Marauder

I buy into the Lycoming explanation. Restrictions in the induction system and point of MP measurement would certainly explain the difference.

The first sign of my tanks failing were the bluish stain around the rivet heads on top of the wing. Later I developed an active leak in the wheel well area on one side. I also started noticing a fuel odor inside of the cockpit as well. Hopefully this is not the start of leaks for you...

Here is a picture of one that I found on the Internet. Mine was dented like this one and required replacement.

Great to hear that you found the problem.

I think you make good points but I look at it from another perspective. I have been flying IFR for 20 years. The first 5 years were with the Mooney wing leveler. I got really proficient at hand flying everything with nothing more than a couple of Nav radios and a portable GPS for situational awareness. At the end of a long flight, especially when I was in the clouds for long stretches, I would arrive at my destination tired, then faced with flying an approach. Throw in an occasional miss and flying to an alternate, it made for long days. When I upgraded my wing leveler to a fully couple STEC, things changed. By letting George fly for a bit, I got better at checking for weather along my route and my workload went down dramatically, especially when briefing myself on an unfamiliar approach. I still hand flew a lot of approaches not trusting George completely. I slowly began letting George fly the approaches and I often found that he did a better job than I did. Before I began my avionics upgrade I flew with owners who had different variations of what I was looking at (PFD/MFD) with GPSS. The decision to upgrade was easy after that (albeit the money side of it was never easy). Anything that helps stack the odds in my favor while doing single pilot IFR, is something I believe in. Now don't get me wrong on maintaining proficiency. I still hand fly a lot and will never completely trust electrons doing all of the work, all of the time.

I think the hoopla is the potential workload reduction. Anyone who flies Victor airways knows that you are transitioning from VOR to VOR. With GPSS, the entire flight plan can be automated, including the approach.

Are you talking about this mod? I have had it since 1995 and with an Insight GEM monitoring things, I can't say it has helped that much. I did pick up a couple of miles per hour speed though. That surprised me...

I think the rpm limitations apply to the original Engine/prop configurations. In my 1975 F model, I have the F666-2 blades and have the 2100-2350 limitation to avoid continuous operation. I always thought if you changed out the prop to a 3 blade or different design, the limitations would either change or be eliminated. Correct?

That's what I want to hear! I've flown with my STEC 60-2 over a decade and thought I had gone to heaven when it flew a coupled ILS (coming from a wing leveler). I can't wait to see this GPSS steering in action!

Looking at these panel shots is interesting. It is clear that you are in coordinated flight with the rudder cranked in. Looking at the small track display, you can see the plane is actually showing the little airplane on the track line with the nose pointed a little bit left. I think the real test would be if you cranked the rudder near neutral and looked at what the "ball" on your display shows. If you are in straight and level flight, I would expect it to be nearly if not completely centered. Keep us posted on what you find out.

Trust me, none of us are experts on airplanes. Shortly after buying my current Mooney one of the CFIs I used for a BFR commented on how my ailerons were slightly in a left bank -- but the plane was flying straight. I had noticed it before and even mentioned it to the "non-Mooney" mechanic I was working with. It wasn't until I had an annual done by someone who works on Mooneys regularly that the reason came out. My right main was dragging low just a bit. Enough for some brilliant mechanic to figure out mis-rigging the plane was the solution. If your mechanic has access to the story boards, it is pretty easy to determine rigging problems of the flaps. BTW -- I remember once that getting the Mooney "on the step" was thought to be a way to increase cruise speed. Haven't heard it in a while, people still talking about it?

You are making me drool! I'm in week 7 of my avionics upgrade. Can't wait to see the GPSS in action.

I would certainly like to hear others on the topic. I think I understand the concept you are presenting, but I'm not quite sure it works this way. I think the plane's natural tendency is to weathervane into the crosswind. Similar to what happens when you land into a crosswind. The only time I used rudder in straight and level flight was when I had a rigging problem and the "ball" was outside of the cage.

Really? The only time I have seen that much rudder in straight & level flight was when my plane had a trailing flap. If your plane is rigged correctly, your would weather vane into the wind. Am I missing something here?

