Z W

The benefit of the GTN650 suggestion was to: 1) Gain the benefits of enabling the VNAV function on your GFC500 autopilot. Without a GTN, you will have a VNAV button in your panel, but it will not work. I'm currently flying this way and it's not a big deal, especially when you can manually use the VCALC function on the GNC355, but I'm on a waitlist for a slot to have the GTN installed. 2) Gain the benefit of enabling "Smart Glide" and installing a smart glide switch in the panel to use during emergencies. Again, the GNC355 will not drive this function, only a GTN. 3) Gain a redundant panel with 2 separate GPS navigators plus the ability to fly VORs and ILS's in the event of a widespread GPS outage. It has nothing to do with ADSB which will display just fine and work on your planned GNC355. I currently fly behind a 430W and a GNC355. The 355 is a great unit and very cost-effective, but lacks an IFR nav radio and VNAV functions. I think it's an ideal second backup GPS. My main point was you're spending a lot of money to put in the GFC500 and not be able to use all of its functions. You also won't have a true redundant IFR panel with either of the options you proposed. In IFR flying, two is one and one is none as soon as you have a failure. If you just fly VFR this is less of a consideration. I understand everyone has a budget, and you can keep adding goodies at unlimited costs. Just making a suggestion, having been here and done this. I wish we'd put in the GTN while we had it all apart.

I got a Redline Sidewinder maybe 6 months ago. It does the trick for a K very well. It takes a little technique to keep it from rubbing / spinning on the nose tire when going up into the hangar, just have to press down a little harder and carry a little speed, but easy once you figure it out. I could see it wearing the nose tire a little faster if you use it carelessly and let the drive spindle spin against the tire, but haven't had it long enough to tell if it will otherwise. It's much nicer to use when the plane is full of fuel than pushing by hand. Also nice and slow and easy to control. I picked it because you can easily throw it in the back of the plane and take it with you, but I have not actually had a reason to do that yet. I think you'd need to buy a BestTug or similar to do much better. We also have an old Craftsman lawnmower in the hangar that I setup to pull the plane, but it is enough hassle and noise that I never really use it. It's also a little light and the front wheels like to try to pop up off the ground when pushing the plane uphill. Needs some weight plates added to be really useful. And it's a belt-driven unit, not hydrostatic, so it tends to be jumpy on the clutch which doesn't feel great.

I wouldn't want to be without an IFR radio nav. Sometimes there are widespread GPS outages. I also wouldn't want to rely on a single GPS navigator. If the unit fails, you're flying VOR's, or relying on a phone / tablet. I would seriously consider installing a GTN650 which will be an IFR GPS and also a nav / com. It will also pair with your GFC500 and give you the ability to use VNAV and install a "Smart Glide" button as well. It will be a little more money, but for what you're already spending, a minor cost for a pretty serious increase in capability.

You also don't know how many hours of fuel the K had on board or what weight it was flying at. Many have extended range tanks that hold 105+ gallons. My standard operating procedure is to fill the tanks to max gross for the anticipated payload for the flight, so most takeoffs are heavy. Most often I have 6+ hours of endurance. I like having extra gas in the tanks. A J model might pass me taking off and climbing out 300+ lbs lighter at low altitude, but it wouldn't be able to go as far. And somewhere around 10,000 feet MSL I'd expect the K to pass it right back. I would bet that at similar weights they have very similar performance down low. Higher compression in the J cylinders would likely be offset by extra manifold pressure in the K, unless it was dialed back like Pinecone points out. When I do fly solo and half tanks (still 3+ hours of endurance) the plane jumps off the runway and climbs very well.

