what the pilot says with a grain of salt and don't necessarily stop there; especially if the pilot believes the gear failed. I am not an FAA employee but a volunteer Lead FAASTeam rep that learns many of incidents and accident details within our FSDO from our investigating inspectors. I have to assume the SAIB was written because their data indicates too many gear failures from a lack of maintenance. To me that suggest too many annuals that aren't following the Mooney Service manual to fully inspect and lubricate the gear i.e. pencil whipped annuals. For example, just cycling the gear like you would after changing a tire and calling it good. I am a bit unique since as a CFI I am not only involved with safety issues on the Operations side of the house (pilots, airspace, runway safety etc) but also as an A&P/IA I am also working closely with the airworthiness side of the house and hearing the maintenance issues so I am more exposed to the broader issues than the typical FAASTeam member.

Given the number of Mooney annuals I hear about with no more of a gear inspection than cycling the gear I am not surprised. Given the number of reported "gear failure" incidents we see I wouldn't fault the FAA but conclude the SAIB is deserved if they've tracked many of the gear failures to insufficient maintenance. Unfortunately it will likely only get read/reviewed by the conscientious Mooney owners that don't need this reminder - it really is redundant for those that follow the Mooney SM and Mooney 100 hr checklist. But those seeking the lowest cost quick annual probably won't care or notice this. I wonder if even an AD making it mandatory at annuals would make a difference in reducing gear failures, but I can see the FAA doing so when numbers don't improve. Aging parts is a separate but related issue. Has the FAA done anymore than just investigate the OPP complaint on David's gear bracket?

Although you could use Excel, the best tool is Savvy Aviation and it’s free unless you want to become a subscriber for AnalysisPro for professional analysis of your data. See SavvyAviation.com to create a free account to chart your data. All engine monitors supported. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I recall it being stronger cowling able to better handle the air loads. don't recall details though.

Have a good time up there tomorrow! Weather is actually worse on Saturday here in the southern SOCAL area with an inch of rain predicted with all the accompanying hazards. But WVI is far enough away at 350nm we'd want to do it as a weekend trip anyway. Hopefully we'll see you all at another future one So hope you enjoy it as much as we enjoyed Camarillo last time.

I personally find the pulsing of the recognition lights to be all that is needed to significantly increase visibility- especially at night. I’d wouldn’t pulse the landing lights to avoid having to switch from pulse to solid on for night landings - to much of a bother IMO. Also i personally wouldn’t add a beacon either primarily because of a FAA legal interpretation that will consider them both together an anti-collision light system that requires them both to be functioning to be airworthy. That logic just doubles the chance of having to fix a failed light. Although on the pro side you can argue that with all LEDs the chance is very small. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s needs a new high pressure needle valve inside the port. Suggest pulling the port and sending it to https://www.c-l-aero.com/ they are a repair station for oxygen systems and components. It’s an inexpensive repair. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s a standard practice to remark an airspeed indicator. The same thing is done going from the 252 to Encore conversion. I’ve been involved in both the J and K conversions. Maybe years ago it was cheaper to install a new IAS indicator, but i doubt it. These days re-configuring a digital IAS v-speeds is easiest. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This MSB23-01A is about to become emergency AD 2023-04-08 And the FAA is taking the worst case scenario by removing the 200 hr exemption: Differences Between this AD and the Service Information The service information specifies compliance for engines with less than 200 operating hours, while this AD requires compliance for all affected engines, regardless of the operating hours. The FAA has determined that this unsafe condition, of improperly installed counterweight retaining rings, is likely to exist on affected engines. While the manufacturer's service information excludes engines accumulating 200 or more operating hours, the FAA has not, as of yet, been provided with adequate data to support that exclusion. In the event the FAA receives data to support the exclusion of engines with more than 200 operating hours, or make other changes to this AD, the FAA may consider further rulemaking. Sorry but I am traveling out of the country right now and can't post more helpful information.

And that is the difference between the 14v and subsequent 28v installations. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The MB and SB controller is different and even more advanced in that it doesn’t constantly maintain a UDP a couple of inches above redline like earlier designs but varies UDP to just above the MAP setting. Thus we’re not loosing the breathing efficiency like some of the more basic controllers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i can’t actually recommend any power setting not approved in your POH, so would suggest 2400 and 31.5” But your welcome try with 2300 rpm LOP and report back Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course you will! I know a thing or two about Mike's C310 and how he flys it. Mike's TSIO-520 has a real turbo controller with a hydraulically controlled wastegate which you don't have with just a turbo and manual pneumatic wastegate. Plus you missed he's also using RPM to control power - he's not running anywhere near redline rpm. Additionally his redline MAP is only 32" which is a far cry from yours and much more like a turbo normalized engine than most turbo's. The bottom line is that Mike power stetting is never above 65% unless he's in a real hurry - which is on blue moon since he has two of them. Mike's turbo is rare compared to most, but he says this to underline the point more for the normally aspirated engines that should be run WOT at altitude using bith RPM and FF to control power. FF can only control power so far before your cylinders start missing, thus the need to also use RPM. But the engine breathes more efficiently and the reduced RPM aides in giving more time for the slowed lean combustion process to complete before the exhaust valve opens.

A great wealth of information, much of which you won't find anywhere else. Truly a great proponent of on condition maintenance.

two flights each upto 2hrs - for 4 hrs dual

Personally, I think that is the smart answer - the 10 hr job one time, versus the 6 hr job every year till someday cracks are present and there is no choice. Then in retrospect, all those annual 6 hr jobs was a waste unless you don't have a long term ownership view.

Sorry I am going to have to disagree too. Most of the time an extension tube bends easier or before it can move the other gears.

Friday is typically a full day 8 hrs day of Mooney specific ground. Over Saturday and upto Sunday morning you'll do 2 flights up to 2 hrs each with an instructor experienced in your model. First one will be the VFR flight review maneuvers, with the second flight being Instrument work potentially leading to an IPC for a current instrument pilots. Non-instrument rated pilots can do anything the pilot wants to work on including more extensive VFR training or nigh currency as @hammdomentioned.