Cris

Several folks have installed the G3 recently so I suspect they will be commenting shortly. For myself I just installed a G2 which has all of the features I want at a substantial discount to the G3. I find it very easy to read and to use. In my case I had a MINIFLOW L fuel computer that I needed to interface with the G2. It was tough to get any helpful info from Insight but in the end it works as advertised. If you have a similar issue when you install then I can help. Also I upgraded from a GEM 610 and found the wiring harness was to short since the 610 is a longer case than is the G2/3 and there was no extra wire. In the end I had to buy a new harness. The probe diagnostics are superb as once we turned it on it showed a bad connection on one probe saving countless hours of trouble shooting. If you do not have a harness and probes now be prepared for a full day or more depending on options you are configuring as well as the expense for the install.

Hank The 13 kts referenced is not a limitation but rather only what was demonstrated at certification. It can be found under "Speeds for Normal Operation" -demonstrated crosswind velocity. It is also shown in the POH at the top of "crosswind component chart" in the AFM that I referenced but you may find it in many other POH's as well. The point that I was making is that not everything on Mooney's has been fully explored since the M20 certification. "There is never a problem until there is a problem" is a great quote. Another example of what is missing or lacking is in the Ovation 3 T/O charts which use a great deal of the Ovation 1/2 data. That works fine as it is quite conservative but leaves one wondering what are the real performance numbers on T/O as opposed to climbing over a 50' object. I might like to know that at a high density airport. In other words we sometimes are left in the position of being a test pilot due to a lack of data in the POH ie no info on forward slips no MAX demonstarted corsswind and no takeoff performance number in the examples cited. You might not even have that 13 knots in your Mooney C POH but is in many others. Byron I subscribe to the theory that there are " old pilots and bold pilots" but rarely will one find an " old bold pilot" As above, flying a long body in a forward slip is much to bold for this old pilot. But hey that's just me and if you are comfortable and proficient in your tecnique I won't' argue but I do think it important that you differentiate that you are flying a J and not a long body which is how this all got started. I too have used forward slips in a J, K or E but that is dependant on conditions In strong cross winds I will always always use a crab until the landing flare for reason I've enumerated. BTW the crab is also what is described in the 1986 J model POHnormal landings -croww wind ie "Final Approach Allow aircraft to crab" "Prior to Flare Slip Aircraft into the wind".

Byron Like I said I don't argue with what works. So if are happy with your technique stay with it. I simply am making comments on some of the points referenced within this thread. But since you seem to be quite the expert on all Mooney POH's let me point you to the following in one of the long body Airplane Flight Manual's. See Section 3, Normal Procedures M20R Ovation 2. Pg 4-16 under landing (normal) NOTE: Crosswind landings should be accomplished by using above procedures except maintain approach speed appropriate for wind conditions. Allow aircraft to CRAB UNTILL THE LANDING FLAIR. Accomplish touchdown in a slight wing low side slip (low wing into wind) and aircraft aligned with runway. During landing roll, position flight controls to counteract crosswind. Now as many folks know the Mooney has a 13 Kt demonstrated crosswind which is not a limitation but mearly what was demonstrated at the time of certification. This particular POH is silent in terms of a forward slip but quite specific as to how to land in a crosswind. Now it seems to me that you want to let all who read this know to strictly adhere to their POH which is great advice. So in spite of what works for you maybe you are going to have to change your tecnique to conform to the POH at least in the longbody's which is all that I was referencing. As an aside I spent the day today with a 20 year veteran that teaches at the MAPA program and we discussed this very topic prior to me reading your response. I mentioned to him that some folks on Mooneyspace referenced a possible tail flutter with full flaps potentially leading to a tail stall. He said that there is anecdotal evidence of this and he also will not teach forward slips in longbody's. In the J and short body there does not seem to be any similar issue. Hope this helps clarify. I did not think it necessary to explain how to transition from a crab to a slip as one was landing. However if it is difficult for you may I suggest reading the POH or find an experienced Mooney instructor.