The takeoff roll in the K is in fact pretty long at any altitude when heavy. Of the Mooneys, I believe it may be one of the worst short-field performers at 2900lbs max gross and 210-220 HP. But once it gets to speed, it climbs 500 FPM+ regardless of altitude or temperature. And 3,000 feet of runway is plenty which gets you most places. However, taking off from mountain airports is not the difficult part of mountain flying. Most mountain airports have very long runways for just this reason. Few non-turbo models will struggle taking off from a 9,000 foot long runway at any altitude. You might read the POH charts and think your NA plane can make the trip, and it probably can. However, after takeoff is when the challenge starts. You'll be pulling it up off the runway, having to accelerate in ground effect, staring at your ASI to verify you're at Vy, and glancing over at your VSI to verify you're actually climbing (you may not be able to tell by looking out the window). You'll need to have planned your departure route to be towards declining terrain, for safety, which may or may not be your intended direction of flight. You probably need to be at least 200 lbs under gross. You may need to fly on the windward side of the pass to avoid downdraft and gain updraft to be able to climb at all. You have to be careful not to enter a blind canyon that you may not be able to climb out of, if the terrain climbs faster than your plane is capable of that day. The Colorado Pilots' Mountain Flying course teaches all this stuff and it's really good. The turbo makes it all much easier. Just takeoff and go with some basic weather and flight planning. A NA Mooney does not do it better because it's a little lighter.

I got the job done using a cheap plastic pressure pot ($50.00 or so) from Amazon and bleeding from the ground up. Brakes were a little soft at first but it worked itself out after a flight. Fought with the pot quite a bit and next time will buy the $100.00+ version from Aircraft Spruce instead. Go for an all-metal tank pot - the brake fluid the Mooneys use seems to soften most plastics. The pressure pot got a little melted and sticky after sitting in the shop with residual fluid in it. Also used some large syringes to add and drain fluid from the reservoir in the tail and those quickly turned to mush. Anything plastic is probably a one-time use for this job. Also recommend draining all the old fluid out if the job hasn't been done in a while. Did not do that at first and couldn't get the right side to take fluid when we tried to pump it back up, even though it was dripping fluid like it was open. Had to pull the bleeder all the way out and step on the brakes, which shoved a bunch of clumpy old goo out and got it flowing freely. New fluid was a much brighter red color than the old stuff that came out. And the brakes were working fine before this... Overall the job wasn't too bad and new brake hoses were long overdue. Good luck.

@oisiaa I've spent a fair amount of time flying in and out of the Rocky mountain range in a K. Before that, a little time trying to do the same in a C model, which is not as good as a J for high altitude ops. I like the mountains so the area is a common destination for me. The C model did OK, I had it in and out of Sante Fe at least once, Denver area / front range a few times. Not a lot of margin for error. Clear skies and low winds required. Forgetting to lean for takeoff could be fatal. Generally needed to be at minimum fuel to maximize performance for safety. In the K, it's a great feeling to line up for takeoff at max gross weight, go full rich mixture, spool up the turbo, and take off. I've departed Telluride with 3 adults and 3+ hours of fuel at 80 degrees Fahrenheit and climbed out at 750+ FPM. It's also really nice to just point the plane at a mountain range, knowing you'll shortly be at a safe altitude to clear the highest peak if you want. Examples - leaving Jackson Hole or Bozeman. They're down in the bottom of a valley, with mountains in most directions. The K can just take off and go and easily climb through the nearest passes. In a NA, you're probably flying out of the Class D airspace down the valley, then flying circles in the climb to get to a minimum safe altitude, right in the middle of arriving and departing jet traffic. You're burning fuel, which you're light on to try to stay well under gross weight. You're nose-high on attitude with climbing CHT's. The POH says it's doable, and I'm sure it is on most days, but it won't be comfortable. If there's a 300 FPM downdraft from mountain wave (pretty common), you maybe aren't climbing at all or are even descending. Other factors - Go-arounds, if required, are a non-event at any airport. I don't generally fly IFR in the mountains, but on the rare days when it's a safe option, SIDs are no big deal. I flew a SID out of Sante Fe earlier this year and I'm not sure it would have been safe or doable in a naturally aspirated plane. Wouldn't have looked safe out the windscreen, even if the performance charts say so. Sometimes you're departing to fly away from the mountains, need to be IFR, and you're going to get assigned a SID. Best to plan for it. I've never felt the need for FIKI in the mountains. If it's icy up there, I'm not going in any piston single. But the turbo makes it comfortable on most other days, to any airport. The turbo is not about speed, for me. It's about safety, comfort, and options. On maintenance cost, over 12 years of ownership, the turbo's addition to the overall cost of the plane has really been not much, compared to what we've spent on hangar, insurance, fuel, annual inspections, hotels, rental cars, and general maintenance items. It's an incremental cost for sure, but far worth it to me. Every time this comes up, I notice that the people who are pro-turbo have all flown NA before. The people who are pro-NA and are quick to say it's not needed and not worth the cost have never owned and operated one. It's pretty rare to read a post from someone who used to own a turbo, sold it because it was too expensive and not worth it, and now flies a NA plane. Especially for mountain flying. Not knocking anyone's J model or other NA plane. But for what you want to do, it sounds like a K or other turbo model might be a better fit.

