MikeOH

My $0.02: I think you are doing yourself a disservice by trying to use this device to improve your landings. You need to focus on the outside view to learn proper landing perspective; dividing your attention with this thing is only going to prolong learning and possibly become a crutch. IMHO, a lot of learning to land well is judging closure rate as well as height. Trying to judge closure rate by looking at an AGL altimeter isn't going to work. I think the MAPA PPP is the best solution! Good luck!

Honestly, unless you're shooting CATII approaches I've never seen the need to know AGL. And CATII needs a certified radar altimeter. This thing only works below 130 feet. Other than landing, I'm not real keen on flying below 130 feet, and if I did, I'd damn sure be looking OUTSIDE the airplane, not at this thing

Well, since you asked... While I occasionally make extended downwind entries I do so with full knowledge that I'm the one 'barging into' the pattern; not part of it. Consequently, I put the burden on myself to see and avoid, and get the hell out of the other guy's way since I'm the intruder. If the situation looks at all busy I'll swing wide and enter on a 45. IMHO, at non-towered fields I don't expect radio calls from others but am happy to have them, but don't consider them 100% accurate, either! I don't get irritated either way; it's see and avoid and anything more is a bonus. But, that's just me

Ah, the voice of experience!

I'm pretty sure, for someone that owns a Ferrari and can afford a TBM, that STC is going to be insanely high priced

Just an update. Doesn't look like the switch is to blame. We ohmmed out the switch in all positions. The problem was found to be an open shield wire on the left mag retard lead; the wires on the shield braid had frayed open. Thing is, it is not clear why that would prevent the mags from grounding when the ignition switch was turned to OFF. But, after grounding the shield properly, all problems went away. I am concerned something else is amiss and the open shield causing a failure is more of a clue than the solution.

It's pretty tough to compete with offshore labor rates, no EPA, no OSHA,...and here, flipping burgers pays $15/hr, let alone what a skilled aircraft worker would make. I just don't see how any amount of 'smart people' are going to figure that out! The volume, even in the best of times, was never there to invest in any kind effective automation.

And, how is the Mooney method any different than that used by Cessna, Beech, and Piper? Aren't they all hand assembled riveted aluminum?

There's this regarding "on the step":http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/step/step_wide_screen.pdf The author's credentials are legit.

Well, I habitually turn the key "OFF" before shutdown....and after this afternoon's flight nothing happened; engine kept right on running! Wiggling showed it was intermittent, and did goofy things with the Horizon electronic tach when on left or right, and the 'red' LED lit up on the tach, too. Previous run-up and the flight itself had been fine. Anyway, sounds like it's time for a new switch. Looking in the Mooney Parts Manual show the Bendix P/N: 10-357210-9, but I can't seem to find that part number at Spruce or Chief, or even a Google search. Help in finding the correct switch part number would be most appreciated! Thanks

I've flown a Cardinal just once, but I see no reason to keep flying it if what you want is to fly a Mooney! It makes more sense to just get your complex sign-off in the Mooney. As others have said, the real key is speed control on final; make sure you adjust for weight.

@WilliamR I, for one, thought you presented a cogent high-level view. Certainly not one that deserved the rather less than civil response from Mr. Kaye. I hope you don't let his personal opinion drive you off.

Ah, so Cirrus had a plan to be successful, executed that plan, and became wildly successful...how is that NOT a good idea??? Seems like Mooney should have gone down a similar path; perhaps they were hopelessly counterculture

@davecusto Yes. I have an M-20 Oil Separator on my 1970 M20F. I'm very happy with it as there is never anything on the belly. It is STC SA02033AT from M-20 Oil Separator LLC out of Boca Raton, FL No idea, however, if they are still in biz.

I guess I'm just easy to please. Government charts on my iPad with Foreflight and a $200 Scout for ADS-B in for weather/traffic. A happy CB camper, I am

You typed faster!

I'm missing your point. Either I'm allowed to do certain tasks and sign them off, or I'm not. Obviously, if I don't do them properly a future IA could call me on it. But, that is NOT the same as having to have an IA sign off my work.

While I get the need to document the burn test, why does an IA have to sign off the work? I thought part 43 allowed owner refurbishment of interiors.

The wiring diagrams in the shop manuals are NOT going to cover any installed avionics, especially anything installed since the plane left the factory. If the avionics shop didn't provide anything/or they were lost, you are likely out of luck.

Yeah. My wife made me take the logos off the belts!

You could just give Soderburg a call: (909) 595-1291 But, where's the fun in that?

@Parker_Woodruff What's the sweet spot for hours per year that insurance companies like to see? I suspect too few makes them nervous, and too many is too much exposure.

This just has to be messed up calculations. If the aux tank wasn't there you would have 120 lbs of baggage and there would be no more issue than any other C. Put in a 36 pound aux tank and you have 84 lbs available for baggage (if it's empty). Why would the CG be any different? A pound of fuel is the same as a pound of baggage

Not sure I'm following this...if you mean they sign off an annual inspection with discrepancies, well ok. But, you can't legally fly the plane that way (without a ferry permit, anyway). Seems like a distinction without a difference, to me. What am I missing/What's your point?

Hmm, I thought they arrived at airplanes already "severely pissed off"