kortopates

Exactly, you don't necessarily have to click on "Activate Approach" or "Activate VTF". You can just as easily go into the flight plan, scroll down to the approach portion and either do a Direct To approach waypoint, or make any leg there the active leg. This is actually the most common way to activate the approach because it allow activating it on a leg your being vectored on to (which is the way every NPA should be flown) or activating with a waypoint other than the IAF or first waypoint in the approach (which could be an IAF or Feeder route VOR). I would only advocate using VTF on a PA because with a glide slope you no longer care about step down fixes; only verifying you crossed the FAF at the charted altitude. PA- precision Approach, NPA- Non-precision Approach

I am afraid what your trying to do with a C model really isn’t possible. if you set aside the monitor and just do slow, very slow, mixture sweeps, download the data and look at it on Savvy you’ll see you are only going to be able to get first and maybe a second cyl to peak, but highly unlikely you’ll see more than that before it’s so rough you’ll think the engine will quit. The “optimal rate” to lean is slowly for accuracy such that you’re seeing a 1/10 GPH change about every second (data point). there is too much hysteresis to go fast and going too quick is just garbage in and garbage out with unrepeatable results. when you see what’s going on in the data, then start experimenting with reduced throttle but still WOT MAP, and carb heat - but you need carb temp to be repeatable; you’ll see you can make some improvements to how far lean you can get before needing to change your underwear

Next time i go I’ll remember to invite you if i can - we don’t usually fill it up when we get a group together. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old parker hannifin MC are no longer available and haven’t been for years. These were proprietary to Mooney. Mooney now uses a different manufacturer and part # for the larger capacity which are the ones used on long bodies. They’re not in the K IPC but going to them requires an additional bell crank so pedal orientation is maintained. If a older J of early K MC is worn out such that replacing seals doesn’t fix it, I believe the only choice is to go the bigger capacity new ones which are $$. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i’ve ridden in their chamber and it was manned with no less than a staff of 5 or 6 people. Multiple people outside observing and manning the controls and multiple people inside observing and making sure anyone needing O2 got it. Heck, i wanted to go longer after being one of the last remaining ones without putting the O2 mask on but they would not stand for it - i was of course hypoxic! plus i believe there was a emergency button inside to allow a quick release- but I am not sure about that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

in all of three seconds i found the next on Nov 16 in Smithfield, NC https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event_details.aspx?eid=116640&caller=/SPANS/events/EventList.aspx just search events for “PROTE” won’t show more than a month or two out though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hosted a PROTE event a couple years ago for our San Diego pilots and looking at doing another. We had them in town for about 4 days and put a couple hundred pilots through it. It’s good training. They travel around the country doing this. If you search on SPANS you may be able to find one not too far away. We had several aeromedical lectures too provided by the CAMI staff that were excellent. But that is optional when PROTE events are set up and scheduling makes it much more complicated than just doing the PROTE ride. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve seen this on more than one plane. One owner told me the upholstery person went over size in trying to make the seat more comfortable i.e., trying to address comfort complaints with the seats. IMO that’s not the right away to correct the comfort issues. The experts use multiple densities of quality foam which doesn’t require going over size. Although the few owners i know with this issue seem to adjust fine, I think it’s because they’re mostly using electric trim. I don’t have electric trim from the right seat and would go nuts. in fairness though i think it takes quite awhile for the foam to start obstructing the trim wheel and gradually gets worse - i.e. i am assuming they didn’t start out new like that but took time for the foam to break down. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't want a new one?

The other 2 batteries in the cockpit are cheap, and last longer, but the time to get to them isn’t trivial. Luckily my time is “free”. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

they’re all like that. it’s gives you a minute to test it on the hour before it sends the 406 data packet out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have one too. Also accidental turns on earlier when i have been working under the panel. But i wouldn’t put any weight on the existing wiring benefit. This technology is made even better by connecting the ACK to your panel GPS, which you’ll more than likely need to pull and connect. pulling wires for a new remote is done with the GPS wires so i’d still count on that. Then there is the installation of the buzzer and battery in the cockpit area and creating a little circuit to test your GPS connection. it’s not a just plug into the tail cone and install a new antenna install. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

STC was needed only to install the Bob Archer Nav antennas - since they're not approved. If you have the room you could install approved antenna's, such a Comat blade antenna as I previously had. But I had to go to lower profile antenna when I did the Encore upgrade with double the size control weights. You'll have the smaller size weights with room to give you options.

Just the glareshield lights, which utilizes a Canon plug and a the AOA display connector, similar to a canon plug.

