Rearranging my panel

[bcg]

Mooney only made 231 of the 252 models. Some were sold with the one alternator set-up, which you want to avoid.  Some have been scrapped, some have been modified into "Rockets", some are in other parts of the world. The good ones hardly ever change hands. 
If you find a good 252 for sale you're doing well, they are very hard to find. The best ones last a few days on the market. If they are on the market awhile you can count either (1) they have a lot of deferred maintenance that has been found in a pre-buy that the owner doesn't want to handle or (2) the way that they are priced factoring in engine time, condition of paint, interior, fuel tanks, panel, etc, etc, doesn't warrant the price asked.
Finding a good one that (1) already has exactly what you want on the panel and (2) is priced right is like finding a needle in a haystack. They do come up once in awhile but you better be ready to jump on it immediately. 

I watch them with some regularity, I've seen a few that I would have been happy with in the last year. I'll take a high time engine and bad interior with good avionics and even the avionics I have some flexibility on. I want glass but, that could be anything from dual G5s to a Garmin 500 or even Dynon, an AP with altitude hold, climb and descent would be a bonus but not necessary, WAAS GPS and an engine monitor. I wouldn't rule out a Rocket if the right one showed up at the right price.

The next one will probably be a forever plane so it's ok if it needs some work, I just don't really want to do avionics again. It's a hassle all the way around.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[Skates97]

22 hours ago, bcg said:

I won't be the one to add the 2nd G5, this is all I'm doing to it and it's already more than I'd planned. I'll put 300 more hours on this plane and then I'm going into a 252. I've put 180 on it in the last 12 months so that will be 2, maybe 3 years.
 

21 hours ago, EricJ said:

If this is the case then I'd suggest that your current plan will significantly diminish the value of your airplane if you plan on selling it when you move up to a 252.   It's like any customization plan that deviates from general practice, e.g., super-custom unusual paint jobs that appeal mainly to the owner, can make it difficult to sell to anyone else.   
 

As Eric suggests, all the more reason to keep it in a standard 6 pack configuration. I have dual G'5's, and while I don't look at my old altimeter much, and I use my VSI so little that I put a chart of approach speeds over it, I do find myself frequently looking at my ASI instead of the speed tape on the G5.

My current setup, someday I'll get around to cutting a new panel and flush mounting the G5's and the EDM900.

[Pinecone]

3 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Mooney only made 231 of the 252 models. Some were sold with the one alternator set-up, which you want to avoid.  Some have been scrapped, some have been modified into "Rockets", some are in other parts of the world. The good ones hardly ever change hands. 

If you find a good 252 for sale you're doing well, they are very hard to find. The best ones last a few days on the market. If they are on the market awhile you can count either (1) they have a lot of deferred maintenance that has been found in a pre-buy that the owner doesn't want to handle or (2) the way that they are priced factoring in engine time, condition of paint, interior, fuel tanks, panel, etc, etc, doesn't warrant the price asked.

Finding a good one that (1) already has exactly what you want on the panel and (2) is priced right is like finding a needle in a haystack. They do come up once in awhile but you better be ready to jump on it immediately. 

Agreed, BT, DT.

You get the best you can get, but it won't be what YOU exactly want.

[bcg]

As Eric suggests, all the more reason to keep it in a standard 6 pack configuration. I have dual G'5's, and while I don't look at my old altimeter much, and I use my VSI so little that I put a chart of approach speeds over it, I do find myself frequently looking at my ASI instead of the speed tape on the G5.
My current setup, someday I'll get around to cutting a new panel and flush mounting the G5's and the EDM900.

That looks pretty nice, I'd be happy with a panel like that.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[TheAv8r]

I have G5s and a 930 with CIES senders, here's how I laid them out in my M20E, this may be more work then you're looking to do if you'll be selling it soon, but this layout works really well for me, VFR & IFR. I'm glad I didn't put the 930 on the lefthand personally as it would have made everything feel really cramped. 

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, TheAv8r said:

I have G5s and a 930 with CIES senders, here's how I laid them out in my M20E, this may be more work then you're looking to do if you'll be selling it soon, but this layout works really well for me, VFR & IFR. I'm glad I didn't put the 930 on the lefthand personally as it would have made everything feel really cramped. 

Absolutely beautiful job on the panel, the lay-out, the lettering - very clean design.

 

Just one thing. . .  could you please flush mount the G5s so I can get a decent night's sleep. . . lol  Just kidding 

[Pinecone]

The nice thing about a round altitmeter is that you are normally cruising with the big hand straight up or straight down.  EASY to determine at a glance.

[wombat]

Don't take this *too* personal, anyone.  But some of you should take it a little personal.   I drafted up what I think is the ideal MooneySpace ideal(*) panel and added the picture to this post.

It features two aspen units (for redundancy) so you have redundant attitude indicators, redundant airspeed indicator, redundant altimeters, and redundant navigation.

The panel also had a redundant attitude indicator to the right of them, but I also added a redundant attitude indicator to the left, for redundancy.

I then added a redundant airspeed indicator near the center top of the panel for some additional redundancy.

I added a redundant CDI to the bottom center of the panel, because without that you don't have enough redundancy with the three that were already in the aircraft.

To the bottom center right., I added another attitude indicator, so the right-seat pilot (now mandatory, for redundancy) has an AI near their left hand.

And I added an airspeed indicator directly above their yoke, in case all of the four that are further left fail.

And of course lower and to the right of that I added a redundant CDI in case all of the for further left fail.

Then to the upper right I added another redundant AI and CDI.

I also dropped in three more Garmin GNS-430's, for redundancy.

 

Not shown in the picture, but I added 3 additional redundant alternators.   And 4 batteries.   And a deployable air-powered generator.  And two venturi vacuum generators  And a gas-powered generator in the luggage area.  And a redundant engine near the tail.  And a backup cockpit above the one pictured.

I'm still working on getting the STCs and 337's done and I think I'm going to have a bit of a problem with the weight and balance but at least I'll be safe from the 

My point here is that you can keep adding more 'stuff' until you are out of budget and panel space.      While I don't like telling other people what they "should" do any more, if you want to maximize your safety gains per dollar spent you should look at the causes of large percentages of aviation accidents (Hint:  Not instrument failure or mid-air collisions) and mitigate those.

 

(Yes, I added a redundant "ideal" on purpose)

[wombat]

And since it seems that @bcg is still following along, I'll say I vote for the second layout.

My reasoning is that having the right-hand side more closely match a standard 6-pack is easier for relatively new pilots.   

This is a a pretty minor preference though.   Both layouts will be perfectly fine.

[TheAv8r]

12 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Absolutely beautiful job on the panel, the lay-out, the lettering - very clean design.

 

Just one thing. . .  could you please flush mount the G5s so I can get a decent night's sleep. . . lol  Just kidding 

Thank you sir! Spent lots of time in Illustrator dialing in the details . 

Haha so I actually thought about flush-mounting them, but my avionics guy talked me out of it because of how the center stack was slightly upraised and the gear lights are upraised, he thought it would look weird with them being flush mounted. After he said it, I agreed. Honestly no regrets there! 

[ArtVandelay]

Thank you sir! Spent lots of time in Illustrator dialing in the details . 
Haha so I actually thought about flush-mounting them, but my avionics guy talked me out of it because of how the center stack was slightly upraised and the gear lights are upraised, he thought it would look weird with them being flush mounted. After he said it, I agreed. Honestly no regrets there! 

The G5s stick out more than the radio stack, maybe a 1/2 inch, and the other 3 of the 5 instruments are flush mounted.
If you ever go full digital with flat panel screen you’ll need to flush mount it.

[TheAv8r]

5 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

The G5s stick out more than the radio stack, maybe a 1/2 inch, and the other 3 of the 5 instruments are flush mounted.
If you ever go full digital with flat panel screen you’ll need to flush mount it.

Nah, probably less than 1/3 of an inch. Not even noticeable to the eye. Not doing anything else to the panel, I have everything I need. 

[bcg]

On 8/9/2023 at 7:31 PM, M20F said:

It gives you perceived functionality.  You flew at least 180 hours without it.  I have a MVP-50 which honestly is pretty cool but I flew for 25yrs without one.  I honestly bought it because I wanted a fuel totalizer and it was neat.  That being said I have 20yrs and 1000hrs in a 320 which has the worst turbos known to man kind.  We got at least 1200hrs out of each of the cylinders using garbage 1960’s Cessna gauges which probably never worked right. 
 
It’s your money, enjoy. 

An engine monitor would have caught this before it got to this point, that's real functionality to me...  In disassembly, I found the remnants of a bird's nest under this cylinder, which I'm sure was reducing airflow and caused this cylinder to run hot, which led to a stuck valve and then this happened.  Sooo...yeah, the EDM930 is worth the expense to me even if I'm not keeping the plane much longer.  Had I been able to see that #2 was running hotter than the others, I would have dug into the cause and dealt with it before it became a cylinder overhaul.  You couldn't see the nest without significant disassembly of the doghouse, I was 80% of the way to pulling the cylinder before it became apparent.  It was far beyond what would be done in any reasonable preflight or even during routine maintenance.

Fortunately, this happened on the ground at my home field and just a couple of weeks before I was planning to start my annual so it's really just a monetary inconvenience.  I'm lucky it went down the way it did, all the other options are worse.

[Greg Ellis]

Just an aside note....is the only difference between the 930 and 900 is the size and the ability of the 900 to be mounted vertical?

[bcg]

4 minutes ago, Greg Ellis said:

Just an aside note....is the only difference between the 930 and 900 is the size and the ability of the 900 to be mounted vertical?

From what I could tell when looking at them, that's correct.

[M20F]

3 hours ago, bcg said:

An engine monitor would have caught this before it got to this point, that's real functionality to me... 

You are making the point that your one in a million situation of a bird moving in somehow justifies a million people buying an engine monitor.  If that cylinder went bad for this crazy reason then you could replace it for less then the cost of most quality engine monitor installs. Also seems like some $1.50 sponges in the cowling would have addressed the root. 
 
I have a MVP-50 which does some nice things.  There is no legitimate ROI on it, I bought it because it was cool.  I certainly wouldn’t have put it in if my intent was to sell in the next 2-3yrs. 
 
My opinion. 

[bcg]

You are making the point that your one in a million situation of a bird moving in somehow justifies a million people buying an engine monitor.  If that cylinder went bad for this crazy reason then you could replace it for less then the cost of most quality engine monitor installs. Also seems like some $1.50 sponges in the cowling would have addressed the root. 
 
I have a MVP-50 which does some nice things.  There is no legitimate ROI on it, I bought it because it was cool.  I certainly wouldn’t have put it in if my intent was to sell in the next 2-3yrs. 
 
My opinion. 

No, I'm making the point that an engine monitor provides more than perceived functionality and is therefore worth the expense to me. You may disagree, that's cool, you can.

It's not the expense of the repair that's at issue, that's really trivial in the grand scheme of aviation expenses. What if this decided to happen in the air over mountainous terrain though? That's potentially a catastrophic and deadly event. I'm super fortunate this happened on the ground, at home and 2 weeks before I was going into annual so it's biggest impact is that my annual will be more expensive. It could have been really, really bad under other circumstances and if adding an engine monitor helps me prevent that and helps keep my family safe, then it's real functionality and an expense i can easily justify.

You don't have to agree with me, makes me no never mind either way. I simply disagree that an engine monitor is "perceived" functionality and offer this as an example of that.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[M20F]

3 minutes ago, bcg said:

No, I'm making the point that an engine monitor provides more than perceived functionality and is therefore worth the expense to me. You may disagree, that's cool, you can.
 

The original topic is somebody spending money to update their panel for a sale in the next 2-3yrs. That isn’t what you are talking about.  Stick a PT-6 on the nose, just know in 2yrs you aren’t even getting core value on the  PT-6 back. 

[bcg]

The original topic is somebody spending money to update their panel for a sale in the next 2-3yrs. That isn’t what you are talking about.  Stick a PT-6 on the nose, just know in 2yrs you aren’t even getting core value on the  PT-6 back. 

Did I ever say I expected to get my money back?

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[M20F]

9 minutes ago, bcg said:

Did I ever say I expected to get my money back?

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
 

I don’t know what you expect but the OP is talking about something totally different than you.  Dropping into a conversation where we are talking about turbos and you want to talk jet engines, it is interesting but has nothing to do with the conversation.  

[bcg]

I don’t know what you expect but the OP is talking about something totally different than you.  Dropping into a conversation where we are talking about turbos and you want to talk jet engines, it is interesting but has nothing to do with the conversation.  

I am the OP...

Here's a summary of the post so you can catch up.

Me - I'm adding an engine monitor at annual and rearranging some stuff, which layout would you choose.

MS - You should add a 2nd G5

Me - I'm not keeping the plane so I can't justify the expense of another G5 because I'd need to upgrade my NAV radio to really take advantage of it.

MS - Do nothing if you're selling. You'll never get your expense back.

Me - I want the JPI, it gives me extra functionality. The G5 would make life easier but not actually add anything.

M20F - JPI only adds perceived functionality.

Me - Here's an example of where the functionality added by the JPI would have been useful.

M20F - No, that's an outlier.so it doesn't count.

Me - I think it does.

And now we're here.
Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[M20F]

9 minutes ago, bcg said:

I am the OP...

 

I stand corrected, you seem to be clear on what it is you want to do.  Enjoy. 

[ArtVandelay]

You are making the point that your one in a million situation of a bird moving in somehow justifies a million people buying an engine monitor.  If that cylinder went bad for this crazy reason then you could replace it for less then the cost of most quality engine monitor installs. Also seems like some $1.50 sponges in the cowling would have addressed the root. 
 
I have a MVP-50 which does some nice things.  There is no legitimate ROI on it, I bought it because it was cool.  I certainly wouldn’t have put it in if my intent was to sell in the next 2-3yrs. 
 
My opinion. 

An engine monitor can save you money.
Ask a AP to take a look at your engine because it doesn’t sound right is going to be a lot more expensive than asking him to look at a specific cylinder because you probably have a clogging injector.

[Pinecone]

Some people seem to think there is ONE right answer for all people.

Just is not correct.  All you can do it propose what YOU did and how you got to that decision.   That way others can use the information to come up with the best path for THEM.

I put in a JPI 830 knowing that in a couple of years, I was going full glass panel.  It ended up being only about 15 months.  But I have enjoyed having the JPI and do not regret the decision.  I do hope to recover some of the purchase price by selling it at the end.

[DCarlton]

On 8/10/2023 at 4:15 PM, TheAv8r said:

I have G5s and a 930 with CIES senders, here's how I laid them out in my M20E, this may be more work then you're looking to do if you'll be selling it soon, but this layout works really well for me, VFR & IFR. I'm glad I didn't put the 930 on the lefthand personally as it would have made everything feel really cramped. 

Did you put a plug in for the guy that did your panel work someone in your posts?  Curious about approx. cost and schedule if you don't mind sharing.  Trying to decide if I want to throw money at my '67 and make it as nice as possible or move up to something newer.... and probably still have to throw money.  Thanks.