kortopates

I specialize in Mooney Transition training and am nearby in San Diego and have trained a lot of new owners in the LA Basin and beyond. But i don’t know of any Mooney CFI’s that train in their own planes. That said, SMO, CNO and OKB have various Mooney’s for rent with clubs/schools you can get instruction in with their instructors. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i can’t zoom in but if the propeller face is dry it’s more likely to be your crankshaft seal - even easier to fix. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My IFR flying would be severely limited to climbing through or descending through an occasional thin marine layer if I had only one nav/com radio. I don’t care how legal it is. Lost comm IMC isn’t my idea of fun. I fly with dual IFR GTN’s - and a portable battery powered backup GPS. But the only loss of GPS I’ve experienced has been from jamming and it doesn’t matter how many GPS’s you have then! You always need to be prepared to fall back to terrestrial based nav. And when you don’t also have DME that’s not as easy as you might think. what you need in your IFR panel is function of your risk tolerance and your wallet- but it takes a lot of IMC experience to really understand the risks and your ability to cope with failures. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1) none of the 231's nor STC'd to 261 or 262 are eligible for the -SB or Encore engine. Only 252's with serial number starting 25-1001 are eligible. 2) Even with the 252's starting at 25-1000, the airframe would first have to have the dual brake option installed and then complete airframe mods to allow for the Encore conversion - or both done together with the engine. The Engine is the easy part, the airframe parts can be substantial depending on how sourced. There is no legal path for just placing the -SB engine on a 231 or 252 airframe. But what makes the Encore conversion with -SB engine so desirable for 252 owners is the increase of 230 lbs of max gross weight. My useful load after conversion is over 1100 pounds. The Surefly mag is a good separate mod for any of the K engines, given its turbo there is no advance and frankly you wouldn't want it anyway and even if you truned it on, you'd never see any advance because Turbo MAP rarely gets low enough for the advance to kick till in a descent. Improved reliability over a pressurized mag is the real benefit.

Yes, about 45 min away is my recollection. But in fairness to the pilot, i’d put that on the controller in that the pilot did declare and asked the controller if there was any better weather than by his destination and the controller didn’t look beyond the airports in his sector. The controller didn’t take the emergency very seriously either. But the nevertheless the PIC should have been more direct and say he had x hours of fuel on board and ask what VFR airports were they in range of. But there a lot of things the pilot could have done to have greatly increased their chances of survival. Instrument skills are the quickest to perish. The Bonanza pilot was just getting back into flying after a long hiatus- at least in his Bonanza. With the Mooney pilot the report only mentions hours - not the all important instrument time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, I could point all to the V-Tail Bonanza ATP rated pilot that died along with his 2 passengers when he tried to descent through an IMC Layer from about 7000' to 1700' after a loss of his vacuum pump - which he knew about while still VMC and didn't think he would have any issue - I say that primarily not to be a smart ass but because he didn't even slow down from cruise before descending into IMC. Sadly he didn't get but about 1000' down from where he started before managing to over stress the plane and break the tail off causing an aluminum shower spread out over a mile on the ground. Way to many pilots don't take partial panel seriously enough. Incidentally, I sure wish this was properly posted in the "Mooney Safety and Accident Discussion" forum plus the title is so misleading I only stumbled across this by accident. Maybe we can get Craig to move this to its proper forum - no offense to the OP who likely doesn't know the difference. Its an excellent topic and was very thankful to see it posted. But its really nothing to do with Vintage Mooney's other than it happended in one.

Ah yes, you won't be able to take advantage of many of the features, such as flying virtually every departure procedure that has you fly on heading straight out till 400' AGL and then see it automtically sequence to the next leg - sensing you crossed 400 AGL. Without air data you have to manually sequence the flight plan departure leg. My air data come from my G500, but you'll also get it from the GI-275 and I imagine G5 would also provide it too (but not sure).

yeah no way with engine ~44 years since new. Personally it’s run out IMO. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the first photo shows it should be active, but second picture is before it became active. there are some conditions which disables VNAV such as having any approach procedure active and OBS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Be careful, missing causes a rise in EGT - not a drop. A sticky valve though causes a larger drop EGT. Initially they'll clear up as the engine warms up and power is applied. But if its is a sticky valve, and its not addressed soon, it can eventaully do a lot of damage to the cylinder when it sticks in cruise power. That said its very easy for a mechanic to check for a sticky valve.

Did you either click VNAV Direct on the Flight plan page or have the INFEQ sequence to the active waypoint? if not, without that nothing happens I believe.

I did two 430's to 430W in the day at $1500 each, but did have to pay for new antenna coax and new WAAS antenna - which I don't recall the cost for. But after the promotion period ended the WAAS upgrade fee doubled. I couldn't beleive how so many people didn't take advantge of it while it was available since WAAS was game changer in so many ways. The was the last harware upgrade that I recall Garmin ever offering.

They are clearly listed in the link Skip provided. The free "upgrade" is to the GTN Xi available in August and requires one of the compatible Garmin PFD's. I think it listed the GI-275 support first but showed others that will soon follow including the G3X, G500/600 TXi, G5 (but see the link to be sure). Plus AP automation requires either the GFC-500/600.

It still works fine. But the VNAV constraint is added in your flight plan. Go to your flight plan page and add the VNAV constraint altitude to your destination - say for example you want to be 1000' AGL 1 nm before the airport - then input the needed MSL altitude in the Alt field next to the destination airport and specify 1 nm along track Before. Then activate VNAV direct to enable it - but if there are other waypoint ahead, you might want to wait till your closer or given intermediate altitude constraints on your earlier altitude. Either way you'll get TOD annunciations and requrired VSR to make the altitude constraint ahead.

Very cool, and my prediction is that it will sell a lot of GTN XI upgrades! Before this significant upgrade going from the GTN to a GTN XI was more about improved resolution but this is pitting the XI upgrade in a whole new light. Although it only integrates directly with the Garmin AP's (with a Garmin PFD) , even without it, it's just a few more button pushes as best as I can tell.

Personally I just wish they had support for a CWS yoke switch like the BK AP's - a quick change of pitch with the CWS button was extremely useful.

I think I understand you now and understand you want the plane configured and set up cross controlled quite ways up before the flare, or maybe you extend the brakes and get the power where you want and add cross controls closer to the runway so you can take the crab out and center the nose. I am not passing judgement on any of it. We teach our private students to put in the cross controls at a couple hundred feet - but the higher the starting alt, the stronger winds are and more cross controlled the plane needs to be to elimiante drift. In fact with a strong cross wind one can easily run out of drift correction which is why keeping the crab till near the flare allows controlling the drift with stronger cross winds. There is truth too in more power adding stability with more thrust or prop wash over the rudder - you can see this by pulling the power back to idle a bit before the flare with a good x-wind and seeing the nose weather vane right away - even though its a relatively small power change. But if you have the runway, adding a bit more power with a bit more airspeed with about 1/2 flaps is another way to handle larger x-winds. A constant wind magnitude though is much easier to deal with as compared to a gusty x-wind - I can reach my x-wind limit much earlier with a very gusty wind as opposed to constant x-wind.

I understand more power for speed brakes. But this would make more sense on the visual portion of the approach before the flare, but why does it matter inbound from the FAF? The plane doesn't feel the x-wind tracking on approach from FAF till breaking out or at minimums cause the nose is crabbed into the wind by whatever amount is necessary. Only after you commence the visual portion and at somepoint before or at the flare will you eliminate the crab and to land. If I understand you, one could extend brakes with power once the landing was assured - assuming that's your preferred x-wind landing technique. (I do know pilots that prefer to use speed brakes on normal landings) Mooney's were certified without speed brakes so its my understanding the factory did no testing. Testing was done by Precise for their STC limitations covered in their AFMS - which does allow landing with them and all the way up to Vne.

Thanks for clarifying. You’re right i wasn’t thinking about speed brakes used from the final approach fix. But why would it help to maintain centerline i.e. laterally centered on the approach? All that is needed is to maintain the DTK by crabbing into the wind. Then when the visual segment is begun to land you can take the crab out and land as you prefer. For me that would be dropping appropriate wing into the wind and simultaneously kicking enough rudder to maintain centerline at normal approach speed. But depending on the cross wind keeping a bit of power into the flare. Pulling the power to idle before the flare will allow the nose to weather vane into the wind from the loss of prop thrust over the fuselage. And if i don’t have the required visibility I am ready to go missed since the airframe was clean all the way down. With cross winds and cold air you won’t want to deploy speed brakes and find them sticking on the miss. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they were some of your best landings with Speed brakes then you’re caring excess speed into the flare. The added drag of the brakes helps dampen the float you’d have with excess speed but right on target speed will give a firm landing. Same on the cross wind. Being cross controlled already adds a lot of drag, adding speed brakes is really going to increase your descent rate. But the cross controlled landing is very manageable with just a little more power to reduce the descent pitched for the same airspeed. A really strong x-wind you can increase airspeed enough to maintain the centerline and roll it on - but only if you have plenty of runway. Another PPP instructor here. Going back to the normal landing, make sure you’re adjusting Vref for you weight to 1.3 X Vso - you may be consistently using max gross Vref causing float from being several hundred pounds lighter and then speed brakes would be helping absorb all that float you would get without them. every time i mistakenly land with the speed brakes out i am rudely giving my bird a firm landing because i didn’t realize/forgot to retract them and pulled the power prematurely for having them out. My absolute worst landings! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

we had a minus 10+ out of 10 paint abandoned old Mooney A model with wood wing. So bad that most of the top wood skins were gone - eaten or rotted away - exposing the wing bays. Its doubtful any salvage valued remained. Story i heard was similar to above in that the family was making the tie down payments till they found out there wasn’t anything left of it. Sadly there are way to many of these across the country! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sounds like fun! i was thinking low and slow - till i saw the panel pic. that’s a turbo charged radial - i assume not that far from Mooney speeds! Looking forward to seeing lots of picts! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speed brakes are forbidden on approaches for me. I have to have really screwed up terribly bad if i need to pop them out on an approach. i have used them on occasion when it’s been the controller’s fault coming down from the upper teens and he couldn’t get me down despite my pestering for lower. But i’d be using the “unable” response if i couldn’t get down and slowed down to start a stabilized approach. Even in the enroute descent it’s got to be above freezing and VMC before i’ll pop them - other wise i’ll take some vectors so i can continue to fly the approach by my numbers - the way I always do. that’s not to say i can’t keep my speed up to the FAF at a busy airport - i have numbers for that too. Just got to stay well ahead of the plane! The big problem with adding speed brakes to your approach tool kit is the day will come when you want use them in below freezing IMC. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But then if they do tell, they will have to shoot you! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i met Henry many years ago at Vintage fly in back in the day when Phil was organizing them. I recall he was based at Long Beach then. Everything Rich says above was spot on - sadly. Let’s just say Henry was making the news decades ago. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk