Schllc

The slower you are going the less impact they have because of the angle of attack of the wing and the air flow. but like others have mentioned here, it is an excellent way to scrub some speed when you are 10' or less over the runway, and it makes you settle down pretty nice. After I was very familiar with the mooney landing, I stopped the frequency with which I use them, but they are a great option to have in the bag, if you are coming in a little hot.

Make sure you tell them to uninstall (as opposed to ripping them out like they don’t care what they damage) all your old avionics and retain all the clips, plugs, racks, mounts, sensors and everything reasonable so you can sell what’s left over. And remove them from the avionics shop immediately! I didn’t think to specifically say this and I got a box of garbage with a lot of my old stuff damaged and missing almost everything they came with.

@Danb

That was one well loved Mooney. The updates to the interior are awesome. Nice find! Congrats!

Aside from landing and a MAPA PPP, I have never found a desire, much less a reason to fly that slow. Mooney’s are meant to go fast, why would one be tooling around that slow?

The other conversation regarding statistics dovetails nicely here… So perhaps 70% of accidents and fatalities were over 65. is this a function of age, or is it a function of people old enough to have disposable income but don’t stay proficient? I don’t know the answer, but I can tell you this, I know a lot of 65 year olds I would feel more comfortable flying with than 25 year olds. If you are 65, fly 10 hours a year, have high blood pressure and are obese, is it the same as a 65 year old who flies 300 hours a year, fit and in perfect health? Guess what….the insurance thinks so….

I think this was the genesis of the quote. I absolutely believe statistical analysis is both valid and helpful, but crap in, crap out, and if you are going to predicate a decision on the statistics, it would be helpful to understand the sample set.

“There are lies, dam lies, and statistics.” Mark Twain

In spite of the fact that I have never said a single thing that contradicts your word salad, it’s obviously extremely important to you that you win this imaginary argument you keep trying to stoke. You are correct and everything I have said is completely wrong and I have been edified .

That Aetostar was owned for a long time by a guy named Jack Ditmar, it was sold right around when he passed away. I know he was of some significant fame in the racing world, but as I don’t follow the sport can’t recall exactly. I spoke to him about the airplane when it was listed. He was a wealth of knowledge and his plane was in top notch condition. He was also extremely patriotic, hence the paint scheme. I can tell you all with conviction, that Aerostar owners are as fervent and fanatical about heir planes as mooniacs, and it’s why I call them a mooney’s big brother.

Happy New Year to you too Sue!

Who writes the rules? PS. It’s rhetorical, no need to respond. My point has been made, sorry it was not evident to you. All the best in the new year.

I attended the IFR 6 program as well, it’s been 8 or so years. Their behavior sounds really odd from what you have shared. My experience was good overall, but I think I came much more prepared. I had 100% of the time and then some, required for my check-ride. I had flown about 100 hours with a CFI or safety pilot, about 80 of those were under hood or actual IMC. When I read all of the syllabi from the four of five programs that I looked at, they all seemed to intimate, to me anyway, that you really should come with all the requirements met, so my flying skills were prepared for the most part but procedurally I was still learning my g1000, and task saturation was still a struggle. I had just received my ppl about 3 months from my IFR checkride. If I had one complaint, it was that I was very specific about needing help with the g1000 and they didn’t tell me the sim was avidyne which didn’t help a ton, but I got it all in the plane anyway. The intense simulator and flight training was all procedure and repetition. We flew to four or five airports in the area and did a lot of approaches, holds, circle to land, etc. and since the airports were so close it was rapid fire. Eight hours in one day with your experience would have been exhausting. Hard to really judge from what little we know if he signed off or skills he thought you were progressing enough to perform, yet you had some concerns. Both valid scenarios. I felt competent when I left, but I suspected the real training begins after your ticket, and that turned out to be true. None of us are “completely” prepared when we get our ticket, don’t they say it’s a license to learn? There is no substitute for experience. I don’t see how a “mill” approach would even work, the DPE would sort that out pretty quickly.

