Leaderboard

Couple flies from Germany to Australia AND back in their Mooney This is a very detailed long read https://euroga.org/forums/trips-airports/15530-down-to-oz-and-back-agin-the-whole-story?fbclid=IwAR1apQ8rnMdHiskPhuUPdIRDUyMV9X6CMrhD-iIrbI-RfFOqHMiy0YhwG3E_aem_AZp_IhINaL9hczkSFgErtgEAK-PdBuWee6SbC2lmBZRuuYn1rnRWrj9ch9djQMK2DhVQk3H9rzK4aZ5muUbCEjJ4

Installing the MVP-50 was one of the best decisions I made with my upgrade. In my opinion it is the best stand alone engine monitor out there. Yes, JPI is worthy, but the MVP-50 has more versatility for my usage. I've attached my worksheet to show how I set mine up. With the M20C you won't have TIT. The small box between the MP and RPM turns red and shows gear not down, if the gear is not down below a certain MP. There is an extra register on the fuel page that displays trip totals and resets on engine shutdown that I find extremely useful. There is the ability to set 2 automatic fuel levels when adding fuel; in my case 89 gals to the bottom of the neck and 100 gals topped off. There are too many other benefits of the unit to mention in this small space. At the time I upgraded my display the cost was a little over $1,400. If you are buying new, you will get the new display. The functionality also increased with the upgrade, in particular the ability to see time to destination instead of time to waypoint--to me a MAjOR improvement for trip planning. and execution. MVP-50 Worksheet 8:23:2013.pdf

Just buy the plane then get your transition training. Whatever money you spend on renting will be far more than insurance savings (if any)

Why? It is almost always more expensive to pay for "X" number of hours than it is to just suck it up and pay the higher first-year premium. If you want 10 hours of complex at $250-300 an hour with a CFI, will you save the $2,500-$3,000 on that first-year premium? I sincerely doubt it.

As much as i can sympathize, as has been mentioned, there is virtually no upside for the company. In addition to that, while it's true you may save a few hours, but by the time it's all said and done, when you have to drive to the airport, pre-flight the airplane, get transportation from the airport to the jobsite, etc., there isn't nearly as much savings as we would like to justify. And then if weather changes it can throw a wrench into your outbound or return flight plans. Single engine airplanes are great fun and a great means of personal leisure travel, but when you absolutely have to be there, they have their limitations. As the old saying goes . . time to spare, go by air.

I'd say about 5 hours, 25 landings, over probably 3 to 4 flights would be a reasonable plan, although on the slightly excessive side. I think having more than just a single flight is important. IMO it's worth the time and expense to train the habit of getting the gear down and checking it multiple times, over more than a single day. At least twice approach and land from something other than the pattern. At least one simulated emergency approach and landing. The best is if it's from cruise altitude/airspeed to a landing at an airport that wasn't planned by the student. A 737 is mostly just following the checklists too. I wonder what the distribution is for how many retract hours pilots who have had a gear-up landing had before their gear-up.

Beautiful 1990 Mooney 252, second to the last 252 built.

This is not at all unusual. Your homeowners’ and umbrella have exclusions. In most states, workers comp insurance can’t simply exclude that risk so they insist on not allowing it. There are very likely insurers which permit it, but I’d expect the premium differential to be significant, too big for anything other than a flight department.

I love how people who don’t like something like to claim it’s some kind of unsubstantiated belief. However it’s not. I’ve spoken with a few Hartzell Engineers and Joe Brown a couple of times on this subject as well as Igor Brunchelik owner of Avia propellor and Zbynek Tvrdik one of Avia’s Engineers and if all things are equal the fewer the blades the less the drag, so fewer blades are more efficient, being more efficient means greater thrust. This has been known forever and because of this single blade props have been tried. I can’t seem to find it on the internet but I believe way back Hughes Aircraft even built an Experimental single bladed helicopter to see how much more lifting power it would have. Any perceived increase in efficiency was I believe more than washed out by the problems a single blade caused. You go to multiple prop blades for many reasons, but primarily it’s because of ground clearance, some other reasons are to enable lower tip speed as when tip speed gets up to roughly .84 Mach its noisy and inefficient. For example the smallest Crop Duster we built had a three blade 106” prop that could turn a 2200 RPM which is about .9 Mach, working with Pratt and Whitney we were allowed to increase engine torque from 58.7 PSI to 64 which still gave us 750 SHP reducing the prop tip speed to .83 Mach which both increased performance and reduced noise significantly. Multiple blades can reduce noise somewhat and can be slightly smoother, but as there is more surface area there is more drag. There are other considerations of course, for example when Hartzell undertook designing a new prop for the GE H-80 engine they ended up with a four blade prop, they were trying to exceed the performance of the three blade Avia prop, but the required blade profile to do so exceeded the centripetal force limits of any of their existing hubs so they had to go to a four blade prop. It’s entirely possible that a three or even four blade prop could outperform a two blade, but it would be because of a superior airfoil, not due the number of blades. At the air speeds we fly at all things being equal, the fewer the blades the better, unless of course someone builds a three blade with an airfoil that’s efficient enough to overcome the increased drag

