kortopates

Since your exhaust came from Rocket Engineering, have you checked with them in Spokane? https://rocketengineering.com/

Here is our Savvy instructions for doing this. With a free Savvy account you can upload your data and use our much easier tools to measure your Gami spread size for free; which are far easier to work with than using a spreadsheet. Don't try to actually measure the sweep size in the cockpit, you won't be able to get accurate results that way, instead just do your best to collect good data and then review it on the ground. One big problem is pilots pausing while they are leaning the engine because their monitor is indicating a cyl is peaking. Any pausing while changing while you should be slowly changing the mixture will result in in accurate results due to hysteresis in the system. Its really important to be constantly yet slowly changing the mixture monotonically without stopping or pausing from the ROP side to the point of roughness LOP and then slowly reverse back in the opposite direction; then repeat at least 3 times. Its also important to do this at WOT, but RPM can me reduced to ensure a power setting less than 65%. But you need the altitude to keep the MAP down; hence the need to climb up. Flight Test Profile – Savvy Aviation Resources

Indeed that's true of the early factory air in that it couldn't be used on the ground because of AC inlets could pick up exhaust; corrected in later models.

I can't imagine an STC solution which would be cheaper than the WAAS upgrade option Mooney offered. Given so many Mooney owners didn't bite then, where is the incentive to come up with another, likely more expensive, solution. Greater chance for sales in providing a Nxi upgrade IMO.

WAAS is far far more than minimums. Adding vertical nav in the form of VNAV and Advisory Glide Path is a huge benefit. There is so much more like Visual Approach guidance to every runway in the US, many with an advisory glide path when obstructions allow*. Only touching the tip of the iceberg here, not to mention it offers real value to your Mooney you’ll get back when you sell - if you can find it. Edit: *The Visual approach to every runway is Nxi upgrade currently only available in the U & V Mooneys, As well Garmin GTN Navigators Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Far from “basic”. Aerocomfort interiors are among the finest available. Basic can be had for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost and even less. But you can’t get the comfort of Aerocomfort seats for long cross country flights without spending the $. I’ve tried and just wished i did it right the first time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

YES! Your IFR flight plan won't be activated till you do, nor released to depart IFR. The exception would be if your departing from an uncontrolled airport, then you could depart VMC and then inform Center or the TRACON you are pre-filed and pick up your clearance in the air or you could call Center or the TRACON on the phone and get your clearance on the ground with a release time; really the only way if you need to depart in IMC conditions. Maybe someday the PDC text service will open up to us, but for now we have to get our clearance verbally over radio or phone. Leidos, FlightAware etc are just ways of confirming what your clearance will be to avoid surprises. But the routing you see online or via Leidos has gone through the FAA Centers computers and hasn't yet been blessed by a TRACON or Tower modification which are applied afterwards when you call; hence it common to pick up a departure procedure added by the TRACON or Tower that wasn't shown by Leidos etc.

Following the spec ensures they remain leak free, as well as re-usable for many years.

You can also get the cleared route by subscribing to Flightaware - also free and they were the first to provide this. You can actually get these for any plane.

That's to be expected, flight schools are insured to fly in their own planes. There are a lot more flight instructors without Mooney experience than with it, and the former shouldn't be giving instruction in a unfamiliar Mooney. Its not that hard to find a Mooney savvy instructor.

91.527 is not applicable to us, its only applicable to Large & Turbine Powered Multiengine Airplanes & Fractional Ownership Aircraft. Not saying it doesn't provide some great advise; just overly restrictive. What is applicable for us is the the FAA Legal Interpretation for Bell that @toto provided above that very clearly states that "forecasted icing does not constitute know icing". Some brief excerpts from the Bell interpretation on "Known Icing": Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). 7-1-22 - defines "known or observed or detected ice accretion" as "[a]ctual ice observed visually to be on the aircraft by the flight crew or identified by on-board sensors." Actual adhesion to the aircraft, rather than the existence of potential icing conditions, is the determinative factor in this definition. ... The FAA does not necessarily consider the mere presence of clouds (which may only contain ice crystals) or other forms of visible moisture at temperatures at or below freezing to be conducive to the formation of known ice or to constitute known icing conditions. "Known icing conditions" involve instead circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has held on a number of occasions that known icing conditions exist when a pilot knows or reasonably should know about weather reports in which icing conditions are reported or forecast. In those cases the pilots chose to continue their flights without implementing an icing exit strategy or an alternative course of action and the aircraft experienced heavy ice formation that validated the forecasted danger to the aircraft.

You're lack of understanding of Mags is preventing you from understanding what folks are trying to tell you here. You can't tell a thing about the independent starting circuitry of your Mag from a Mag check. What you need to understand is that when you are starting the engine the Mag(s) use a different circuit or method to retard the timing in order to start the engine versus the 20 BTDC once it starts. Two entirely different kinds or stylers of Mags are used: either a Mag with an extra set of points in it, called the retard points, used to fire at only 0 BTDC when key is in "start". As you release key to start, then it goes to the normal points to run at 20 BTDC (which are the points you are testing during a mag check - not the starting points). The retard points are only used in starting. But not all engine mags use retard points. The other technique or style is called impulse couple mags. These don't have a extra set of points to fire retarded, but the impulse coupling does two things: think of it as a spring that delays turning rotating the mag internally till it's almost ready to fire and then the spring releases to spin the mag magnet much faster than the engine is actually turning over the last few degrees to provide a stronger spark. It also acts to retard the timing while the impulse mechanism is working so it fires at 0 BTDC versus the normal 20 BTDC. Consequently you need to know exactly what kind of mags you have to trouble shoot this effectively. What your describing is a failure of the starting mechanism of the MAG and in particular a failure in the retard breaker points since it starts soon as you switch from Start to Both. But most of the later K's came with a pair of Slicks, both impulse couple mags, which start really easy. But some have Bendix. But what your early 231 has is up to you to investigate. It may turn out to be a more general mag failure too, not necessarily the starting circuitry but your description is pointing to the starting circuitry. A simple test can tell you if you have impulse coupling, If you pull the prop slowly and you hear a loud click noise, that is the impulse spring releasing and firing. No click would mean you have a mag with breaker points. (Be careful handling the prop in case you have a broken p-lead). Your engine logs will also identify the kind of mags you have.

Any fresh private pilot needs to build flight time for both the instrument and commercial ratings. They want both PIC time and x-country time - nobody cares about simulated time. But its the only way two pilots can both log PIC time on the same flight. Donning a hood makes both required crew members. And when the two pilots agree that the safety pilot will also be the legal PIC then they both get to log PIC time; at least during the portion of the flight the sole manipulator of the controls is wearing a hood. Its common practice at pilot schools for pilots to team up like this to build PIC time and of course nobody needs an instrument rating to put a hood on, just a qualified safety pilot with a medical.

These interpretations only address logging of time between 2 pilots where one is a safety pilot. None address getting instruction from a CFI. But I don't think a little help from an instructor prevents the student from logging the cross country time. That would be a harsh interpretation!

Checkout the Gebhart 2009 FAA Legal interpretation. Its holds that only the pilot who is logging flight time for the entire flight may log cross-country time! There are 3 other legal interpretations on logging cross country flight time all from 2009, where you'll learn for example, via the Hilliard interpretation if the pilot manipulating the controls under the hood and the safety pilot switch roles during the flight, neither pilot may log cross-country flight time, because neither pilot is logging flight time for the entire flight. The only escape clause from the above is to only switch roles at a point of landing, but you must be careful and mindful of the Van Zanen interpretation since you could do it in fashion that neither no one can log cross country time (e.g. logging multiple legs as one flight entry where none of the airports where more than 50 nm away from the original departure even though one more legs where 50 nm apart.) Lastly the Glenn interpretation gives more helpful examples building on the Gebhart interpretation. These aren't exactly in the category of rookie AIM questions but in the "stump the CFI category" but really prove a good CFI has to be up on all the legal interpretations; including a recent FAA Memorandum (feb 2022) that rescinded the prior interpretations for Glaser (2008) and Pratte (2012) for what counted as "three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems", and now allows PAR approaches to count!