Not to mention the after dinner F -- FULL! Happy Thanksgiving.

I have both ForeFlight and Garmin pilot on my iPad 2. Both have their merits and disadvantages. With the Garmin 750 in your airplane you will have the charts already available, so the iPad will most likely be nothing more than a backup to the Garmin 750 for charts and for the weather if you elect to buy the antenna. With a Garmin 650 installed my airplane, I find that the Garmin pilot is a nice complement to the Garmin 650. They use the same format on the Pilot as the GTN, so looking for information will feel the same. I do like the fact that the Garman pilot also give you the ability to do split screen with a variety of information. Like I mentioned before, I have both applications on my iPad 2 . The reason being is that the cost of both of these applications is still less than what I was paying for the paper charts.

Mine all worked from an iPad 2 on Tapatalk. ✈

As for your nose wheel, the biggest issue, as you are probably aware of, is turning the plane outside of the tow limits while towing. When that happens it bends one of the down tubes on the gear. It is a known concern and problem. Could be that the FBO is aware of this and believes your plane came to them this way. If you are familiar with the problem, then finding the tale tell dimple is what I would be looking for. If you find a dimple, proving that the plane did not have it before you got there is hard to do. I usually tell line personnel that I don't want the plane towed by a tug and make them aware my plane is not damaged when I brought it in.

My plane has a 60 amp alternator. I did have it rebuilt probably 12 or so years ago. Since we are talking about alternators and their output, is there a better way of looking at the power draw than the factory installed ammeter? Mine has +60 to -60 amp window. Other than showing when I have a positive or negative draw, is there a cheap way to get the actual electrical draw in numerical format for what is on the bus?

Thanks everyone for the replies. What got me down this questioning path was, like you, I was under the impression that newer electronics should equate to lower current draw. I was a bit surprised to see that one of my KX170B radios had a similar power draw to one Aspen PFD. Granted what actually is drawn is a different topic but I think the higher watt output of the transmitters (like on a GTN650) and the associated cooling fans on the Garmins/Aspens, I am beginning to wonder if the draws are not a lot closer. Since I am adding more power drawing equipment than I am taking out, I am curious how much power draw I will be creating with the new equipment. King KX-170B Receive Mode: 1.1 amp Transmit: 3.0 amp with a max draw of 5.1 amps with all the lamps on both the com and the nav Aspen Max Current 2.4 Amps @ 28 Vdc / 4.8 Amps @ 14 Vdc I also agree that unloading power eaters is probably a better way of going about this. I have see the PAR46 lights in action. For 2.6 amps, it certainly outperforms the 10+ amp old lamps. I can also beginning replacing all of those little GE330 bulbs with LED equivalent. What other things have you replaced to lighten the load?

Hi All. I am in the middle of an avionics upgrade on my F model. I believe my airplane has a 60 amp alternator. I just started reading up on the power draw for my new avionics and wondered if anyone upgraded their alternators due to the expected power draw of new equipment. Any advice?

O&N have several authorized dealers on their website. http://www.onaircraft.com/products-services/mooney-bladders/ I'm sure a qualified mechanic can install them, but you will need to check into what impact if any it has on their warranty.

Hi Dave. You will find a bunch of opinions on the merits of each way to go with your tanks. I bought my F in 1991 and mine started leaking shortly thereafter. The most troubling part was the sealant used was not only failing but also it was beginning to strip off in the tank like spaghetti strips. I decided to have bladders installed. Never regretted having them installed. Mine were installed at the O&N facility in PA.

All good advice. Don't under estimate the cost per hour portion solely on the engine. There are a number of operating costs which can drive the cost up the cost of ownership significantly. Since I bought my F model in 1991, I have been keeping records for everything from direct operating costs to the reserves needed for the future. A major unexpected expense can be a setback but so can be operating costs outside of your budget. I would get input from those who own a plane you are considering. Direct experience of true operating costs can help with your decision. Also, don't overlook the avionics. For the type of mission you are looking to perform, your instrument ticket is the next logic step. By understanding these, you can also avoid getting caught in upgrading tired avionics. Hope this helps.