I replaced my original 2-blade Mac with the skinny chord and square tips ('77 J ) with the MT you're considering, and would choose it again without hesitation. It was ~12-13 lbs lighter than OEM, smaller diameter/more ground clearance, and DRAMATICALLY smoother. It is the only prop that offers more ground clearance on a Mooney in case that is important to you. I expect all of those benefits are far greater when replacing a 3 blade metal prop of either flavor. I dynamically balanced my installation down to 0.01 IPS and it feels like a sewing machine. Performance wise, better takeoff, climb, and landing and no loss of cruise speed compared to my original. The later 2-blade Mac with round tips and fatter chord is faster than my original, though. I believe the fastest option on the market is the Hartzell Top Prop, but it is heavy and had a lot of spinner/bulkhead/backplate failures in my observation. Hartzell seems to have a habit of releasing AD's when their sales slow down too. The newest 2-blade Top Prop with the composite blades is the only option that might tempt me away from the MT, but I don't believe they have an STC yet, and even worse, the new private equity owners have sent prices to the moon so I doubt I will ever buy any of their products in the future. Norman (@testwest) has some very accurate models of the J with various props and he can give you a far more technical answer than I can. He chose the original Top Prop for his highly-optimized J and was seeing 165 KTAS at 10 GPH in cruise...fastest J to my knowledge. There is a lot to like with the MT and I've written extensively about my experience here. I'm fortunate to have a distributor/service shop local to me, though, to address Don's concern above. EDIT: New Top Props Trailblazer - Hartzell Propeller Switching from Hartzell Blended Airfoil to a Trailblazer Propeller - Glasair Aircraft Owners Association (glasair-owners.com) This is the future candidate prop, but not approved for us yet... hopefully soon, and at a reasonable price.

Can you install 'Charlie Weights' in the tail of a 201 or is it a 231 thing? 11 lbs in the tail is a lot better than 50 lbs of unnecessary baggage. I went with a new 2 blade prop instead of any of the 3 bladed options. My opinion, MT's are very nice but I don't like their service interval and repair an overhaul price. And overhaul locations. I think you are just setting yourself up for much higher future costs with very little performance benefit. Aerodon

When I bought my first Mooney in 1984, I had about 6 hours in Mooneys. Which consisted of two flights and 2 landings. I had about 150 hours of retract time, mostly in C172RGs with a few Arrow hours. My insurance company didn't require any training or additional hours. I never got any Mooney training. My first solo Mooney flight was flying it home from the broker. The next day a friend and I flew it to Oshkosh after work at night. Yes, my 40 year Mooney anniversary is coming up soon.

-Sometimes a broker negotiates (to varying degrees) previous similar model experience. - Sometimes it's an ignorant broker that says "All M20 time is fine" when in the majority of cases, it's not. - I can't remember for sure, but I seem to recall one underwriter group certain models together and allow for experience within that pool of particular M20_

If your complex endorsement is a single flight, you should probably find a new CFI.

find a good cfi to do your transition training, you'll get the 10 hours. complex endorsement is like 1 flight, no biggie

I had a five-hour mandatory transition period on my policy, but I came in with about 40 RG hours. I knocked out the five hours in two long flights over a couple days with a qualified instructor.. nbd.

With 0 complex time you don't have the endorsement that is required. I started flying my J model with 0 complex time. The insurance asked for 10 hours transition training which included the complex endorsement. In addition, 10 extra hours (which could be solo flying) to get the minimum of 20 to fly with passengers. Have in mind that many insurance companies ask for time in make and model, so it your complex time is on a 182RG most likely is not going to help you much with a Mooney insurance.

One wire for each nav light, the other goes to the annunciator panel for the dimming signal.

We had this same issue. In the annual, they “cleaned the probe” and now it’s solid. Start easy and work from there maybe?

There is a software bug in the G3X (v9.15 and earlier). According to the AFMS, if the GMU 11 fails the G3X is supposed to display a red X over amber HDG and display magenta GPS TRK on the HSI. But, instead, it continues to display white HDG as normal. What is happening is that the logic is not switching to TRK upon GMU failure and the ADSU 25D is continuing to compute HDG but without GMU input so the heading will drift over time. The G5 does properly switch to TRK. I don't have a GI 275, so I don't know how it behaves. I reported it to Garmin and after some back and forth, Support was able to reproduce it and passed it on to Engineering for resolution.

Interesting. The VSI is one of the Aspen indicators I do follow in my scan. It is one of the things that makes intuitive sense to me on Aspen. Funny how different pilots who learned on round, steam gauges adapt differently.

E. I. came out with a better resolution screen and better refresh rate around 2018 I think. @oregon87 could tell you how much it is to upgrade to the newer display.

We bought an Inogen G5 and love it. I have a 12V outlet in the baggage area and just plug it in back there. With it plugged in we keep it at the highest setting, both of us on it and at 11,000' my sats are still at 98-99. Bought from Main Clinic Supply, all they need is a copy of your pilot license.

It just doesn’t make sense as a simple passenger door opening. The pilot did not sound in the least bit distracted by it.

Done

That I don't know. I know the Hofers but when I saw the registration information, my inquiries were limited to finding out whether either of them were in the airplane. Beyond that I won't speculate.

Totally subjective at this point, but if the base leg did have a 10 knot tailwind, then with some anxiousness to get on the ground, an overshoot of final (and from the track that looks to be the case) could have caused the classic cross controlled base to final stall? Just hypothesizing with no basis in fact... Obviously, we need the final accident report to shed more light on the situation. The pilot seemed pretty calm initially about a simple return for landing and closing the door.

Landing and taxi lights are the most open, unregulated component on the airplane, you really can put just about anything in there as long as it is safe. And changing lights falls under Preventive Maintenance that any owner/operator can do, and landing lights are the area specifically allowed by Part 42 Appendix A where the wiring is included under Preventive Maintenance. So if you need to change the wiring or connectors for the landing light or taxi light, you are allowed to do so if you are an owner/operator. Just be sure to record any maintenance that you do per FAR 43.9.

My M20E project is still a work in progress but here is the before and "mostly after". I went with the twin G5s because of the integrated AHRS and back up battery systems. I went with an overall Garmin architecture so it made sense to keep it all on the same page. Eventually (STC god willing) I would like to do the GFC500 AP and G3X at which point I will use one the G5s as a standby and sell the other one.