Just move the annunciator further to the right as shown on mine above with the same stack. I probably could have moved mine back to the center with last panel update but just kept it over to the right. Two fuel indications are for left and right fuel tanks, but with my CIES fuel senders and EDM-900 taking over fuel, that portion of the annunciator is no longer functional. Two gear annunciations are floorboard and annunciator. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it’s so easy and very worthwhile to activate your VFR flight plan via your favorite EFB or Text msg to Leidos. Activating it gets SAR looking for you typically about 12 hrs faster than without activating it. Getting flight following doesn’t really help as people think it would unless you’re able to call out when you’re going down which isn’t typical. It’s to common for controllers to loose radio contact with VFR pilots for them to expect you may have crashed. I had a Mooney friend on flight following go down mid day. The search didn’t initiate till late that evening at the request of friends. They found near where his primary radar track ended and right where pings to his cellphone pointed - the following day. If he had activated a VFR flight plan the search would have started at least 10 hrs earlier. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your describing a pop up IFR request with a Center. Centers require putting in the entire flight plan - might as well go to FSS where if you have a profile with Leidos they can put in in much faster. But Tracons are very different. As long as your destination is in their airspace all they need is your aircraft type and suffix. They can still get enough in to hand you off to a center if they have some time without a complete flight plan. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Our SOCAL controllers are great with pop ups for wx. You may occasionally have to wait for 5 to 10 min during really busy times so don’t wait till the last second, but they get you into the system. One exception is if you just took off VFR to avoid waiting for an IFR release. Then you might as well go back, land, and start over - since they know you’re just trying butt in to the front of the line. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People are confusing a KAP or KFC-150 with or without a KAS-297B. Most do not have the KAS-297B. i can’t say what percentage do except it’s in the minority. But there is no VS climbing/descending to an pre-selected altitude without it, just a constant pitch climb/descent with a manual level out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, only with the 225 and the GAD-43E doesn't fix that either unfortunately, but it does provide the same functionality of the KAS-207B and allow ditching the encoding altimeter. Aspen users have to keep all that stuff.

Indeed, coming from the SBA/OXY/CMA area heading south at PQ speeds IFR you either have to go low at 5-9K (depending on destination) out east to V186 and then south, or as high as you want (but at least 7K) out to Santa Catalina - they are only two routes from there, inland or Catalina. But often there is only one because virtually every altitude is in use in the SOCAL airspace. As another example if I want to go to Mammoth from San Diego IFR at 16K, I have to work with them to get above their SOCAL-Center transition altitude of 14K before I get as far north as SLI, or I will be restricted to 6K all the way till north of the SOCAL bravo. They can't tolerate a piston plane climbing through the LA area airspace IFR even at 1K' FPM conflicting with departures out of several airports in the area. I've done the Catalina route multiple times though but never less than 13K or 15K south.

I’ve been doing that as well since Flightaware went live. What i’ve learned is this always works except for 2 things: an assigned tower or TRACON departure procedure. Tower and TRACON changes often don’t get included till you call for clearance. Plus if your originating from outside your destination TRACON you are subject to the TRACON’s standardized arrival routing for lost comm purposes that you’ll never actually fly. But when your familiar enough to know these requirements in advance Flightaware has been entirely reliable for providing the routing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool, that was with Rod Reddeg. I organize these with the San Diego FSDO. But possible it was with an LA group. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

indeed you are right, page 12 https://www.bendixking.com/content/dam/bendixking/en/documents/downloads/006-18035-0000_1-KFC-225-KI-525A-Pilot-s-Guide.pdf Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk