kortopates

You have to practice flying down GP to the IFR landing zone or you will be ill equipped landing with minimum visibility. Note we’re not discussing clouds here. Even breaking out at 200’ yet with 6 mi visibility allows you finish the approach with a VFR landing configuring from none or partial flaps to full and significantly slowing down. But with only 1/2 mi visibility you still won’t have the threshold in sight at 200’, just the ALS, and still gently coming down to 100 agl to pick up runway visually. imagine heavy rain, you can’t risk re-configuring the aircraft but need to stay on GS all the way down. So to be prepared to land with minimum vis we really need to practice staying on the needles all the way to the landing zone. This is also a requirement for new IFR candidates on their check ride. We could say the same for partial panel approaches but that is another topic. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just stick to Mooney’s that have articulating front seats and you won’t have any problems. i believe they are standard on the 252’s and long bodies but not earlier K’s. I will add that more important than the bit higher cost of operating a turbo, which doesn’t make up a significant portion of my operating expenses, Turbo really require a more mechanically knowledgeable pilot to operate safely. Just compare the emergency procedures of one compared to a normally aspirated one. IMO they need pilots that are willing to really get to know there systems and emergency procedures. Basics such as why we have both low and high boost pumps and their purpose are not widely understood. As an IA and CFI i try to make sure all the Mooney systems and procedures are well understood during transition training but its like drinking from a fire hose and will take much longer time than the few days spent on transition training to really learn their systems. We just have to hope a new pilot isn’t tested too early in their ownership. Such risk can be greatly reduced IMO by only buying a plane that has been flying regularly rather than one that has been sitting or a project plane. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good to know about the FS passing the best ADHRS data, wish the GI-275 was a potential source too. I have to manually 2 jepp databases, both Obstacles and Safe Taxi because for Jepp couldn’t give me the same coverage areas for these through my stack. i get full America’s on everything but two databases for the GI-275 where i get smaller coverage areas. The result is the GI-275 gets both coverage areas and isn’t smart enough to use the correct one and instead just says “DB conflicts” leaving me to do it manually. Sometimes both versions are already on the GI-275 thanks to the concierge service but sometimes need to transfer it from my ipad. Since getting proficient at fixing it, it’s that much of pain anymore. But i always wonder if i am only 1 more call away with Jepp support to get it fixed despite many past failed attempts. i’ll try to give a better explanation on my Connect set up, which of course is on the GTN . With my G500/GTN750+650/GTX-345/GFC-500/GI-275, only two connect devices are shown on the 750, my FS-510 and GTX-345, and i am able to bluetooth simultaneously to both and seen the same options on many other students with similar G500/GTN panels. Your saying though that the connext system with FS-510 should switch to provide ADHRS from the GTX-345 if i loose the G500 ADHRS. I will test this on my panel pulling the G500 CB and see if i still get ADHRS data without the GTX-345 connection. That would be nice! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You sure about that? I don’t ever connect to be GI-275 except to upload databases via WiFI - didn’t know you could do more than that. But i always bluetooth connect to both my FS510 on the GTN and my GTX-345. Reason being if i loose the ADHRS on my G500 i won’t be able to get ADHRS data to my iPad on FS510 connection either, but the GTX-345 also provides ADHRS so i am set for having backup ADHRS on my iPad running GP in this very unlikely scenario. Cool the GI-275 can do flight plan transfer when paired with a navigator using Connext but i don’t think that will work for me because i only have the FS-510 and GTX-345 set up as connext devices with my G-500 set up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Redbird does have a performance set up for the Acclaim that the factory commissioned Redbird to develop some time ago. It was never offered to the public but i do have an Acclaim owner student that was able to get Redbird to set up their personal Redbird using the Acclaims performance data. It’s a pretty reasonable representation of Acclaim performance. I worked with a couple of Mooney Full motion Redbirds years ago when I worked with Mooney. For G1000 owners it works well but the navigation has many quirks making it different than the real thing. I also teach an advanced IFR flight sim lab with a dozen redbirds at the college and know them and their quirks well. The legacy 6-pack panel is a disappointment though since they still don’t have support for the GTN Navigators, just the GNS530W. But recently they at least added an option for a HSI which is some improvement. But for other than G1000 pilots i think there are better options to better mimic your panel. None are cheap. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No hoops to jump through and it only requires a A&P's signature because its not even a major alteration; its following Mooney drawings. Nor is in any way considered a modified aircraft in a legal sense because it is entirely is compliant with the TCDS for the Encore when done. It includes switching to the Encore POH. Its fully compliant with the service manual as well. Only 252's are eligible to upgrade to the Encore, The bigger problem now is with the factory in its present state many shops would not want to undertake this task. Even sourcing new parts from the factory will take a lot of time which is a lot of time chasing parts for by the shop. To do this now a Savvy owner will have to source before hand the airframe parts and then arrange with a shop to do the work with parts in hand. The engine is a trivial part of the conversion - its mostly all in upgrading to the double puck brakes and heavier balance weights on control services for the added 230 lbs of max gross weight.

