Davidv

I saw this video a little while back and could go on about many things but will leave that to others. I won't hate on it too much because I like the fact that they went with the G3X. Whether G500TXI, G3X, ect..., it's not a G1000 that forever marries your avionics to the airframe. I'm surprised they went with the IO-540, but I get that the diesel is still heavy and has a few other issues too. I'd love to know their CHT/EGT at the power setting that gets them that fuel efficiency in the plane. The cooling doesn't look that great.

Lance, Your point is valid and it's fair to point out his limitation with the GFC500. It's all about the options for the specific aircraft being flown. For me, I had a KAP150 that wasn't working great, so the GFC500 is a huge step up irrespective of this limitation. In that instance, yes, I'll take the limitation of having to hand fly an ILS if I lose GPS signal. I wasn't implying that you or anyone else doesn't have the ability to hand fly an ILS. On your point of a high stress situation, I'd probably be even more inclined to hand fly the ILS rather than use the GFC500 even if it didn't have this limitation. I don't know about you, but if I'm in IMC, on an ILS, and get a warning on my screen that satellite reception has been lost, I'd be less inclined to trust any of my Garmin technology at that point. Yes, it's irrational because it's probably just the satellite coverage. However, my wheels might be turning that it's some other issue behind that panel with my fully integrated autopilot and PFD. At that point, I may feel more comfortable clicking off the A/P and flying the needles. Again, would it be better if this limitation did not exist? Sure, but then again I'm getting a full feature (ALT, HDG, IAS, VNAV, ect...) A/P installed for less than $20K. Labor and parts for a GFC700 (even if you could buy one not OEM installed) is around double that cost.

I’m currently getting a GFC500 installed to replace my KAP150. So you’re saying the worst that could happen in a GPS outage is that I would have to hand fly an ILS? I think I’ll take my chances given the reliability of my KAP150. It’s another reason to make sure you’re current on hand flying approaches. While I do understand why people would be upset at this limitation, we aren’t professionally flying a jet with 150 people in the back on an airline timetable. If you feel uncomfortable hand flying an ILS to mins, I wouldn’t plan on flying in that weather.

So we can finally fly our Mooney’s in RVSM airspace??

I’m told that the McCauley carbon prop would work well on the Bravo and it only weighs 50 lbs.

I’d echo this comment on WAAS, while I have it and like it, people forget that there are still a ton of ILSs that aren’t going away tomorrow. If you absolutely have to go somewhere when the weather is bad, I’m quite certain most people can find an ILS alternate option near their destination. As for the autopilot, notwithstanding @GeeBee’s valid comments, the GFC700 upgrade will most likely be very costly (multiples of a GFC500 install) if it can be offered again. The price isn’t a function of Mooney, but rather the Garmin hardware costs. If you think you might want the GFC, you’re probably better off just spending the money now on an aircraft that has one.

I may be biased since I'm getting a very similar setup to @Niko182, but the advantage of getting the G3X over the G500TXI is that one can "control" the other Garmin devices and one is a display. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can pull up a flight plan on your 500, change it, and have the change reflected on the 750. The 500 is also a lot more money. I'm not saying there aren't other reasons to get the 500, just that you need to look at your specific use and decide what's best.

The problem with building anything small and fuel efficient (and certified) is that you're still talking about a $400-$500K new airplane. Does anyone really think that the people who are dropping that kind of money on a new airplane are overly concerned with fuel efficiency? You'll get beat by the SR22 market and it's not slow or forgiving enough to be competition for Cessna or Piper in the training world.

It's probably one reason why the DA is 1000 feet over TDZE....

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but as a final fail-safe it would seem like a pretty rudimentary circuit that could automatically lower the gear if certain conditions were met. For example, 50' AGL, flaps down, going less than 100 knots (100 only because you'll be going faster with gear up). Of course you would need a radar altimeter.

