midlifeflyer

I've had the same experience as you. Zero difference between what's depicted on the iPad and what's depicted on certified GPS-based avionics.

Doesn't Mooney make one available these days? Most of the others do at this point.

100% of the formatting and indentation is preserved if you use Adobe Acrobat (full product, not the Reader) for the OCR. It leaves everything intact, just creates an invisible but searchable text overlay. You probably don't want to spend the money on the full Acrobat unless you have other uses for it but you might have a friend with it willing to do the OCR job on yours.

If all you're looking for is a pdf-compatible document reader, my best choice is GoodReader.

These are all related. Setting the HSI (or bug on a DG) to the runway heading on both takeoff and landing assists with runway identification and orientation and, on a dark rainy night with runways close together, can prevent runway incursions as well.

No. But they do have control over the overlying controlled airspace and will not clear an IFR aircraft into controlled airspace when it will potentially conflict with traffic into controlled airspace. In theory only, the IFR rules mean departing aircraft can take off in IFR conditions and stay clear of controlled airspace, but it would be a guaranteed violation of 91.13 (there are cases dealing with this type of scenario). This also applies to your question: Technically legal IFR operations in Class G may be careless and reckless based on other considerations. Here's one of the cases: http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF Try FAR 1.1 which you'll recall, contains definitions for all of the regs. ""IFR" means instrument flight rules." "IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

Consistent with this, the rules of IFR (instrument flight rules) flight talk about three types of operations Some discuss flights "under instrument flight rules." Others refer to flights "under instrument flight rules in controlled airspace." Still others are specific to IFR operations "in uncontrolled airspace " There is some variation in the exact terminology used for "IFR" itself, but the differentiation with respect to all IFR operations and those in controlled or uncontrolled airspace is pretty consistent. For examples of each: 91.173's requirement for an IFR flight plan and clearance applies to IFR in controlled airspace. 91.171's requirement for VOR checks applies to all IFR operations. The IFR hemispheric rule in 91.179 applies to IFR in uncontrolled airspace.

No. LongTen is strictly an Apple-centric application.

The stats say that most of the time, we are the cause of our in-flight tragedies. It's easy to point to one of these and see the glaring pilot errors. But I also recall that Rod Machado once said that the only real difference between a gear-up and talking the wrong frequency is the consequences; the psychology that underlies both is the same.

When I was flying out of there for 20 years, I just considered it a normal airport. All a matter of perspective.

Worse. There's also the ridge on the windward side. The end result can be a bit like the mixture on the floor of a canyon. For anyone interested, AOPA's foundation recently came out with a mountain flying course. http://flash.aopa.org/asf/mountainFlying/html/flash.cfm? I ran through it and, while not a substitute for personal instruction, it's pretty decent in hitting the highlights.

The bigger problem for a lot of untrained pilots flying into high D-Alt locations is the difference in TAS and runway usage. Even with no wind, that 80-71 IAS on final will be more like a TAS of 93 when it's 70°F at KAPA. The temptation to go slower or force the airplane onto the runway is both great and potentially dangerous, as is the temptation to pull the aircraft off the ground too early on takeoff and climb too steeply (there were a number of stall/spin accidents in the Denver area attributable to that one).

I think it may be more like what's good for 1-2 geese who have had their units tested for interference when using specific apps isn't necessarily good for 300 geese with a variety of tablets, smartphones, laptops and accessories in the cabin. btw, a friend of mine did end up having interference with avionics from his iPad running the Jepp app. In a Mooney, no less.

Depends what you mean by legal "for IFR flights." As a paper chart replacement, definitely. As a replacement for a panel installed, IFR certified primary navigation box, definitely not.

Same here. Also works well with Android phones and tablets.

Agreed. It's pretty common for mountain airports to have features leading to downdrafts. The river at GWS is one of those. It's a reason that a steeper approach than normal (4.5° rather than 3°) is usually recommended, even if the runway isn't short and there are no obstacles.

It will. The runway runs N-S due to terrain availability but the prevailing wind is W-E. If you look at the sectional with the peaks to the west and the ridge just to the east, you can paint a picture of what the winds will be like on final or doing on takeoff (picture water flowing). Taking off to the north, you also have the problem of being pushed toward that ridge if turning left downwind. That's among the reasons why a number of us who contributed to that AOPA article rated it one of the most difficult.

No doubt. That 5916' (when the temperature is only 3°C; check density altitude!) is in a canyon with only a 3300' runway with no good go-around options. You're getting pretty close to requiring superior technique for your takeoff in some Mooney models on a more typical spring or summer morning.. Leadville, on the other hand is in a wide valley. More straightforward so long as you have the power to handle the density altitude (about 13,000 msl when it's 70°F outside) Good description of Corona.

My online logbook says 147 distinct airport codes..

Yes.

If you were thinking I was asking about ways to exceed published aircraft limitations, you were definitely misunderstanding the question. My questions were simply: Why does the older M20J have charts for both normal and maximum performance (aka short field) takeoffs while the new M20 J has a chart only for a "normal" takeoff? Based upon pilot experience with Mooneys, is there a "short field" takeoff configuration for the later Mooney? If so, what is it and what type of increase in takeoff performance could one anticipate?* The comment about different "normal" performance at equivalent weights between the two versions of the model was more of an observation about the dangers of extrapolation, but yes, it is an interesting question all by itself. (* Aircraft performance charts are not limitations and, especially after flying in the Colorado Rockies for 20 years, I do not consider attempting to determine aircraft performance outside of those charts to be exceeding aircraft limitations)

Not necessarily. I know airports I would take a 172 into that I wouldn't take the higher weigh Mooney J. But I'm not talking over gross. The takeoff performance numbers for the 2470 MGTOW Mooney are substantially better than for the 2900 MGTOW Mooney given the identical actual weight. So I'm not sure that the maximum capable weight is itself the issue. And, as I explained in response to Hank's post, the lower 50-ft target airspeed in the 2470 Mooney's max performance takeoff chart can be substantially better than it's "normal" counterpart. I've found that to generally be true in the dozen or so different makes/models I've flown - short field takeoff configuration and target airspeed performance is generally better tha non short field configuration and target airspeed performance. btw, yes, I read the over gross "discussion" thread. Didn't see anything particularly relevant to my "why is is different" question there. Me too. That's why I'm curious about this.

Other than the fact that the POH has them both? Does a couple of hundred at sea level to about 1000' of obstacle clearance difference depending on density altitude count?

I'm in a flying club with access to 3 M20Js. Two are pre-1991 (2740 MGTOW) and one is post 1991 (2900 MGTOW). In planning a trip for this weekend, I came across something curious: The 2740 model POH has takeoff performance charts for both "normal" and for "max performance" takeoffs. The 2900 model POH only shows numbers for "normal" takeoff performance. And there doesn't seem to be a reference to an adjustment factor for the later model. Is there a reason for this? Is there a generally-accepted adjustment among experienced Mooney pilots?