Cost is totally dependent on how quickly or how much or rush you are do it. The more economical way to do the conversion is get as many of the Mooney airframe parts as possible salvage - they are the same parts used in Bravo’s and often Ovations. For example it requires changing out 2 of the three gear doors on each side, spindles (axles) and many smaller brake parts including master cylinders which will need to come from Mooney. I have guided many clients through SavvyAviation.com on this and have seen one person overhaul his engine to the -SB and not have the airframe done mistakenly thinking he could upgrade the engine before the airframe. He spent over 20K and this was probably pre-pandemic prices. Even my Speed brakes are now upgraded to electric. After the conversion though the only differences will be interior. There is nothing from the original Encore panel that would still be in a modern glass panel upgrade, such as mine. Plus upholstery and insulation have all been upgraded. The only remaining differences will be the overhead switches for lights.

1.5 - 2hrs is nothing in an Encore. There are more 252’s converted to Encores than Encores. I converted mine. The conversions on average will have a bit more useful load - mine had over 1120 lbs. Personally i would only get one with Dual alternators but i got mine for traveling. Otherwise your subject to single alternator failures with a single battery. Everything else is standard. How comfortable it is though may depend on the quality of the interior and seats - if still original foam that would be an issue. Much better options available with quality upholstery work. TKS isn’t as critical on a Turbo since most often we can get on top and cruise over ice in the sunlight. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As the name implies TOGA Take Off and Go Around - it’s good practice to use on every IFR takeoff and helps to put the aircraft in a safe pitch angle to engage the AP in an IFR climb, till you later use IAS to climb. Available on all the Garmin AP’s. We’ve seen a number of pilots not transition to instruments in nighttime and IFR departures and succumb to somatogravic illusion killing all aboard within just seconds of departure. Using the TOGA and pitching to the flight director is a simple defense till on AP properly configured safely above the ground. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Owning is not cheaper but more expensive- you’ll be paying a premium to have 7x24 access to your plane. Therefore i wouldn’t recommend plane ownership to anyone that didn’t already love it. it’s cheaper to keep renting. Another reason to rent is to be able to work on your instrument rating without having to spend a lot more to upgrade the panel. But if you want to buy it’s always cheaper to get what you need than pay to upgrade it yourself. Don’t under estimate the down time involved in upgrading the panel. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the 3 bladed MT prop i use silicone baffling material folded over and secured by baffle fasteners. Basically fashioned as a pair on condoms. For the spinner and fuselage painters tape does the job. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At the time, Veronica (Chinese owner) was really keen on quality to promote the brand. It was a big reason why she bought the brand. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s all excellent maintenance practices. I assume you meant Fine Wires on the bottom were really important- which i agree. True about mixing them up between top and bottom but using two types makes rotating the plugs a bit of a challenge you don’t have just using all fine wires. I typically see a small gain in efficiency with a lower RPM like 2300 with same key number (combination of inches + RPM hundreds) as in a little less fuel for the same IAS and a little lower TIT. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Back when i briefly worked for them we gave them away at shows along with other marketing toys. They were a lot better off in those days! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am hesitant to make this discussion about FEVA because its a whole other topic. FEVA 1 was a deterministic model but the new FEVA 2 is entirely Predictive analytics which uses statistical algorithms and machine learning techniques to identify the likelihood of future outcomes based on historical data. Instead of just using data to analyze what happened, the goal of predictive analytics is to assess what is likely to happen in the future. It doesn't tell you will find a burnt valve but a probability seeing a burnt valve. The goal as such is to get us to borescope the valves so that we find a distressed valve while it can corrected by lapping before it needs replacing. A failing rotocoil or rotator is just one way a valve can burn. But we don't track that kind of data. But also again, burning exhaust valves has very little to do with how you manage the engine unless the pilot is ignoring CHTs and allowing them to escalate significantly above 400F on Continentals or above 420F on Lycomings. We have a small team that is constantly working on tuning the FEVA model to make it more accurate. But I agree in that while our FEVA 1 missed burned valves, or had lots of false positives, the newer FEVA 2 is overly pessimistic. But when the goal is to get us to borescope it helps to ensure we don't miss valve becoming distressed while we still have time to reverse the distress. The best thing we can do borescope valves at every oil change as some of my clients do and have been able to avoid burnt valves. But going back to what Marc said, any change out of the normal behavior of cruise flight, like formation flying, I believe is more likely to trigger it.