It depends on the day and pressure altitude. If it's cold outside, firewalling the throttle can result in 0.5-1 inches over maximum rated MP (36" on my plane). The cure is just to spin the vernier throttle out about half a turn from all the way in. The manual says you can run it higher than rated MP for some period of time but I typically just adjust slightly on the takeoff roll. Then sometimes you have to spin the throttle back in to make 36" in the climb once you have some altitude.

There are a few 231's that have had the 252 TSIO-360-MB engine hung on them via STC. They called those "261" or "262" conversions. They fly happily "full forward on everything" from releasing the brakes to the top of the climb. Many got dual alternators, electric cowl flaps, extended tanks, and other upgrades to be the same as a 252, except with a 12v electrical system instead of a 24v. They are usually priced somewhere between the 231's and the 252's, depending on condition. One is for sale here on the forums. Having flown one for quite a while, it can be a little tricky sometimes to figure out which parts you need for repairs, as the STC paperwork is a little light in the way of documentation, but the parts are always from either a 231 or a 252 Mooney, you just have to compare the part on the plane to the drawings in the parts catalog. Haven't found any other downsides.

There is an adjustable screw on your prop governor that will decrease your max RPM. Simple enough to have adjusted next time it's in the shop.

I've had mine come out of the shop with that hose unhooked before. It's probably lying loose behind the panel somewhere. We no longer use that shop...

It's a little slow. I suspect you're not really putting out 70% power, or your airspeed indicator may not be accurate. What MP / RPM / fuel flows are you using? Have you verified the speed with a GPS speed check? I get about 132-135 KIAS while ROP. Settings are close to 27-28" MP, 2450 RPM, 12.5 GPH. Speed varies a bit with the cowl flap positions which change based on altitude and outside air temp to keep the cylinder temps under 380. Increasing to 13.5 GPH will get closer to 140 KIAS but at an obvious hit to efficiency. Reducing power to something like 26" MP, 2450 RPM, 10.5 GPH produces 125-128 KIAS for a higher efficiency cruise. Used that on my last trip to stretch the final leg. My engine does not run smooth LOP. Your experience may vary. Beware the internet - someone may be along shortly to post numbers at least 10% better than this in both speed and fuel burn. But this has been my experience with a TSIO-360-MB in a K model.

Welcome. Sounds like you are on the right track. Be aware that there are no defined standards for a "pre-purchase inspection." Many have paid for those only to find corrosion or other major issues at their first annual inspection, which is a legally defined inspection with a checklist. They have no recourse against the seller or the pre-buy shop unless they contracted with the shop to do certain things. Just putting it in the shop for "pre-buy" doesn't get you anything guaranteed. Mooney has a 100-hour / annual inspection checklist (attached) 100-HOURANNUAL-Inspection-Guide.pdf. I would say it would be a good place to start, and I would strongly consider working with the shop to have the "pre-purchase inspection" turned into an annual as long as no major items such as corrosion, low compressions, missing AD's, etc. are found at the beginning. And I would tell the shop specifically to look hard for corrosion. Almost everything else can be fixed for a reasonable cost. Then you start out with your new plane good to go, in theory, for a full year. Most good purchase contracts say the seller will pay for any airworthiness items found during pre-buy, and the buyer pays for anything else. As far as a checklist for the test flight, I've never seen something like that, but would probably just work my way left-to-right across the panel and see what works vs. doesn't, and make sure it flies straight and true hands-off. Pay particular attention to the autopilot.

