Z W

A&P found a leak in the filler valve. Mooney part number 26875-76. Apparently it's hard to find. Working on a source. Looks like this: download.jfif

Thanks for the tip on Snoop. Have a bottle ordered. Thanks for the other tips as well.

After chasing oxygen system leaks for years in our M20K, we've decided the factory O2 system from 1982 needs an overhaul. Currently it has a very slow leak where if we fill the tank, it will leak down over a period of about three weeks. Usually just long enough to be empty before the next flight that oxygen is needed. After living with it for over a year, we've had enough. Also, ever since we got the plane, if you leave the valve in the "On" position after flight, the tank will be empty by the next morning. My understanding is this is from leaks most likely at the female Scott type fittings in the side panel in the cockpit, which are prone to leaking as they age. Anybody been down this road before? Thinking about telling the A&P to replace everything accessible from the tailcone, and if that does not fix the slow leak, then the lines from the tailcone to the cockpit and all those fittings are getting replaced. I believe if it's functioning properly you can leave the oxygen "On" all the time (or at least overnight) and not have it be empty the next day. May well have them replaced anyways. Any reason to install the Precise Flight oxygen system in a Mooney that has factory O2? It seems to be the only STC'd option: https://preciseflight.com/product/built-in-oxygen-system-for-mooney/ All I see is additional complexity and electrical components that will basically do what the factory gauge and manual valve already do. But I'm open to ideas. May also add a Mountain High O2D2 system while we're at it. Has anybody mounted one of these on the ceiling? If so, I would like a photo. Searches turned up pictures of some mounted on the center console above the fuel selector, but it seems like it would be in the way there, and it doesn't look like a super clean install. Any experience or guidance would be appreciated. Thanks.

I have time in both a non-turbo (C model) and turbo (K model 262, like the one discussed here) Mooney. I would not go back to the NA engine. The turbo is not about speed, but convenience, comfort, and options. You can always climb to get out of turbulence, clouds, and/or icing. After a nasty, moderately-turbulent flight across Texas and New Mexico in a naturally-aspirated M20C, maxed out in altitude at 12,500 feet with bumps all the way to the ground, my wife appreciates the turbo and won't go back. If there's a tailwind you want to catch, you go up high and catch it. If you want to take your family of four into the mountains and depart at gross weight on a hot summer day, you just do it. No leaning for take-off, no need to study the POH and do density altitude calculations (you may use a couple hundred more feet than normal but generally its a no-factor). You don't have to spend every flight way up high to enjoy the turbo. It's there for the 10% of flights where a NA plane might be uncomfortable or even unsafe. It costs a little more in maintenance, but I'm betting less than 5% of the total cost of owning the plane, and we've replaced our entire turbo system at this point. I'd do it again. Just my two cents.

In your situation, I would get the G5 or GI275 and GFC500. You won't regret it. The autopilot, especially with a yaw damper, really transforms the plane, and both it and the standby will connect to the expensive Garmin items already in your panel very nicely. I think you'll regret spending the kind of money and downtime required for a new autopilot and not getting the GFC500. Most autopilots seem to last 30-40 years. You don't want to have to do it again.

Not a G3X, but on our G500TXi, you cannot do what you want. It takes two taps to toggle the screen to see the CHTs and EGTs from the map display. I have heard there is a firmware update that addresses this problem by always displaying the highest CHT in numerical format on the main EIS display. Dropping the plane in for the update is on my to-do list. That would largely fix the issue. I do find myself always having to tap over to the engine page to make sure the CHTs haven't crept up in cruise. As you know I'm sure, sometimes they do, and you have to crack the cowl flaps a bit more. I don't know that I need all the CHT's and EGT's all the time, but the highest one is important to keep an eye on. I keep it under 380dF. This is the one issue that makes me wish just a little bit that we'd replaced the old, failing JPI 930 with another JPI unit for full-time engine data display, although to be honest, tapping twice to check the engine data every so often really is not that big of a deal.

