kortopates

Actually if we're talking about the factory installed system, its an "Hour Meter" and its connected to the tach (Not airspeed switch) and records time based on and RPM at about 2550 from memory. So at idle, of around 1000 rpm, its only adding time at 40% of elapsed. Hobbs meters are added when someone has their plane on a leaseback or a flight school, which log 1:1 for engine running time.

Contacting Garmin Aviation Product Support Go to fly.garmin.com/support for in-country support information. In the Americas, call (866) 739-5687. In Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, call +44 (0) 37 0850 1243. In Asia Pacific and Australia, call +65 6348 0378. You should be able to have a Garmin support specialist go through the steps with you on the phone before declaring you'll have to go see a Garmin dealer because of a installation or hardware issue.

I suggest contacting C & L Aero, they're a premier Oxygen system repair station. They overhaul/repair the first stage of our Scott regulators but I understand the second altitude compensating stage can only be function tested and then replaced with an exchange unit which I am sure Jeff can get for you quickly and install on your first stage.

I now its a pain to get on the phone in the queue for Garmin technical support but if still struggling with this that would be the logical step - while at the plane. On the GTN's in Setup/Config mode, their is way to force loading data from the card; perhaps such a capability exist on the G3X. But I'd triple check that System ID for a typo and also reformat the SD card; although from your description that's not likely to help (Garmin tech support has had me do that on their FS cards in the past).

They have a flap switch with a detent position for selecting 15 deg or approach flap position; which guarantees consistency. The rest of us can only approximate that position which I believe is why it doesn't apply to other J's. (BTW, nothing to do with the gross weight increase which applies to many more J's than the partial flaps V speed). The question I wish I knew the answer to, but I don't, is why Mooney didn't continue that feature with the G1000 equipped Mooney's since the G1000 provides the equivalent electrical version of the detent position? I can only speculate they determined either there wasn't a safe higher flap speed for partial flaps in the long bodies or they didn't have the resources to do the certification testing.

Sorry but that’s not true at all. There are published V speeds for partial flaps - and even on some Mooney’s. But when there isn’t, which is most of the Mooney fleet then there is no permissible higher speed for partial flaps. So I’ll leave it up to you to look it up in the Mooney TCDS and report back here - hint look at the later J’s. Guess what they have that makes a partial flap V speed possible that the rest of us don’t have. BTW, For those aircraft you will find it in the POH. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends on if you exceeded the white arc in climbing to cruise altitude. If you did it warrants inspecting them. but unless you went way over Vfe they’re probably fine; it’s not as a load as if you extended them above the white arc. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just helped someone with this exact problem, make sure you have a data subscription for the G3x and not just the GTN. Seems obvious - but… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd seriously avoid being an early adopter of the Electroair dual mag, they don't have a good track record with the single mag installations. Their technology on the single mags is very outdated and problems are so numerous that many adopter have reverted back to their old mag after their tech support staff has been unable to correct issues in a timely matter. I'd be very wary of them till we have ample time to see how they do.

QAA doesn't have a reputation for quality either, despite what the Q stands for They're popular because their capabilities list is so exhaustive a shop doesn't need to search any further to find some one to repair something.

no, not at all. they reduce long range tank’s capacity only. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was the default descent angle or angle you set, sufficient enough to not need a TOD to commence till a minute out from when you where trying to activate it? If for example your descent angle was set to 3 degrees but in order to get down to the lower altitude required 4.5 degrees from where you were, the VNAV will not activate. If these conditions are not met, you'll not see a TOD timer on the VNAV page to indicate its going to work. An another example its not hard to set up a descent where the needed TOD is actually behind you based on the descent angle which will prevent it from activating. Perhaps a simpler way to demonstrate this is to set up a VNAV direct descent to a waypoint or offset from airport to come down to traffic pattern altitude. Set it up well in advance and you should see it all come together with the TOD countdown, and TOD fix in space shown on the MAP etc. While the TOD timer is counting down, you'll see VNAV in white (Armed) on the G5, then turn Green (active) once the descent starts.

I used to think gear down on a solid flat surface was a good strategy. I changed that long ago to only if there is sufficient distance to roll out safely after seeing many aircraft make the perfect landing only to hit something before they could get slowed down. If the impact didn’t get them often the fire and explosion did. So now I am convinced a wheels up landing can greatly improve one’s chances getting slowed down enough to avoid lethal impact when the rollout isn't clear or very limited. Unfortunately, there is little we can do with a low wing aircraft to avoid clipping a wing and going sideways other than try to get slowed down before it happens or avoiding roads with traffic in the first place. In this case hard to know if a gear up landing would have made enough difference to help, since the pole came up real fast. In hindsight, seems like landing in one of the nearby fields would have given more room to safely decelerate. Of course we’ve all seen pilots pull off landing on a freeway on the news without any damage and want to optimistically try to replicate that rather than pick a guaranteed damaging crash site. But we need to be realistic about sacrificing the plane to protect our butts. Speaking of back injuries, we do have control over the speed we make contact with the ground but easier said than done when trying to set it down between moving vehicles or ducking under over head wires and the like. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isopropyl Alcohol is approved by Mooney for this purpose. PRIST/EGME is not recommended since its not good for the fuel system. This is covered in most later POH's Limitations section with upto 3% which is way more than ever needed. A small amount goes a long ways in absorbing any left over water.

Live ATC KPIA, indicates pilot and tower where in contact. About 6 min after pilot had checked in with tower, the pilot announced engine out with an estimated 10 gal remaining. ATC suggested hiway below when pilot said he couldn’t make airport. don’t know yet what altitude this started at but descent rate was in excess of 180 kts till 2400’ and then near Vg from 2000’ down. If it’s possible to correlate flight aware track time to Live ATC recording, it’s suggest engine out was reported at 27min in, which puts it about 2400’ when aircraft slowed down and only about 3 min from end of flight. i am assuming it hit something near the ground to cause 2 fatals. very sad loss. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The K, L and other long bodies have a bigger elevator - all using the K elevator board. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really extra but for different models Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

agreed, the Mooneyspace title is uninformative as well. here is a better news article with video clip: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/small-plane-crashes-on-91-freeway-in-corona-chp/ Hard to say but I really doubt a Mooney would have folded it’s wing so easily coming down on the pickup. On the other hand, shedding a wing might have helped since it enabled the plane to rollout rather than cartwheel. But burning crashes are common on the freeway landings with low wing aircraft - those wings are vulnerable to collision with the dividers and other vehicles; especially with lots of traffic like this pilot found. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't include your location, but here is one repair station that specialized in instrument work with very reasonable prices. Once you have a part # they can give you an estimate to IRAN it. http://www.instrumentoverhaul.com/

Now is your opportunity to replace it with an affordable Garmin G5. There are nicer more expensive options but I couldn't see putting a gyro back in; especially if your an instrument pilot.

So I assume your dumping the FP-5 fuel computer to add FF to the UBG-16 along with RPM & MAP. You can't have too many probes so I'd want to add the carb air temp and OAT to the UBG-16 at the same time your doing UBG-16 install. I'd also be looking at oil temp and pressure if not yet there. You'll have a choice between a CHT piggyback or adapter probe versus a spark plug probe; be sure to go with the piggyback style since its the more accurate non-standard probe.

Me too and I think you're right, as Don @DonMuncy said above every J & K is that way and it started before, so if your '70 M20C has the current style visor mounting I'd bet it started at some year by at least '70 on short bodies. I was just in an earlier F the other day and didn't think to check but from I what I recall it had them also. So if John's @M20F-1968 didn't have them in '68 they must have started using them very soon after that to see them in a '70 C; certainly before the J's & K's debuted.

If you don’t fill it yourself all bets are off as to what you are measuring. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, the throttle distance is proportional to the altitude or ambient atmospheric pressure. It just really isn't possible to explain how to set optimum WOT in Carb'd C/G model in cruise without writing a paragraph to explain objective and technique.

Determining/calibrating Fuel flow and tank capacity are two different independent variable. You can't infer one from the other. To determine tank capacity, nothing short of draining the tank empty and fueling it to the repeatable "full" level like the full point stated in your POH; and taking into account unusable fuel if starting with a totally dry tank. To calibrate fuel flow, its a matter of comparing the reported Fuel Used against your fuel receipts but to get accurate results you need to minimize error by starting the process by filling to repeatable "full" level (on level ground), burn through about 100 gallons tracking fuel used and added, and then fill one last time to the same repeatable fill level and then compare total fuel used to total fuel receipts. Then adjust your monitors K-Factor.