I did my IFR rating in a M20C with a non-WAAS GNS-430. It is a great little GPS unit and you can fly lots of places with it. But GPS approaches being limited to lateral guidance only is a big limitation. Upgrading to WAAS is worth it, however you do it. Having a glideslope into any small airport in the United States adds a huge comfort and safety factor for IFR flight. No more pitch, power, or configuration changes at each step down point while you're bouncing along in the clouds, trying to remember if this step down was 1800 feet or 1600 feet. Just drop the gear, hit the final approach fix, and fly the needles until your decision altitude. My comment I guess may be less true for a plane with a GNS-430 than a plane lacking any certified GPS navigator, but a plane without WAAS still shows well over a decade of not upgrading the panel to the latest and safest technology. Not a deal breaker, but it would still be a red flag to me if I were shopping. Having experienced two vacuum-driven AI failures in flight, I feel the same way about a plane that still exclusively has those too. It may be IFR certified, but I don't consider it IFR safe, or even reasonable now that G5's, GI-275's, or even the Dynon D3 pocket panels exist. We probably don't even know how many lives solid state AHRS units have saved since they became available.

All of those models have similar performance numbers. The M may be a little faster than the K, while being slightly less efficient on fuel. The R will lack the capability of a turbocharger, but may cost less to maintain. They're all 160-185 knot machines, depending on how you fly them, with useful loads between 850 and 1100 lbs, give or take. They all may be (rarely) available with TKS de-ice, but you don't want to be flying in ice in any Mooney on purpose. Your on-a-schedule, go in all weather, 3 adults, and 500-800nm plan may be better suited for a twin or something that burns Jet-A. That business mission is traditionally filled by a cabin class piston twin (Cessna 300/400-series, Baron 55/58, Piper Seneca) or a turboprop (Piper Meridian, King Air) of some kind. That will generally require a larger budget, both for purchase and operations. Mooneys are wonderful machines but you'll be stretching the capabilities of any piston single aircraft to do what you describe.

In the current market, I would be wary of a plane that doesn't even have a WAAS GPS installed. It's usually a sign the plane has sat, not been used, and not been maintained. Maybe not so true in a VFR bush plane or a trainer, but in a M20, which was built for cross-country cruising, it's a red flag. Also, it's a terrible time to be trying to upgrade your panel. Avionics shops have been so busy they can't get all the work done for about the last 3-4 years. Combination of a hot airplane market and all kinds of new awesome avionics being released at relatively affordable prices. Been waiting for a slot at our shop for over 6 months to have a 430W swapped for a GTN650. They say it'll be December, unless someone cancels on them sooner. I would say try to buy something with at least a WAAS GPS and fly it for a while so you can know what you want, and continue to fly it, before you upgrade anything.

I'm not jlunseth, but I re-did my checklist this year and am pretty happy with how it turned out. I copied it from a corporate pilot's checklist that he made for a Cessna 441, so I can't take all the credit. Printed it front-and-back and laminated it. Two copies in the plane - one for the pilot and one for the copilot. My goal was to use it to fly more like a professional commercial pilot, and to be able to have my co-pilot read it to me like a commercial two-pilot crew. With a new panel and autopilot in the plane, updating the checklist was really necessary. In particular I've found the "Before Taxi" section is really great for making sure my flight director, altitude / heading bugs, autopilot mode, etc. are how I want them before leaving the ramp, so I'm not fiddling with all of that at the end of the runway, or getting in a hurry and taking off without it all set. Would love any suggestions on what it's missing or how it could be better. PDF attached, Word version here (can't upload to Mooneyspace): https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjJPoJhv9yifmoFH22Jlj0A2ncinjQ?e=0vCmrO Note - downloading the Word version seems necessary to preserve the dual column layout. It opens weird in my web browser, at least, but opens fine if I re-download it to my computer. Checklist - M20K - v1 - 11.10.2022.pdf

Yes. I don't lean that much for taxi. I've heard it taught as well. I find it too easy to give it a little too much throttle while trying to taxi uphill and stall the engine, which doesn't inspire confidence in passengers and can disrupt ground traffic flow. So I leave it rich enough for that not to happen, about 1.5 inches out. It's enough that I've never fouled a plug, and I go full rich before every takeoff and go-around. And I'm enrichening the mixture in the pattern to get there, from my cruise mixture setting. It's probably still too lean to make full takeoff power, if I had to guess. And verifying fuel flow when you start the takeoff roll is always a good idea too. But setting your engine up to stall as some kind of a reminder to enrichen the mixture for takeoff doesn't sit right with me. I prefer a checklist and good muscle memory.

