Z W

I have never used the high boost. Per the POH, its only use is to try to re-start the engine after the engine-driven fuel pump has failed. You test its operation by turning it on on the ground and making sure it floods the engine and stops it. Wouldn't want to do that in the air. I did this year find a new use for low boost beyond engine start. I have intermittently experienced manifold pressure oscillations in cruise at higher altitudes and power settings for years. At normal cruise of 27" MP, for example, it would start fluctuating between 25-29". Fuel flow would fluctuate with it and you could detect a difference in how the engine was running. Overhauling the turbo controller, wastegate, and turbo made no difference. I thought mousemilk on the wastegate fixed it, but it would randomly re-occur. It only occurs on random flights so it was very hard to chase down. Reducing power in flight would make it stop. Descending always made it stop. Once it stopped it usually would not re-occur. Turns out if you turn on the low boost pump, the fluctuations go away. If you run the low boost for 1-2 minutes, then turn it back off, the fluctuations do not return. I believe the cause is vapor in the fuel system at higher altitudes, temperatures, and pressures (most often saw this on warm days up high). This has worked maybe two times now, those being the only times I've seen it since I figured this out. Might be a good tip for other K owners to know and try since it's not in the POH. I read about it being the reason some later model POH's leave the boost pump on for high altitude climbs, which led me to try it out.

No argument from me there. The turbo looks an awful lot like the one on my F-150, but even an overhauled aircraft turbo costs more than the entire motor for the truck. I bought a new V-band clamp this year too, $830.54 from Airpower, and was happy to be able to pay for it instead of being grounded. Similar ones are $50 on McMaster-Carr. Fixing those problems are above my pay grade and beyond the scope of this thread. Naturally aspirated parts aren't doing any better. I replaced a bunch of those too. It was an expensive year, maintenance-wise. But I got to fly a pretty good amount of hours in comfort and safety, and see and experience things as only GA can let you do. Still worth it, no matter what you're flying.

I was just reviewing my year of airplane expenses which included a turbo overhaul. The old one made it to 1,400 hours before it had issues. They were major issues and essentially all of the parts had to be replaced with serviceable overhauled ones from Main Turbo in California. The cost was $13,294.98 in 2025, so the numbers posted here are maybe optimistic. I was told it would have been less if my housings had been re-usable, so maybe $5-6k is more typical, unless you get unlucky. Also, the turbo on the TSIO-360-MB is somewhat rare and therefore expensive. Next time I'll send it in at 1,000 hours for preventative overhaul. If you replace the bearings before they wear out and start allowing other parts to rub on each other it's much cheaper. That being said, I'd do it again and wouldn't want to go back to naturally aspirated single engine piston flight. The turbo has made many of my flights safer, more comfortable, and faster. In the case of mountain flying, it's even made a few possible that otherwise would not have been.

The new valves I've put in are much stiffer harder to sump than the old ones. I suspect it's a new design with a stronger spring that makes them less likely to leak. The downside being it takes longer, with a harder push, to get a good sump.

When I went through this to replace a leaking Monroy tank valve, I read on here (possibly from this thread) that the Monroy tanks would take a different valve than the inboard tanks. I ordered a CCA-2800 which corresponds to the F391-72 or SA-72. It did not match the one I removed. I ended up replacing it with a SA53S which matched the existing valve, and which matches the valves in the inboard tanks. I carry a spare one of those in the plane now. Fuel lube and a 1/4" drive torque wrench that does inch/lbs are recommended for the swap. I also needed an adapter to go from 1/4" to 3/8" drive for the large socket that fits the drain valve. After the swap, despite me trying to be gentle, one of the rivets that holds in the drain valve threads inside the wing started to seep. Rubbing on a little Oil-Tite stopped the leak and it has been stable for over two years now.

Glad you got it safely on the ground. Thank you for posting this. I was not aware of it and the Service Instruction has not been completed on my plane. Until I can get it done, I think I'll run the trim all the way nose up with the electric trim on the ground and see if it jams. I've never experienced it, but I make it a point to never run full nose up trim on landing to avoid excessive forces during a go-around, so I'm not sure I've ever done it. I'd hate to find out it happens for the first time in the air like you and your student did. I'm confident I could maneuver and land at 80-90 knots or so with flaps down and full up trim. The plane likes to fly like that just fine, though not at full power. But it could certainly catch one by surprise at high power settings. I also have a G5 and GFC500, and for stalls, steep turns, and unusual attitude recoveries, I have been holding down the autopilot disconnect button to disable ESP. That is what is recommended in Garmin's manual for the autopilot (below). I don't think I would like having the circuit breaker pulled, and electric trim disabled, during ordinary training, though practicing with it pulled might be a good exercise as well. A question - how could an owner get notified of these service instructions and any new ADs or SBs? I have been reading Mooneyspace every morning since before 2016. If it was discussed here I missed it. I've tried hard to be involved and pro-active in maintenance. I've taken it to Mooney specialized shops who have not said anything about it. If there's a better way I'd like to know.

C models are great aircraft. Had one for a few years. Planned 135-145 KTAS on a little less than 10 GPH. Never felt underpowered on takeoff near sea level, even at max gross. It would run out of steam at about 10,000 feet. You could eventually get up to 12,000 if you were patient, climbing 100-200 FPM or doing step-climbs. I flew it to Denver and Sante Fe a few times and it really felt underpowered there. I've never flown an E but have seen videos of them flying up at 20,000 feet. I've heard they do a lot better at higher altitudes with their fuel injection instead of the carburetor in the C. Depending on where you plan to fly, that might be a factor.

Add in - talk to ATC, watch for traffic, arrange routing around thunderstorms/build ups, climb and descend to stay visual or avoid ice, get re-routed around MOAs and restricted areas, and be ready to land in a 15g25 crosswind after your instrument approach, which wasn't forecasted when you took off 7 hours ago. On the right day it can work out, but I personally just plan a stop at 3-3.5 hours. If I am thinking about a longer flight, I take plenty of gas and keep the mindset that if I get fatigued, the weather changes, or I just need a break, I'll find somewhere along the route to stop short.

I try not to fly as low as 6,000, but the OP asked for speed there. My preferred altitudes are 15-17k. If I'm lower, it's for weather, headwinds, or short distances. After getting used to being up there, I find it hard to consider going back to a naturally aspirated engine, even after paying for a turbo overhaul this year. Smooth air, good radio reception, plenty of glide range, direct routing, and very little traffic make it all very enjoyable. It still surprises me sometimes how much weather you can top at 15k, visual and in the clear. The speed is a bonus when you happen to get it, but is not the point. I plan 3-3.5 hour legs and pretty much never use the extended range tanks. I'll do two legs of that length in a day which lets me do about 1,000 NM comfortably, but not in one leg.

In a 262 - At 6,000, I plan 150 KTAS. At 10,000, 160 KTAS. At 14,000, 165 KTAS. All on 12.5 GPH. Some run LOP and do more like 10.5 or 11 GPH but my engine doesn't run well there. I've done a few 1,000 NM flights non-stop but don't like it and you shouldn't count on doing it reliably. The plane will do it with extended tanks but that's almost 6 hours in the air at 170 KTAS, no wind. I've only done it with a tailwind. A headwind can easily require a fuel stop. More importantly, when you go 1,000 NM, you will almost always encounter weather along the way, requiring detours or even sometimes that you stop and wait for it to clear. I believe a rocket may actually have worse endurance (range) due to it's higher fuel burn not being offset by its faster cruise speed. 1,000+ NM flights non-stop on a schedule is not a piston airplane mission. You need a jet.

I wouldn't do that. The guard is there because if you accidentally turn on the high boost pump when the engine-driven pump is functioning, it will flood the engine and the motor will stop. That's actually how you test to make sure the high boost function is working - you turn it on while the engine is running and the engine shuts off. Preferably on the ground.

This is how mine sits. It actually performs its function just fine, and you can still twist it out of the way if necessary to operate the switch. But it looks odd. Been thinking about going after it for a while. Concerned I'll break something without available replacement parts. If anyone has done the job before I'd be interested to know.

This poll needs an option for leaving the oil cap off after adding a quart.

Following. Mine looks just like that...

A tip that I didn't realize until I'd been flying IFR for a while - You can file IFR off any fix, not just an airport. So your flight plan can begin at a VOR, or anywhere else, and you pick it up from the nearest ARTCC frequency when you get there. Some possible use cases: Leaving Oshkosh this is recommended as you can't pick up IFR at the field. They give several recommended fixes to file from depending on your direction of travel. I should have done that this year and didn't, ended up having to call and get a pop-up clearance to get home when there were clouds where they weren't forecasted to be. Leaving a busy airport in VFR conditions, but headed into IFR conditions later in the flight. You can skip the "hold for release" delays and mandatory obstacle departure procedures you may not want to fly in clear weather. If you haven't experienced these, you will if you ever fly in Bravos, especially on the east coast, or in the mountains. Controllers seem to like it and will often let you skip the line and depart quickly VFR. Taking off somewhere where you want to do a scenic tour or circle around a bit, then head to your destination. Now with Starlink you can even file mid-flight off a fix somewhere along your route and pick it up when you get there. To answer the main question, I don't do much taking off in near-IMC conditions expecting to get a clearance. I'd much rather call ATC on my cell phone if I can't reach them on the radio and sit tight on the ground until cleared. Not much fun bouncing around below the clouds, staring at the ground not very far below you, looking for towers, and waiting for them to give you a clearance, while hoping no traffic comes along that you're supposed to see and avoid.