Quotes about a year ago for a TSIO-360-MB overhaul ranged from $60k-$85k. The $85k was with all the extras (turbo, exhaust, hoses, etc.) FYI. With the Mooney, the good news is, your fuel bill will usually be less than the hotel and rental car at your destination. Always feels good.

I prefer not to use them on an instrument approach once I'm past the initial approach fix. I was taught that instrument approaches are best done stabilized with minimal configuration and power changes except at a pre-defined time, i.e the final approach fix, where the gear comes down and takeoff flaps are applied. In my mind, adding another button to push for speed brakes, and a large configuration change, is not helpful during a typical approach. Speed brakes add a lot of sink when applied, and similarly take it away when stowed, each of which is going to result in large dramatic changes in pitch, airspeed, and/or vertical speed. Not what you want when you're trying to capture and hold a glideslope for a stabilized approach. If ATC asks for best forward speed, you could do what Larryb says and carry a lot of speed until the final approach fix, then pop speed brakes, followed by gear and flaps. I don't like being rushed and would likely say unable in a real IMC approach, but it's fun to do while practicing in clear air, or while on the visual. The best use for speed brakes that I have found is in the cruise or en-route phase of the flight. ATC holds you high and dumps you at 1000 FPM descent required to hit the runway? Pop the brakes, pull the throttle, and point the nose down, and you can do it easily. Not recommended with non-pilot passengers or anyone with a head cold. Add gear at the top of your descent and 1500 FPM or more is possible. I also use them during long descents in the yellow arc if you start hitting some bumps. Pop the brakes and you're immediately back in the green airspeed range. Good for passenger comfort and safety. Also good when you're trying to duck under a cloud layer or drop through a hole in the clouds and stay visual. I was practicing short field landings the other day and was thinking there is probably a use for speed brakes there. They could be used if you end up high on final approach and are trying to land short. Other aircraft use a slip in this situation, but those are not recommended in my K with flaps and while slow, so brakes could be a substitute. Something I need to practice.

Still learning and getting used to our GFC500. I realized after landing the other day that I had done so with the YD on. Didn't even notice until turning off the runway, although there was not a lot of cross-wind. It appears to be a non-event, which is good design by Garmin I suppose. Turning off the YD is going on my pre-landing checklist. It is very easy to forget, since if you press the "AP" button on the control unit to disconnect the autopilot, the YD stays on. As someone else said above, if you use the "AP Disconnect" button on the yoke instead, that turns off the YD as well. I think I will make it my practice to always use the button on the yoke and not touch the AP button on the control panel, unless I make a conscious decision that I want the YD to stay on. Coming from our old KAP150, there was no difference, and for no reason at all, I always used the control panel in the dash and not the button on the yoke. I guess I have an old habit to break.

I had the same experience as you. I was taught 32" / 2500 RPM, pitch for 500 FPM climb, as a "cruise climb" setting, to be set after climbing through 1,000 feet AGL. I still use that for larger altitude changes in cruise, but no longer for the initial climb. After reading it here many times, for initial climb, I have switched to full power climbs to final altitude. For me that is 36" and 2700 RPM. Your TSIO-360-SB engine has different max numbers (39" and 2600 RPM I think?) and 10 more HP, but I believe the consensus is the same. At full power, set pitch for 120 KIAS, which is optimal attitude for engine cooling. When light, and/or on a cool day, you will climb at 1000 FPM or more, and compared to the "cruise climb" settings, 1) your CHTs will be lower, 2) your ground speed will be higher during climb, reducing total flight time, and 3) you will use less total fuel to reach your maximum altitude. It's also simpler, because you don't touch your throttle, prop, or mixture after takeoff until leveling off, which decreases pilot workload, and possibly decreases the chance of an engine or cable failure while near the ground. Better in every way, in my opinion. Whoever wrote the manual knew what they were doing in this case.

Before our panel job, we had a very old 930 that was starting to fail intermittently. We chose to remove it and go with the 500TXi, and for redundancy, kept the factory RPM and MP gauges on the far right side of the panel. Thing I like most about it is having your EIS right in front of you on the 500TXi. Your entire scan is within that 10" frame. Great for approaches and changing power settings while in the soup or under the hood. It's a very clean setup and I would do it that way again.

I guess I'm about as near as you're likely to find to Bolivar (M17). You may want to call Lake Aviation Center, http://www.lakeaviationcenter.com/, and ask Don Thibodeau, their A&P, if he'll make the drive over and put eyes on it for you. He maintains our Mooney and has done a good job. They're based at Camdenton but it's about a 1.5 hour drive to Bolivar.

KSUS is great and easy, and a no-brainer if it's the closest to your destination. Million Air has always treated me well. Nice courtesy cars. Echo what others have said about KCPS, it's fine too and a little closer to downtown if that's where you're going.

I debated back and forth between matching the plane's color scheme, and going with red for high visibility. In the end, I went with the red. Matching colors would be just as easy to do, though, if you're more confident than I am in your ability to remember to remove the chocks before taxi.

I made some wheel chocks, and they turned out better than expected. I 3D-printed these on a Creality CR-10. The rope is 3-strand braided paracord, with the ends sealed with electrical heat-shrink. Any 3/8" rope would probably do. They weigh in at just under two pounds, with the rope. I thought I would share the idea and files in an attempt to give back a little to this community that has helped me so much. I don't post much, but I read a lot. Details: These are PLA plastic, printed at 50% infill. That's the wrong material, but I had planned to go through several iterations, and I had a spare roll of PLA to start. They are nice enough I'm just going to see how long they last. The next set will be ABS or PETG. This was my first attempt at a filament change (red to black for the letters) and it was really easy. The print took about two and a half days, and used almost a full 1kg roll of filament. I designed them in Fusion 360. Pictures and files to follow. I removed my N-number from the files. Adding your own is pretty easy though. I got started on this because I bought some chocks off Amazon, but they were very heavy and bulky. I wanted something light-weight, durable, high-vis, and with the plane's N-number on them so maybe they won't wander away. I want them to live on the hat rack in the back and always be available for short stops, fueling on slight inclines, etc, without eating into the useful load. At under 2 lbs, I think they fit the mission. I'm very happy with how they turned out, and I hope someone else finds this useful. Fusion 360 File: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AjJPoJhv9yifh4hTLxSOGN5CCDkJYw?e=7X6jQn STL File: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AjJPoJhv9yifh4hVrUax1fYaCavXPw?e=1o7qus

Hah, the first vacuum attitude indicator failure was in a 68C model. Then I moved to our K which had a lot of...questionable...wiring behind the panel when we got it. Shops hated working on it. When we finally gave the avionics shop the green light to rip it all out and go glass they were thrilled. Happy to help with some mental gymnastics to justify spending money on an airplane, but I do enough of that with one, no need for half of another C model. Sometimes I wish I had kept our C though, it was a great plane. Better than the K in some ways, like short field ops, grass strips, and practical inability to load it over gross weight. I'd put a glass panel in that plane if I still had it.

You don't have a $65k plane. Maybe that's what it would sell for, or what you paid for it, but in fact it's a $750k-$1m plane (in today's dollars), depreciated all the way down to $65k. So really, all you're doing is spending a very reasonable amount to maintain the systems in your million-dollar investment, and saving lots of money compared to buying a new one. On a more serious note, I've flown old panels full of faulty steam gauges and old wiring. I've had a vacuum AI gyro die, luckily in VMC. I've had an electric turn coordinator die shortly after takeoff on a long cross-country IFR, again luckily still in VMC, that resulted in climbing to 17k to stay VFR, with family on board, adding significant stress. I've had an HSI stop working on another long cross-country, in VMC (thinking about this, I've sure been lucky on my instrument failures), resulting in no autopilot and about 8 hours of solo hand-flying, and having to stay VMC dodging widespread rain and clouds on the way back. This is all in about 350 hours of total time. The safety concerns are ultimately why we redid our panel in glass. Any plane I own in the future is getting modern glass without gyros, a digital autopilot with envelope protection, and at least two redundant AHRS with battery backups, even if the panel upgrade is all I can afford. I am of the opinion that any IFR plane should have those features now, considering their cost and availability, as a safety concern.

Thanks for posting the update, Paul. I've been silently following with interest. The speed brakes and entry step are the last vacuum-operated items in our plane. We even bought the electric step kit, but after seeing how much money and work it would be to do the speed brakes, the step kit is sitting on the shelf until those fail. I would really like to hear about how the new 220 HP engine does on the takeoff roll at your new max gross weight, after you've finished dialing it in.

When I moved from a C to a K, I noticed the K model being bigger, heavier on the controls, and as you would expect as a result, harder to slow down. The K is less forgiving of carrying extra speed on final. Easier to get behind the airplane with the K. Overall it was an easy transition though, the planes handle mostly the same. Just be sure you're 80 knots short final, 75 knots over the fence, especially when light, and it will land just fine. Adding additional engine management may make it worse, although I have no experience in a 231 with the LB engine. From what I've read here, for takeoff, you can't firewall the throttle, but instead add throttle to max MP (40 I think?) before starting your takeoff roll. If you firewall the throttle you can overboost. Without the intercooler, I have read you may become limited by TIT temps up high, depending on temperature and altitude. 1650 is max TIT and you must reduce power to stay below it by going either rich or lean of peak. Good luck and have fun!

We have a GNC 355 and it's a nice unit. We kept our 430W and did not really see the need for a second backup ground-based nav radio. Approaches we fly are now are GPS just about 100% of the time unless there's an outage. The GTN 650/750's provide a ground-based nav radio (VORs, ILS, etc) and are also capable of using Garmin's VNAV feature. Those are the only functional differences between a GTN and the GNC 355. We didn't have VNAV before so I don't know what I'm missing. I've heard it's nice. As I understand it, It allows you to program altitude at a certain fix in your flight plan and let your autopilot take you up or down without having to change the altitude manually, e.g. while flying an arrival or SID. Did not seem worth the extra cost of going with a GTN vs GNC but your experience may vary.

Usually around 1550-1600, depending on outside air temp and altitude. 1650 TIT is max for continuous operation and I've never seen it hit that with those power settings.

2500 RPM, 28"MP, lean to peak TIT, 11.5 GPH. Works great. Can lean about another .5 GPH, which is 25-50 degrees LOP, before it gets rough on our bird, but speed rapidly seems to drop off, and the engine doesn't seem as happy. Crack the cowl flaps as necessary to keep all cylinders under 380 degrees. Your mileage may vary.

It doesn't happen on mine either unless I sit at idle and full rich, which quickly fouls a plug anyways. I've just learned not to do that while I line up and wait. I had developed a bad habit of always going full rich as I rolled onto the runway. Now I only go full rich immediately before full throttle, problem solved.

Nice short landing! Looks like you've got the speed nailed.

Mine does this too. Mechanic says it's fine, it's set per book, and it won't shut off, and it never has. That being said, I try not to go full rich until go-around, and leave the mixture at about an inch out during approach. It takes practice and conditioning that you always go full prop and mixture before throttle, both for take-off and go-around. I will usually go throttle about 1/4 in, then full rich, then throttle in. At a minimum, this avoids uncomfortable looks from passengers when they hear the engine burble prior to takeoff. I've often wondered if it's best practice or not, since if you forget mixture and go full throttle, you won't be making full power. Interesting to hear others have the same experience.