In general I don't argue with what works but consider that long bodies have the potential to blanket the air flow over the rudder (misspoke, should have said elevator) with full flaps under certain air speeds. All of the Mooney's can run out of rudder when in a forward slip when you need it most like in the final landing phase correcting for drift. Thus when I teach crosswind landings I recommend only a crab. Passengers particularly seem to appreciate this more than an aggressive forward slip.

In looking at the engine logs my A/C primarily used Philips XC20W50. I began useing cam guard in the A/C but at the previous oil change to the one just done I inadvertently switched to Aero Shell 15W50 and cam guard. Now I have switched back but find that I had to add an extra quart of oil in the first 10 hrs of flight so I am thinking that the Philips might be burning a bit more oil. These first 10 hours however have included a good bit of low level training and included more take offs and landings so it might be nothing but I will keep a close eye on it. I have heard that if one changes oils you often will get differant rates of consumption.

I'm assuming that by "lost" you mean the trim switch no longer works? I'd suggest you remove it from the yoke and clean it first. As you remove it check to be sure there are no loose/disconnected wires. There are two parts to the switch and both have to move simultaneously to activate the trim. Also the contacts get dirty so an electrical cleaner should be used. Search this forum for additional help as this has been discussed before.

Docket This guy has a complete M20S that he has been parting out. He sold the Moritz guages but he may well still have the transducer. He advertises on ebay http://stores.ebay.com/baspartsales If you can't reach him thru the link pm me and I will find his email. Another alternative is a new engine monitor that is stc'd for egt cht Mp etc. Let us know how it goes.

Years ago I removed the step from my 78 M20J for a transatlantic flight. I do not recall if there was any speed differance but I would assume that there is. The step on the J is more aerodynamic than on the earlier models so the pickup might be minimal. If memory serves me right it was cut off and an insert welded inside the pipe so that it could be reattached with a bolt on my return. In my Eagle it is already attached with a bolt inside of the fiberglas belly panal. I'd check inside the fairing to see how yours is attached. I would assume it would be easy to remove with either a hacksaw or a wrench.

IMHO, It's really not the cruise speed that one would pay the big $'s to get from the 310 Hp STC unless you are willing to accept the higher fuel burn/costs but rather the increased gross weight from 3200 lbs to 3368 lbs and the overall performane increases. Btw I can get 197 kt's or better cruise if Im willing to use 2700 rpm. So 2400-2550 is a good compromise and gives similar fuel burns to an R but is a few knots faster since it is lighter. It also allows for higher speeds LOP. Personally I wanted it for (safety) ie the takeoff and climb performance which is significant over the stock Eagle and late model MSE's. Is it worth 20k for the increased performance,75 gal to 89 gal legal fuel increase, safety, gross weight increase, flexibility and resale value? Who knows? Only the market can tell but I think it provides the very best in performace flexibility and economy of any normally aspiirated A/C. One question I have is the comment on the 244 hp Eagle having a better chance of making it to TBO as opposed to the 310hp version. Would you be able to point me to that info? I'm curious as to the validity of the data referenced since the statistical sample of these AC is really small not to mention the very few conversions relative to the Eagle fleet size. There are of course the Ovation 3's with the same 310hp STC so they might be included.

Jorgen- typically I'm flying in the 8-11k range at altitudes at 2550 rpm and around 13-14 gph. and vary between ROP and 10-20 lean of peak on the leanest cyl. depending on winds and temps. I've found that the factory 3 probe egt will show 40-50 lop when my GEM 610 shows less. The descriptive of the chart for the M20R that we are to use is attached. It shows 190 knots at 2500 rpm. Thus it would stand to reason that 2550 would give more speed even though this chart is ROP and 7500'. In addition since I fly alone 90% of the time I am well below the 3368 lbs which also increases speed. As you know the temp will also effect the TAS and I fly more in the cooler times of the year so that also helps. However I might suggest you check your rigging. It can make a huge differance. There should not be that much differance in our performances when compared to book. Currently I have 425 hrs TT on th A/C and had the rigging checked at time of purchase by an MSC. it was pretty much dead on although one gear door was tweaked. In the past I have picked up 6 knots or more with Mooney's that were out of rig. Just something to consider. MOONEY M20R - OVATION 2 GX SECTION V PERFORMANCE 5 - - 26 AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL ORIGINAL ISSUE - - 12-11-2007 M20R OVATION 2 GX - SPEED POWER VS ALTITUDE EXAMPLE: PRESS ALT 7,500 FT OAT 10 C POWER 75% AIRSPEED 190 KTAS SPEED, POWER VS. ALTITUDE GEAR UP , FLAPS UP , 3368 LBS

To me the autopilot is a go/no go item for an IFR flight. In the early days of Mooney every A/C was equipped with a Britain wing leveler similar to the basic Century system. This is due to the fact that a Mooney will tend to drop a wing depending on left/right fuel load. It was there for SAFETY. Admittedly I don't think I have ever flown more than a couple of actual IFR coupled approaches but I use it quite a bit at altitude on my long IFR flights and with all the info overload with our systems today I for one consider it critical to the mission. To the OP Keep it or upgrade it for the following reasons: 1: Passengers especially non pilots feel better if they know they can turn it on in the case the pilot is incapacitated. I make it a point to teach this to my family and friends...Just in case. 2: If you fly less you may find it gives you a bit of time to get ahead of the A/C even though you are quite competent now. 3: Anyone buying the A/C is going to expect a working autopilot. Just check Vref for proof on minimum equipment required on a high performance A/C. Your resale will suffer if it is removed. One last comment is when my son,the Navy pilot transitioned to the Mooney last year he commented that he did not see how one could fly a Mooney like ours without an Autopilot and he typically did not use one, Today we have NEXRAD, GPS inputs, constant route changes, LOP ops etc, etc. Way to much heads down for my tastes. The autopilot is a real piece of safety equipment.

You might want to check to see if your PM7000 is indeed set up to transmit by both the pilot and co-pilot simultaneously as Mooney did not allow for that as a factory set up. I do not know the reason why since the audio panal seems to be the same standard PS 7000 engineering setup. At least that is what is in my documentation on my Eagle and I can't transmit simultaneously. That bent com antenna might in fact be for an emergency hand held as opposed to simultaneous transmit function on the audio panel.

Craig Can you post a $ counter on the top of the site to see how we are doing against the requirements?

The short answer is yes. It depends on age and condition but they can sometimes be shimmed to bring them back into specs. Check around your cowl prop hub to see if the distance is the same. Typically the engine sags and begins to come close to the bottom of the cowl. It can effect the performance.

Quote: allsmiles ...and worse. It is my understanding, the display on the KLN units is not supported any longer by Honeywell! Which means if the display goes there is no help.

No free lunches for this guy I'm in!!

Quote: Piloto Mike One potential significant difference is that the STC for long range tanks does not include the M20S model. Unlike the M20R Ovation were you can have up to 130 gallons with the long range tanks you can only have 75 gallons on the M20S. This may not become significant unless you go with the 310HP conversion were the engine consumes more fuel. 240HP vs 280 is significant during climb and ceiling. Given the choice I would definitely go with the Ovation. José Jose'/Mike The Midwest Stc does in fact upgrade the Eagle's 75 gals to the Ovations 89 gals of useful fuel. In addition Midwest is in the process of changing the STC to allow for the full tank capacity of 100 gals on the latter Ovations. I often fly NJ to Miss or Fla non stop with never a concern for fuel due to the Eagle's speed/range.