I totally agree on both points. A modern engine monitor is necessary to operate a HP engine with care but not sufficient to do so. Its a prerequisite essentially but the pilot/owner has to invest the time to learn about its operation as well as basic combustion science. Don't know if you've had the opportunity to attend a PPP where I give a talk on how to better utilize their engine monitor. But we have a big range of pilots with a monitor installed from those that don't use it outside of possibly downloading flight data to those that are very aware of what its telling them in flight and are very likely to save their engine in the unlikely event of pre-ignition or detonation. The exact opposite that I see too frequently is a pilot not noticing his/her oil pressure declining below the green arc and continues flying on till the engine seizes. As for tolerances in manufacturing, I'll use Continental as an example since you fly an Acclaim. Their cylinders are CNC'd without the fine tuning of lapping the valves in the cylinder which would be done by good over hauler before final assembly. Therefore it should be no surprise that some of the better engine builders building up a TCM engine will disassemble brand new TCM cylinders and at least work seats and valves while others will do more to balance flow. They re-work new cylinders before installing them on an engine they are warranting - unlike the factory.

Ray, those are great questions but not all easy to answer. I do know we have the data that should demonstrate my educated guess that how hard you run your engine in cruise should be the #1 factor in determining longevity. But I personally don't think how well you micromanage your engine in flight is all that important - but I ,may be misinterpreting your question. But what I am responding too is that the vast majority of pilots stick to single cruise profile for the majority of their flying. But those that don't operate higher than 65% power in cruise have the best chance for longevity; providing they fly frequently enough to keep corrosion at bay. I will add, without naming names, I have a few really smart Mooney client owners that know how to get the most power out of their fire breathing Turbo's safely - or as gently as possible running them at a much higher % cruise power LOP. Because they know exactly what they're doing they're not suffering from greatly shortened lifespan. But they still aren't getting the longevity of someone operating much more conservatively as Mike B recommends. But I believe this to an intentional choice of the pilot/owner making the age old choice tradeoff between speed/performance and longevity and willingness to accept that tradeoff. Afterall, most of us buy Mooney's to go fast and are willing to pay more per hour to be able to do so. At least IMO, there is no right or wrong answer here just lots of tradeoffs to consider and choices that we all make in our flying. But I do believe from my observations working with Savvy nearly 10 years working the Mooney fleet worldwide exclusively, that its much more important for a pilot to be quite knowledgeable on combustion science to be able to operate above 65% power as gently as possible on the engine (i.e. stay out of the red box of high ICPs). Since above 65% its not hard to mistreat the engine, but below you can't do any harm wrt to mixture. But it takes a lot of such events to probably result measurably in a shorter like span. But I no data to prove this; just my observations. Of course I have seen engines destroyed in minutes by some very crazy mistakes. About half of my time with Savvy is simply to help educate pilots in how to run LOP; which as an educator and CFI I am more than happy to do. When it comes to burning valves I have to say it rarely has anything to do with the pilot and generally totally out of the pilots control. Its much more the fault of the cylinder, lack of perfect concentricity of valve to valve guide etc. Its really not in our control except to monitor them and lap valves at an early stages of seeing a hot spot while it can still be reversed. I have some clients that borescope at every 25-35 hr oil change and lap any valve that shows distress of significantly reduced compression and a couple have cylinders going on 3500 hrs from doing so! I don't think I answered your questions directly but I hope that helped.

Exactly right. Successful in that no one was injured but her 231 was totaled and why she has an Ovation now. Your recollection of how long ago matches mine. Amelia was her user name i believe. I had always considered this SB but i had never experienced the jamming yet; so i hadn’t installed it. Well neither had she experienced any jamming till that last flight in her 231. So her unfortunate experience inspired me to install it. It was only a couple hours of my time during one of my annuals back then. It has nothing to do with what kind of AP you have but her BK KFC-200 was unable to unjam it for her. Hopefully this event that Don experienced will encourage more Mooney owners without it to get it installed - you just never know when it could jam otherwise. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The airspeed will keep the prop turning over and engine running till you’re at least exiting the runway or you give it some throttle. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The steel cage is what keeps the cockpit from crushing but not what keeps you safe. It’s your seat belts with shoulder harness that prevents your body from slamming into the panel and glareshield and causing fatal blunt force trauma. I lost a nice fellow Mooney pilot and mechanic on my field years ago from a fatal crash. Looking at the wreckage you wouldn’t even think it would get totaled it was so intact. But not the occupants sadly - 2 souls lost. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

indeed, not what i was thinking. So that doesn’t eliminate it as having been associated with the panel at some point. I can’t tell what model or year from Tapatalk browser. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The pictures sure leave you wondering what happened and what was going on! Gear was up but can't really tell about flap position and the prop sure is pretty twisted looking like maybe it had some power. The really good news is that everybody survived, even the dog with a broken rib. So eventually we'll be able to read the pilots personal account of what happened in the NTSB report. And eventually the pilot will likely get a new plane.

Wingtip Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very true, but only big Cessna’s get stolen south of the border but i do know of a C182 that was stolen as a consolation prize after they couldn’t figure out how to start a C210 with such a switch they took the 182 parked next to it. But i don’t think the cartel has ever had a need for a Mooney! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you tried looking through the logbook for its installation or asking the previous owner? It can’t be factory and if it’s not logged I’d be pulling it. It can’t be for anything you would need while flying, like backcourse switch or PC switch, or it wouldn’t be installed in the avionics bay. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk