Z W

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.

With gear down and full flaps, at 75-80 KIAS, the plane is not slippery and will really sink. It also uses far less runway. It's the proper landing speed for short final, and the required speed for short field landings. The angle of approach is related to the speed, but not exactly. You could be flying a stabilized 3 degree approach at 100 KIAS in a clean configuration with the engine near idle and not be able to slow down and stop in time for a short field. You could be flying the same 3 degree approach at 80 KIAS in a landing configuration and using more power and have no trouble at all. Adjusting your angle of approach in different configurations at different speeds is a great exercise to really hone your piloting skills. A good CFI can show you the differences. I think you may be focusing on the wrong indicator for a go-around. It should be your indicated airspeed, not your angle of approach. At 75 KIAS the plane will drop nicely onto the runway with very little float. At 90 KIAS you will float for most of those 2,000 feet. Many pilots fly closer to 90 and have trouble as a result. I myself would be concerned about a 2,000 foot runway and would consult the POH landing distance tables carefully. That's not very long for a K model and you would have to nail your speed, if it's possible. Also, your useful load should not change your landing performance. Gross weight does that. I believe all Ks are 2900lbs max gross. Early Js had lower amounts. If anything the lighter, earlier Mooneys should have better short field performance. They have less mass to slow down and stop and aerodynamically are the same. That was my experience going from a C model with speed mods to a K. I expect it might be the same with a lighter J. Just pointing out that your useful load number does not really have anything to do with landing distance. Good luck getting used to the new ship, and good for you on spending some time figuring out how to master the landings. It's a little different than other planes but very capable once you have the techniques down.

Just spent a lot of time and money fixing a similar issue over the last 3-4 months. Oil (a somewhat concerning amount) was dripping out the front of the cowl onto the front tire after shutdown on our 262. It could not be replicated on the ground or de-cowled, no leaks were visible. Apparently the oil can leak from a lot of places, and flight pressures blow it everywhere. Here is what we did: 1. De-cowl the plane, clean the engine thoroughly, run it up, and check for leaks. It may not be coming from where you think it is. 2. Clean the oil/air separator and lines. This should be done at annual but is often missed. 3. Replace the gasket on the oil filler cap. It was $10.00 from Aircraft Spruce. A bad gasket can pressurize the case in flight, maybe. This did not fix our issue but is cheap and easy. Existing gasket was hard rubber and maybe from 1982. A Mooney-versed mechanic said many planes are missing the gasket entirely. The cap now seals up much tighter and feels more secure, if nothing else. 4. Check the oil/air separator lines are in the right places. There is a backup air exit line designed to prevent pressurization of the case if the main drain line freezes up. Clogs in the lines or improper routing can supposedly cause the separator to function incorrectly in flight. 5. In our case, the oil was leaking from behind a plate that bolts to the engine and holds the vacuum pump and second alternator. This is a unique plate for the 252 TSIO-360-MB engine I believe. It really looked like it was coming out the air/oil separator lines but it wasn't. It was coming out from the plate, running down the vacuum pump, dripping onto the wastegate, and ending up in the nose / on the front landing gear. There is a $10.00 seal behind the plate that had failed. Replacing it fixed the problem. Before this, our engine would routinely blow oil out down to about 6 quarts. We ran it down to 5, filled it to 6, which minimized the blowout. After all of this, it happily holds 8 quarts and does not leak. Not sure which fix ended up with that result, or if it was a combination of all of the above, but I'm very happy with it.

Welcome! Great looking plane. I'm not in KC but down at Lake of the Ozarks and go in and out of Lee's Summit and KC Downtown regularly. I know there are some Mooneys based at Lee's Summit but I don't know if any of their owners are on here.

Ours did something similar once. Turned out to be the voltage regulators.