I don't have any experience at TEX but from their flight aware it looks like they departed two other times from there this week, both to the east. However, they made a sharp right turn after takeoff on these other flights... Again, I don't know the area so I'm not sure of the normal departure procedure there.

Or maybe we can add one of these? The Mooney version of CAPS.

It would also seem that there would be little need to spend the extra money on the 275 unless you’re using it to interface with your existing autopilot. If you’re going GFC500, the G5 could later be used if you decide to upgrade to a G3X display.

Just to comment on the parts question, I can confirm that Mooney is still very much producing and selling parts. However, if you need a new OEM part from the factory on a 30-40+ yr old plane (and can’t source it anywhere else), I wouldn’t expect to have it immediately. This probably goes for most manufacturers.

I bought a new set of Medeco locks to replace the traditional "filing cabinet" ones as @carusoamsays. Unlike Medeco, the traditional ones are incredibly easy for anyone to pick or even use an identical one (there are only so many patterns they used). I'm not replacing my ignition but rather the two locks on the outside.

Thanks, very interesting. If you can tell us, any feel for the size of the average claim?

I think there are two perspectives here. I'm not a statistics major so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I was looking at the GAMA GA flight operations statistics for 2019 and they show around 30 million GA tower operations for the year (including part 135). They don't break it down for piston singles but I'm willing to haircut that number to 7 million which is the amount of local tower operations they expected in 2019. There were 1155 part 91 accidents or incidents reported to the NTSB in 2019 including all aircraft classes. Let's be generous and multiple that by 3x to account for non-reported damage and not haircut it even though some multi engine and jet accidents are included. (Damage incidents - 3,465) / (Piston single flight operations - 7,000,000) = 0.000495 or 0.0049%. I'm not sure what the hull value percentage rate is off hand, but I think it's around 1.5% or higher for VFR pilots. These numbers aren't perfect, but they would have to be wildly wrong for it be close to amount insurance companies are charging. Again, someone please point out if I made a large error here. The other perspective is that if you fly 100 hrs per year in a $100,000 aircraft and your hull premium is $2,000, you're taking a $20 bill out of your pocket for every hour you fly for insurance. Considering the cost of fuel and other aviation expendables, I don't think this is unreasonable for the peace of mind knowing that your $100,000 "investment" is safe whether its sitting in the hanger, ramp, or has a gear mishap.

Seems like a good call to me. While insurance gives you piece of mind, sometimes the premium you're going to pay doesn't make sense when you look at probabilities depending on aircraft value. I'm not trying to jinx you (or me), but I believe there are around 7 million yearly GA flights in the US. The accident and incident rate is tiny compared to the overall flight operations even when part 135 and turbines are removed. Even a rate of 1% would mean that 70,000 aircraft (or around 30% of the US fleet if they were unique aircraft) had an accident or incident. The likelihood that someone is going to damage their aircraft in a given year is far less than the 1-2% of aircraft value the insurance company is going to charge you. I'm not arguing against hull insurance (I have mine through Parker), but rather pointing out that you aren't taking a huge risk and should sleep well at night.

Something I’ve wondered is the amount of ice it can comfortably handle. Light rime? Moderate? Clear? What’s been your most severe encounter with the system? it’s the one thing I wish my plane had.

Thanks, I feel like it’s a very fine line before it gets too white but yours looks good.

Yes looks pretty close

I’d give Bob Bramble a call. He’s been overhauling these for a long time and could tell you what the likely issue is and repair if need be. I don’t have his number but should be easy to find online.

Does this happen on the ground or just in flight?

You should change them out for month brakes, I hear they are more effective. The braking on my bravo isn't great and I'm told there are upgraded brakes that I can buy. However, I thought they may have fixed that by the time they started making Acclaims...

Very good article from Savvy. When I bought my first plane I knew almost nothing so I hired someone who I respected and has been buying airplanes his entire life. Sure, it wasn't cheap, but when I look at all of the planes that I wanted to buy but he wouldn't let me I'm very glad to have paid for this service.