Your making the point on why the panel location is so poor. One of main benefits of the AOA indicator is that its in your field of view looking out the window at the runway and traffic so that you don't have to look at the panel. The second big benefit is its indications and not affected by changes in weight and bank unlike IAS. But of course having it on the panel is better than not having one, yet I wouldn't have gone to trouble/expense to install it without the indicator on the glareshield. You will still benefit from the alarm though of getting too slow, such as when banking on base to final, if your Garmin AOA provides that audio input like the Alpha.

Numerous examples of $3000 to $5000 fines when an aircraft is flown into another country with an expired registration; plus the plane is impounded longer than it takes to just get a new registration which isn’t always easy. Forgetting to pay that small registration renewal fee can get really expensive! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The belt driven alternator, #2, will always take the majority of the load because it’s turning faster than the engine driven alternator. That said, each alternator has its own independent VR and although they’re intended to be set exactly the same there is always some difference and as a result there is some variation from airframe to airframe. Yet it’s makes no difference to the charging system how the load is divided. As Anthony said there is no component to control sharing the load unlike most twins that do have a circuit to balance them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also have the Alpha system with the HUD display on the glare-shield with heated pitot - actually dual HUD’s because i fly from the right and my wife flies from the left. Even if my G500 Txi displayed it, it wouldn’t be useful on the panel. Agree with all that @KSMooniac said. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Take the time to do it right, Aerocomfort for quality. I shipped Hector my seats and glareshield. it didn’t take that long. Airtex would be a very significant downgrade IMO, but very serviceable for the vintage fleet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There can be a lot more than just unusable fuel that can’t be seen looking into the fill port. The wing has dihedral with the port near the outside limit while the fuel pickup and remaining unusable is at the wing root next to the cabin with multiple ribs between it and the filler port. it’s great information to “measure” your useable fuel in flight. But unuseable fuel is an FAA approved and defined in our TCDS. We don’t get to change it when weighing an aircraft. Just one of the many challenges in weighing the plane with tanks full is that seldom do owners find that their tanks hold exactly the defined capacity. Mine hold less, which is common, and others such as Hank says a bit more. With our hand made planes there is considerable variation. If accuracy is a goal, weight empty with unusable added back. Or really know how many gallons are in it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But where they really comparable in limits and geographical coverage? Avemco doesn’t offer smooth limits and I recall they didn’t include CENAM; perhaps just Canada, Mexico, Bahamas and US. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're thinking the same incident. But that wasn't the subject of an AD but a SB that had already been out for many years.

I am pretty sure that was Amelia with the stuck/jammed trim; not runway trim. This is the subject of the Mooney SB to change out the hardware so it's jam proof - you can find it on Mooney.com if not familiar. Its been available for many years but Amelia's incident no doubt sold a lot of SB kits including one for myself!

Yes its on top of the stick yoke. They have pitch and roll trim on the SR22, with optional rudder trim.

Although there is a lot of undeveloped land nearby to the north at Miramar, its out of bounds much of the time with Miramar traffic. I wouldn't even consider it unless I just took off from Gillespie to the north with an emergency. IMO Montgomery has enough to pick from around the field when having an emergency in the pattern without needing to go into Miramar's airspace. Unfortunately our student pilot, appears to have been so stressed that his only option was to force the landing rathe than abandon the approach and ask for help. Looking at the ADS-B track it looks like the pilot starts off fine reducing power around abeam the number. Its not descending right away but the airspeed bleeds off from max 113 kts at 1300' to a low of 78 kts in the base leg at 1050'. 78 is slow for base and it looks like the pilot responds with adding lots of power at this point while making stressed calls about his trim. Perhaps near full power because shortly the plane has climbed up to 1125' and is now doing 119 kts, and next he's at 132 kts, and holds that speed while now coming down at 875' and then 575' (~200' AGL). Around here is likely where the tower called him to go around offsetting to north but pilot may well have lost control with large pitch changes before stalling out and coming down on the nose. Unfortunately the freq was pretty busy at this time with both runways. Ironically, one of the tower controllers, whom was a Cirrus CFI, was downstairs on lunch break when this happened. Your guess is as good as mine if the CFI Controller could have helped; but first thing would have been to get the pilot to calm down and go around. FWIW, I am told by another Cirrus pilot/owner that controlling the aircraft at full max trim is really a non-event for an experienced Cirrus pilot - nothing like a conventional aircraft trim maxed out. He describes it like a 5-10lb dumb bell.