kortopates

See you there! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe this is a geography thing, but out west, taking off with a tailwind is very common when it comes with a steep downhill gradient. So is landing uphill with a tail wind.

I flew behind a pair of GNS’ and a GMX-20O for years at what seems decades ago. The GMX-200 database updates are completely independent of the navigator if that’s what your after. Separate subscriptions, but i rarely updated the GMX-200 databases. It was primarily to display weather on the map. This was before ads-b traffic too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sure, wind Magnitude and direction is everything. When the wind is light, say 3-4 kts with lots of planes in the pattern i don’t see the need to try and move the pack. Same when the wind is > 60 degree xwind and not strong. And harder to change the flow when both pattern to opposite runways are on the same side of the airport ((i.e. one runway has Right pattern) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To the point of avoiding mid-airs, I agree. But it’s one thing to waste frequency at a busy un-controlled field and a whole lot more serious to be ignoring the guidelines of traffic pattern entry and flows given in AC 90-66B https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66C.pdf Nothing upsets me more than having to take evasive maneuvers and avoid the idiot that starts blindly formation flying with me; especially on the mid field entry! For us tapatalk users it would be nice to also list the poll choices in the original post. Can’t see the poll. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Personally, i think this is the wrong place for the discussion and that it should be with your FSDO PMI. But real point of my discussion is that Consolidated Aircraft in New York has most of the drawings for the Mooney 28V regulators and should be able to IRAN yours with paperwork. If they don’t have the drawings they can still repair it without paperwork. see https://www.consolac.com/ No need to buy a new $$ one! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its also the only way to do a random hold with the GNS's. The GTN's can be programmed for a hold, but I always teach them first how to do them with the OBS since this will work on any navigator. It also very helpful for simulating a visual approaches in GNS's by putting in the runway course to help you line up on final on an unfamiliar airport (just not as accurate when an airport has multiple runway since the airport waypoint is the geometric center of all usable runways)

Nothing wrong with Contract towers. We have a couple in my area and we only have them because originally as untowered fields their traffic got high enough to warrant a tower but the only way to staff them was as contract towers since the FAA has been facing shortages for years. But we get limited services with our TRACON as well due to staffing shortages and those folks are already working mandatory over time as it is. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The big mistake was apparently doing stalls at only approx 2500’ agl. The minimum safe altitude for doing Mooney stalls is 5000’ agl - which is what we use at MAPA PPP’s. Falling leafs and any stalls shouldn’t be feared. A recent J model private student got very good at doing the falling leaf - so much so when he was practicing for the practical exam stalls he kept going into the falling leaf and i had to talk him out of it. But by pushing on the yoke aggressively till you feel light in the seat on any stall gets it’s flying again right away - just avoid a secondary stall by trying to aggressively to minimize altitude loss. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, you just corrected an induction leak. Any leakage above the sniffle valve is no different than leakage in the induction plumbing. At the bottom of the engine is where the two aluminum tubes connect into the sniffle valve. The valve has a small plastic ball that when the engine is running is sucks the ball up to close off the line so air isn't being sucked in through the drain when the engine is running. But fuel can drain out and down when the engine isn't running since without the suction the ball falls down (but doesn't block the drain line). Good job finding the leakage, most would not have even looked at the cylinder drains but they are a common source of leakage.

I'd suggest increasing its value to market value if only to protect you from a gear up, or other relatively significant claim. Right now the insurance company is going to total your aircraft with any gear up claim. They figure on average your salvage value is 1/3 of your hull value, but in your case with such a low hull value compared to market, they might figure more like 50% salvage value and not be willing to fund repairs at over $32K since it will be cheaper to cash you out. But if so, you won't be able to replace it with the settlement funds.

It’s indispensable for myself as well and a great many of us that after experiencing the benefits have no intention of ever going back to NA. A lot of myths out there that it has to be long x-ctry before it’s worth going high or you loose advantage with head-winds, on and on. So many flights that i would have had to cancel the flight if it wasn’t for the higher options afforded by the turbo. Bottom line is it adds lots of additional capability. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With a 1000 useful you're doing quite good for a 231. But instead of giving up all that efficiency and speed, you just need to upgrade to a 252/Encore as I did with just under 1140 useful load. But I really think I have the largest useful of any K and I've been working on increasing it for over 25 years. Before the Encore upgrade I used to take off at max gross on just about every longer x-ctry. Since the upgrade I haven't need to too since.

I think we all know that the improvements in technology have vastly improved our situational awareness when we're flying, such as weather and traffic information and the modern displays provide that information. Plus I think we all believe this can directly help improve our safety - when we know how to use it, leverage the content and exercise appropriate ADM. But its not necessarily going to directly reduce the accident statistics for a lot of reasons. In fact when you get into the details of trying to study that question its a very complicated one to address as the available data isn't as detailed as we'd like. Then we also have real technology on the airframe that can also adds to safety, such as the new digital autopilots that provide envelope protection and of course the cirrus chute (although not applicable to us Mooney pilots) - all adding safety even though we may not be able to prove it with the accident statistics. But we also have to face that these improvements more than likely have led to taking bigger risk in flying. Such as flying in worse weather on longer cross countries because we have the added knowledge of near real time weather in the cockpit as well as greater confidence in the equipment automation capabilities to help make up for proficiency deficiencies if we underestimate the threats - including the parachute. Bottom line is that we're not yet near an evolutionary improvement in the technology that is going to make up for a pilots poor ADM and lack of proficiency when things don't go as expected - there is no way yet for technology to bypass the failure rate of the equipment between the pilot ears. That's more of a education and training discussion. Pilots continue to spend far more on their panel and equipment than on training and education.