I do exactly what jlunseth does - stay lean for landing to avoid the full rich at idle "burble", but then enrichen back to ground taxi setting prior to taxi. If you don't add a little mixture back in, depending on how lean you were, you can kill the engine when you add throttle to taxi. In fact, I will sometimes enrichen back to the taxi mixture setting in the pattern - just leaned out about an inch and a half. That's a good setting for both landing and taxi. Takeoff and go-around are always mixture -> prop -> throttle. You should be leaned to taxi to the runway, and don't want to takeoff leaned (turbo engines only). So just make it part of your muscle memory. Also a 231 engine here, but maybe this will help you with a technique for your Acclaim.

Sounds like a very cost-effective plan. Love the GNC355's capability for the price. I would look hard at repairing the autopilot while you're in there, or biting the bullet and installing a GFC500. A functioning autopilot is really a safety requirement for single-pilot IFR. You want it connected to the 355 for GPS/LPV approaches with glideslope. Instead of an EDM 830, why not a Garmin GI275 set up for EIS? Everything else you're installing is Garmin and I'm sure it connects nicely to the 355. I'm sure you've also considered the GI275 instead of G5's for your attitude indicator and HSI. If not, you should. As far as I know, the GI275 is pretty much an updated replacement for the G5 in almost all installations at this point. Note - I have a G5 and it's a great little unit, but it was installed in 2019, before the GI275 was around. I second the comment that ADSB is great and worth installing via a GTX345 or similar, but I guess if you don't have it in Canada, maybe that's money wasted.

It works great. I land feeling more refreshed after a flight on oxygen than after a flight in a pressurized cabin, where the cabin altitude might be 8k or more. Hardest part is keeping the O2 tank full - it empties out faster than you'd like, and not all shops can service your O2. Some have setups to refill in their own hangar, and adding an O2D2 oxygen delivery system is another popular option. You may look into some boom-style headset-mounted cannulas. There are different varieties out there, such as from Mountain High. They make using the O2 much more comfortable compared to having to run the tubes under your headset and across your face. I don't know why you'd stop at 14k after you've climbed that high, but staying under 18k keeps you in a space where your time of useful consciousness is reasonable if you have an O2 delivery problem, so that's what I do. The only real difference between 14k and 17k is the amount of head or tail wind, and your true airspeed, which improves as you go up. I'm usually either at 7-10k fighting a headwind, or 16-17k riding a tailwind, both to maximize the benefits of a turbocharged plane. Unless clouds, terrain, or icing / freeze levels force me higher or lower. With your Acclaim horsepower you'll climb up a lot faster than I can, so getting up there is easy. Happy flying.

I believe the 231 had different required instrumentation than the 252. At a minimum, it had a CDT gauge as required equipment, which the 252 engine does not use. In our 262 conversion, this resulted in a requirement that CDT be displayed on the G500TXi, even though we don't have a functioning CDT gauge, according to the avionics shop. I've always wondered if that's really a requirement, results in wasted space in the display for a gauge that just sits at zero. From the 231 POH:

It's a fair enough point. I'll look into re-routing the O2 line away from the electrical wires, probably easily done, and I appreciate the thoughts. You also could skip zip tying it at all and just plug and unplug the hose every time and run the hose across your lap. But my goal in tying it up out of the way was to protect the hose as much as convenience. With them strewn all over the cockpit they're always in danger of getting kinked, stuck under a seat rail, unplugged, etc.

Wait until you find out what they let any untrained kid fill up the wings with... Just kidding around. I grew up using an oxygen/acetylene torch to melt holes in steel in an average garage. There are risks involved, and they should be considered and treated appropriately. They may not be for everyone. Your experience may vary. If you don't already have a fire extinguisher easily accessible in your garage and in your hangar, it's a good idea for lots of reasons, this included.

That's a nice looking setup. I'm not quite understanding how you have your connectors in the headliner. I thought about trying to mount the unit on the ceiling but couldn't find a great way to connect from there to the ship's oxygen system without dropping the headliner and running it behind, which was more of a project than I wanted for now. I also thought about drilling holes and running the tube behind the panels. Might still do that, but wanted to test it out before doing anything more permanent. And I was concerned with rubbing on the oxygen line where it went through the holes. Would need grommets or something.