MIm20c

Most likely he was not at a safe altitude to pull the chute. The plane might have entered a stall which would not allow much directional control. Seems like a higher than normal residential structure impacts this year.

I’m just poking fun, both screens look great.

I’m not so sure, @Zulee has passed his judgment on the two screens and put a placard above the one that is obviously unreadable...

I agree the pricing can be confusing. This chart helps a little. One issue with the Mooney panel is the factory gauges might interfere with the large screen pfd install. One could easily be talked into/forced into a primary gauge replacement for panel space alone.

As Alex mentioned you will need the hazard awareness unlock on the mfd display to have it display active traffic. I’m not sure if the 345 can integrate the tas600 information like it can with skywatch. If it can you could just get the adsb unlock and have the combined traffic data. If not I’d leave the active traffic on the hsi screen and use the mfd display for adsb. One less $800 unlock to buy.

With as many hours you have in that plane I’d first do a TAS calculation to see which is closest to past performance. Does the aspen TAS agree with previous years?

I’m not sure about the unicorn rarity. A similar recent story from an acquaintance who put a hole in his 210 engine case and now owns a Baron comes to mind.

@pkofman if your plane has TKS the fill port door makes a great place to put the battery minder connections. We just rotate a single charger every time we fly. I would recommend a capacity check while the shop has the plane open (have them pull both batteries) and would not let the plane leave the hangar without at least one new concord.

Another option is to pull the vac and only install the AI G5. The 525 hsi is electrically driven with a durable 102 servo in the back. Used replacement parts are dirt cheap right now and you’d have a lifetime supply. IIRC you had a backup AI in your panel. Are both vac driven?

The above two examples ring home where pilots clearly remember the additional risk they accepted for those night flights. I have an above average risk tolerance for solo flight but an extremely low tolerance of risk if my family is traveling with me. I have been trying to fly 100 hours a year. I’d like to up that to 300 if I could. To be a better pilot and possibly move to a different aircraft.

Yep, also needed to communicate with the 530w

@M20F-1968 Wow, amazing job on that rehab project! You really took it down to the bones.

It has been nice ordering panels, induction parts, etc from a working factory. I felt the prices were fair which means they were probably priced too low. I hope the factory and workers can remain profitable for as long as possible. My guess is Mooney hasn’t had much of a (parts) price increase before this hike.

Someone mentioned that Mooney increased the cost of replacement parts 25% this year. Has anyone noticed the change or can confirm the huge jump?

Last time we sent a 550 cylinder to a small shop/good reputation it only saved $250 versus buying new. The OH’d cylinder did make it to engine OH but the savings was not worth the hassle IMO. Not sure what current prices put the break even at.

So is that a sign of old age? I wonder if aircraft choice will make a difference in how long they want to continue. I could see someone hanging up the keys on an Aerostar long before a 172.

So the top prop stc that is included with purchase has the ability to increase the eagle to 280 hp and he GW increase without buying a separate stc? To increase a 280 eagle to 310 would require the 5k Mooney stc?

I’ve seen a few Eagles come up for sale with 280 hp top prop conversion vs the 310 hp screaming eagle setup. Wondering if there is a price difference vs the $5k STC for the ovation? Why stop short unless the stc is not needed for 280 hp? Does one need to buy another stc upgrade to change a 280 eagle to a 310?

This was my thought all along. If a plane was equipped with a g3x(txi)w/EIS/750/345/gfc500... -it could put an emergency code on the box -gather weather and airport information to set up for the proper runway -tune to the proper tower frequency, dialog on screen to have passengers read -EIS could instruct passengers to reduce power twice, once for the approach and cutoff for the landing. Landing would be a flaps retracted landing gear up survivable crash, nothing more. Passengers would be responsible for throttle only along with a call for help if wanted. The procedure could be practiced by a non pilot before hand. Current equipment along with a radar altimeter equivalent control unit could make this possible to thousands of pilots vs a few hundred.

Aspen has a mfd unlock for adsb sources. When buying the card you have to pick between the L3 and Garmin. I think it list for ~800 but often can be had for less. I was originally planning on turning my system into a 1500 system. But by the time you buy the unlock and spend $3500 upgrading the 335 to a 345 it makes for an expensive upgrade.

I don’t see any reason why this could not be added to a plane with a txi/750/345/gfc500. It would be a crash land where the passenger would need to reduce the power (when the pfd told them too) and the system would belly it in on a nice long runway.

I think with high res topo maps the system could be a huge benefit for an engine out situation to find the best outcome crash site.

I agree but it’s not a requirement. The mags on the Ovation are pretty durable so even 1k is doable.

I agree with the above. You also might want to look back at the logs. If one (or both) of the mags has not been opened up in the past 1-2k hours you might want to send it (them) in for an iran.

EGT info is lost going vertical with a 6 cylinder. That’s actually a pretty big deal IMO. It’s one of the main reasons why I like the 730/830 over the 700/800.