Schllc

Five years ago I may have disagreed with this… However, in my evolution of Mooney experience there was a period of time where I preferred to use approach flaps to land. It just felt like I had more control, but as my proficiency grew I realized it was actually safer, and easier on the plane to use full flaps and that is how I land all the time unless there is a really bad crosswind, or a 8,000 runaway where the fbo is on the opposite side of the airport. (which happens all the time at my parents airport). If you find it easier to land all the time with approach flaps, you may want to take a look at or work on your technique. Not trying to be critical of anyone, just sharing my experience. The shortest field I have landed at with my acclaim was x01 which is a 2400x50 runway with zero displaced threshold and water about 20’ from each end of the runway. You need to be on your best game there and full flaps is a must. I don’t ever use the speed brakes on approach either. I was just taught it was a bad idea, but I do occasionally pop them when I am less than 10’ over the runway if I’m a little faster than I would like.

I get slam dunked all the time in south Florida. They will descend me from the flight levels, but seldom below 8k and 80% of the time I am over 10k within 15 miles of my airport. I assume the speeds of the mooney’s make them treat us like jets, but we can’t just cut the power, descend and slow down! In fact I got fussed at the other day because they weren’t happy with my rate of descent, but had told me max speed 120knots. I don’t often talk back when they are snippy, but this time i was tired of being fussed at and I told them they had to choose! You want me slow or low, you ain’t getting both! You can descend without speed brakes if you had to, but it makes these kinds of profiles much easier to manage with them.

Posting a picture of the part number would probably help. not all versions of these boxes work with the Mooney configuration

I don’t know about you guys but I have had a wildly variable interpretation of the rules from IA’s in my short experience. Some eager to fudge whatever it takes to get you out and some who hold lines in spite of obvious rules. I think that is one of the reasons they say pilots are responsible for ensuring airworthiness People are people, regardless of profession or credentials…

It’s a little buggy but it is cool. It doesn’t show some things, but is a nice summary to look at.

I agree with Sue and others, your experience is appreciated by the vast majority who frequent the site. I have also noticed an uptick in those who seem interested only in agitating or stoking conflict. At least that’s the way some of the comments read to me. That being said, much like texts and emails, some things don’t always read as intended, and the chronic agitators can just be muted. It would be a great loss to the group of earnest readers to lose your contributions, and I would hope you remain.

Fun factoid that has always perplexed me a bit….. a taildragger is much easier to land on an RC plane than tricycle gear, but this is not the case in real planes.

A stratus and an iPad mini are an excellent backup for the g1000, and is what I use. you can fit a full size iPad in the yoke, but I find the mini is much more comfortable, ive also used the iPhone instead of the iPad It is not TSO’d, but I don’t know of anything that plays with the g1000, but it will provide a backup AHARS, navigation reference, traffic and weather, all 100% independently of the planes avionics or power buss. best part is you can take your system with you if you fly with someone in their plane.

The cabin of the Mooney is probably smaller in cross section area than almost all of the planes listed here. It does have room where it is really needed which is at the shoulder, but it is definitely smaller as a function of its design. The seating position alone makes it probably 8” (maybe more?) shorter than a Cessna. The long sitting or quasi supine, whatever the position is called in a Mooney, is by far the most comfortable position for most of us here, especially when it is a long trip. if it wasn’t we probably would not love them so much. I took my first long trip alone in my Aerostar before the new year, and 2 hours into it, I was really missing my legs out in front and the reclined position. There is no debate for me, the Mooney cabin is perfectly designed for comfort. Even two larger people merely need to offset the seats to find all the room one could need. if there was one deficiency in the Mooney I could choose to fix it would be the noise. BTW People aren’t getting “larger”, they are getting fatter. Visit any mall, airport or theme park, or any public place really, it is on display. I read something a long time ago that stuck with me, it is said… “When you find that your pants are suddenly too small, this is not a sign to buy new pants”

Repairing an old, unsupported unit for economic reasons is probably a valid option if you have no intention selling in the near future. If you do plan to sell in the near future you may want to consider making the investment. It will undoubtedly be something like waas for people looking to buy. Knowing there is no support for a critical avionic component is going to affect the resale, and even if you don’t recoup the entire cost, it will likely sell quicker with upgrades which saves money as well…

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.