What I was trying to say, is that this instance is not what the writers of a law written far closer to 100 years ago than to today were conceiving, and I highly doubt it was intended to apply to this circumstance. I cannot argue the verbiage of the law, but if the interpretation of the law suggests the ultra and legacy g1000 airframes are somehow different aircraft, it borders on silly. I understand the path for the modification very well, and don’t argue the order or supremacy. This is truly a unique situation. If one was trying to switch to an avidyne, or dynon panel, or some entirely different suite it would make sense. But to require flight testing as if there isn’t a wealth of documentation that would suffice is just incorrect. The difference between the two units is infinitesimal. Logically this should be a plug and play and check the box conversion. But when the entire governing body of unelected bureaucracy’s subconscious mission is to slowly grind small GA out of existence, there is no real incentive to look at things holistically or logically. One would be remiss to not remember that this is just a giant DMV.

I wasn’t asking for the logs, merely suggesting you post them online for prospective buyers.

I am aware of the difference. That wasn’t really my point… the g1000nxi is certified in the m20 already with the ultra’s. The upgrade would literally be less than a few hours to change the displays, and alter the software to reflect the differences. the point was that this upgrade is no more difficult than swapping a 430 for a 430w. The end result being airframe that cannot get the latest safety features which seems contrary to the mission. I believe they are making a simple process much more difficult than it needs to be.

I would not concern yourself with the hassle associated with software upgrades. they are tedious and can easily take an entire day, but anyone who has done it before can do it in a few hours. the only trouble is the sequence of the update. If it isnt done just so you have to start over. the end user. In my experience, has no issues once it’s loaded properly it’s hassle free. you would need data logging to use savvy engine analysis I cannot do the software for you, but I believe there is a shop at your field that can do it, or Sarasota avionics, or Tomlinson at page field. He has done two or three for me.

We are all products of our experience, and while statistics are relevant and valid, so is experience. I don’t think I fear an in air collision, as much as the reaction to something stupid, inconsiderate, ignorant or flagrantly dangerous by someone else. All of which I has seen and/or experienced, and always at a uncontrolled field. The chances of someone taking off unannounced, with a tail wind, on the non favored runway, while I am less than 1/4 mile’ from the threshold, is not likely to be something that would happen at a controlled field. Does this mean I have no risk, no, it doesn’t, but I tend to avoid situations that have shown themselves to be unnecessarily high risk. Can accidents happen at controlled fields, yes. But in my experience, those are more rare, and I find comfort in that choice. I have, do, and will continue to land at uncontrolled fields, but when I have the option, I choose something with a tower.

It is not economical, it is not logical, but little of GA is…. it would be a labor of love, and a project to tinker. I was just wondering if it is actually possible. I don’t understand the mission of the FAA. If you would view the things they do in a literal perspective, one would think they would like to eliminate piston GA completely. It would seem that it is an indirect objective, because they know that there would be a revolt if they announced this mission. but if the mission was to preserve the genre, they would look for ways to support the aging fleet. I understand the morass that would result in a 172 being converted to experimental, but we are discussing a real orphan, that will eventually be grounded forever without some alternative path to keeping them flying. I realize this is an esoteric and far fetched fantasy… a guy can dream right? if there was a clear path for a legitimate alteration to this airframe I would buy it tonite.

Guilty as charged. I do however realize it is not an elective when you register a plane, you can’t just decide to go experimental. More specifically, would it be possible to disassemble and modify to a point it would qualify?

You mean it would go to a limited category vs experimental?

I know this question has been asked about the more common certified airframes, but would converting something like the M22which only has 14 models registered in the world be possible? It would be interesting to see that with a turbine on the nose.

I think no radio would be annoying or maybe inconvenient if that's all it was, but when they don't follow traffic patterns, don't use standard procedures and behave like they are alone in the world, it makes for a very difficult day for everyone else. I personally stay away from uncontrolled fields as much as possible.

It doesn't really matter what the FAR says about uncontrolled fields. No on there will pay attention to this, and they will continue to do whatever they want. i was practicing landings at an uncontrolled field and i had two people in the pattern with radios not talking at all, one guy calling a straight in from 20 miles out not answering anyone, one guy doing a run up on the runway on the tailwind side, one guy lined up and waiting on the correct runway, and another guy taking off with an intersection departure, also not talking. good luck with "rules" there!

I completely understand your point. good, fast, cheap…….. pick two. no better option than good referrals and they probably come out well for the most part. It’s most important to align expectations. There can be no assumptions. Caveat emptor