Quote: Duplicate

Quote: KSMooniac The M20S came with 244 hp derated from the 280 hp of the Ovation. It was the "low-cost" option in the Mooney line-up to replace the 200 hp M20J/201 that was discontinued the year before the Eagle was released. It was pretty much a flop in the market, but the upside is that you can convert it Ovation power via STC and get equivalent performance for less money, theoretically. If you're looking in the 200k range for either of these, then that rules out the G1000 Ovations. IMO, an Eagle with the Screamin' Eagle conversion would be MORE attractive than an Ovation of the same era because you'll get a less-loaded panel. At first glance that sounds bad, but as an owner you'll get fewer and simpler avionics to maintain, and that means less operational cost and more useful load. It also makes a more flexible canvas if/when you wish to upgrade to modern avionics like an Aspen or G500, newer GPS/Comms, etc. You'll get a "lesser" autopilot vs. the Ovation, but it won't have the expensive gyros to overhaul or replace. These points mirror my decision to purchase a Screamin' Eagle and I'll add these comments. The STC from Midwest Mooney comes in two flavors- the early 280 HP upgrade and the latter 310 HP upgrade. You can change the 280 Hp to the 310 HP but there is a cost and requires a new prop gov, tach and paperwork. In my case it was 5K but well worth it. In addition my useful load increased to 1122 lbs in part because there is less equipment and in part due to the gross weight increase to 3368lbs with the STC same as the Ovation. The Screamin Eagle is also faster than the Ovation at the same MP/RPM since it is lighter. I typically flight plan at 190 kts. The S-tec 30 autopilot is a perfectly adequate autopilot and if coupled with a Garmin 430/530 or GTN 650/750 together with GPSS will pretty much operate as a full featured FMS. However many of the Eagles have been upgraded to the Stec 55X. I am hopeful that the DFC 90 will make an appearance on our airframes and I would probably go in that direction for its safety features like straight and level button which makes my passengers happy. The Ovations with the KFC225 autopilots and their servos can be real expensive to maintain. For me I like simple and cost effective. The Screamin' Eagle fits the bill perfectly. My total maintenance cost for last year was $1800 including the owner assisted annual. And I do not find that I want to learn all new systems like the g1000. I simply do not fly that much. More to the point is safety first. I want to stay current with what I know. Simple and cost effective

In my case I do not have a 430 so I would have to also buy the install kit tray and antenna for another $1000. One point that is seldom is the supposed resale of existing 430 when the IFD 440 arrives All those units dumped on the market T the same time will undoubtedly depress prices

The King KI 209A will work with it.

Quote: bbillb Today while changing the oil I noticed a crack in the exhaust in the weld at the #2cylinder. The crack was in the weld at the transition of two tubes. Just wondered if anyone else had run into this problem?? My aircraft has 881 hours and has NOT been run LOP. Can anyone recommend an exhaust repair shop that they had a good experience with?? Thanks Bob Byers

1.Indicato shows: a gradual or sudden rise in EGT of one cylinder. When temperatures are 50°F above normal the display will blink to warn you of the rise in temperature. Probable cause: A) A fouled or defective spark plug or ignition wire. A plug with a cracked insulator may misfire at high altitude but function normally on the ground. What to do: Switching to left and right mags momentarily will determine which plug or lead is at fault. Switching off the good plug will cause the EGT in affected cylinder to drop while all others will rise. A fouled plug may clear itself when mags are switched. Probable cause: A reduction in the fuel supply to one cylinder. A partially plugged injector will cause EGT to rise. A leak in the fuel supply tube between the fuel distributor and injector will have the same effect. A completely plugged injector or fuel supply will result in no combustion. What to do: Switching mags will cause EGTs to rise in all cylinders. There will be no drop in temperature as with the fouled plug.

Has anyone considered what would happen to someone who was not able to make a touch and go after a poor approach or improper cross wind landing? While I appreciate the view points expressed on not doing T & G's I think it quite important for any Mooney pilot particularly those new to the breed that they be aware of the significant control inputs required to retrim the plane after a landing that starts to go awry. That is best handled with an instructor but I would not sign off a student unless they were able to demonstrate that tecnique just as I would not sign them off without demonstrating correct cross wind tecnique.

As an alternative why not find a CFI that will work with you at a large airport with an extended runway? After all the plane does have rudder pedals for steering on the ground and you can always go around. One does not need brakes for the air work. I'd have no issue instructing with a long runway say 5000' or so without brakes after sufficient air work.