All true, but i would categorize it differently. I believe every pilot recognizes the value of GPS and especially the Direct button. We’ve been relying on them for so many years that many long time IFR pilots would be hard pressed to fall back on VOR navigation; except for those pilots that fly with a professional attitude and work hard to maintain their proficiency. They may never fly approaches to actual minimums but there out there practicing that to keep there skills up. Then we have another group of usually long time IFR pilots that I’ll categorize as the ones that will be quick to tell you that they don’t fly “hard IFR”. Personally that doesn’t mean much except to them but it seems to universally mean that the IFR currency rules don’t apply to them. The vast majority of there IFR flying is in VMC conditions, using the autopilot, punching through a thin layer when needed and navigation by following the magenta line - even on an approach since after all you can usually see the airport passing the FAF. Our anti-authoritarian IFR pilot doesn’t worry about logging the 6 approaches under the hood, they feel fine to as long as they’re continuing to fly on an IFR flight plan and may note they flew some approaches; not necessarily logging hood time. This reinforces complacency in ignoring the instrument currency requirements that don’t apply to them since they never intend to get into “hard IFR”. then the day comes that the weather is more than they bargained for, or good forbid, they have some form of equipment failure. But more often they just got too far behind the airplane and didn’t ask for help. Bottom line is GPS navigation is very powerful but also far more complex that VOR’s. Hence all the buttonology skills required while also flying the aircraft. If we’re going rely on them we need to do our homework and learns how to use them. The AIM has a long list of GPS skills under GPS familiarization to tell every instrument pilot that they need to gain proficiency in these skills before flying IFR with one. AIM 1-1-17 (k) This is just as true today as when GPS was first coming available to us 30 years ago. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This plastic part was less than $10 last time i replaced it, i am sure it’s more now but as far as aircraft parts go it’s negligible. Last time i installed one i was much more concerned about baggage not nocking it off in flight. After all, it was the missing cover and a full baggage area that suspiciously may have led to the UK K model’s baggage door opening in flight with the door departing the airframe and getting stuck in the elevator necessitating an emergency landing directly below him. So I’d prefer this to be securely attached until it’s ripped off intentionally. I don’t think it will take much with the two little sheet metal screws holding it on without notches. Although the odds of needing to use it an off field landing are more than just slim. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AJ, I remember you from the Mooney list, welcome to Mooneyspace, How long had it been - 15-20 years? Paul Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

they certified the plane for a higher gross weight, increased it by 230 lb, boosted the HP by 10 HP to 220, doubled the control balance weights to improve flutter resistance, changed the brakes to double pucks so that they last longer which required a change to the landing gear spindles without any change in weight (as i weighed them) - really not any beefier. My useful load is over 1120 lbs Then engines are a complete turbo with automatic hydraulic watergate and aftercooler unlike the manual watergate 231 (merlyn or fixed bolt are both manual) including tuned induction system and 28V system - very different from 231 and more $$. Frankly the most efficient Mooney when cruising at altitude with much improved useful load. (Down low, the J earns that title ) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks for info on Weep No More but i am not quite ready to do it - but soon. Luckily i don’t have to look at it that way, nor justify any trip, i have my plane for traveling and budget annually for that so would just substitute this trip for another and ideally make it a bit of holiday in the process; at least the return. But understand as it eats up real $. Good luck on yours. We lost a great option for west coast re-seals when Greg opted to discontinue this service. His shop has a great reputation as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is this a Canadian specific issue? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably between the GFC-500, -600 and -700 they have 95% of the market. But not you - and it’s okay, competition is a good thing for all of us. [emoji4] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whew - you had me worried about RT plane tickets to Ft. lauderdale! But they’re under $250. I am getting close to doing it also because i want to get new paint after the tanks. As long as the market keeps beating inflation iam happy [emoji2] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t - cause i still talk to him regularly including today. He is still there, as LASAR’s part manager and also still in Lakeport. He didn’t move to Oregon. Sorry if my post above wasn’t clear. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jim, Continental doesn’t do this but more importantly we could care less about differences in EGT, but we care about 100% is that they get balanced to the point that all your cylinders peak as close as possible together in fuel flow. That’s the important thing. But sometimes we’ll try to also make the hottest CHT the richest cylinder (rather than allow it at the leaner end) but only Gami can do this. Continentals position tuned injectors have a fixed size for all cylinders which is used for all engines - no customization possible. That’s why Gami is in business. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe you need both to keep your head off the ceiling in stronger turbulence. The snugged shoulder harness makes a big difference IMO. But severe turbulence it’s rare out west with our tall mountains. Been in extreme turbulence multiple times too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk