dkkim73

I would be surprised if there were not significant consultant opportunities for anyone with such focal domain knowledge and a helpful instinct. Thank you! Much obliged for clarifying that hanging question. David

"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon!"

Thank you for the detailed reply! Yes, the plane is WAAS-enabled (from the factory, so with VNAV), with SVT unlock shortly thereafter. System version was 0401-34, being upgraded to 0401-37 at the Mooney factory service center now. Yes, the unit is the GSM 85, the write-up is "Roll and Pitch Trim GFC700 GSM 85 clutch mount failed clutch torque test and adjustment." so exactly as you describe. They list part # 011-00894-09 to fix. So I am thinking it is the repair/exchange as you describe (going to get an update soon as they had been waiting to speak with Garmin going into the holiday). Hopefully that helps clarify your assumptions, which I think are correct. As for the upgrade possibility, it sounds like it's possible but requires a bulletin/approval? Someone suggested it would likely be expensive and not worth "the squeeze". David PS. And congrats on retirement!

I just bought a Mooney and found many of the reasons John listed compelling. Also, for some mission-specific reasons. So I'm obviously pro-Mooney in the balance. But this line caught my eye. I did a lot of my instrument rating training in Archers and Warriors. They are very stable, forgiving, docile airplanes with charming if sedate personalities. So I could see an insurance advantage, though the RG nature might offset that. I was part of a club, so not as aware of maintenance and ownership costs with Pipers. But it also might make for a less stressful flying experience in some cases. So I guess my point is, the flying might be easier and slower in general, with a bit of a speed boost in cruise for the RG aspect over an Archer. But it might fit your mission better? I know I'm less intimidated by the idea of jumping in a straightleg C172, or even C182 in terms of having to be "on game" all the time. For sporty, in terms of IFR-capable platforms, I don't think it's a question

Does anyone know if it is possible to do a wired connection (RS-232) from one of the G1000 boxes to an Aera cradle for flight plan cross-loading? (to get around the lack of Flight Stream support) I realize others are discussing G3's and GTN's, so I might be conflating things. D

When I went to redeem the DB purchase, it requires me to choose between Americas vs. US only (AOPA) airport directories, and also for terrain you can choose 30 vs 9+4.9 arc-second resolutions. Is this purely a personal need/preference thing, or is there some subtle trade-off that comes with space or capability on the original G1000 units? (the plane is a 2009) Wonky question, but trying to figure it out and figured someone else had more insight. Unclear if this is alterable later. David

Yes, I did, with both (still need to find a good data plan, but GPS and Wifi work great). IIUC I can use it with the GTX 345R (Jeff at Mooney is checking to make sure it has an RF-lucent panel between the transponder in the tail and where I'll sit). Also have a recent Sentry which works nicely, though I may return it given all the various options and recommendation to use a more sensitive CO detector. When I said portable (to @EricJ's question above) I was thinking of a dedicated aviation GPS unit, e.g. an Aera or similar, with controlled firmware for a somewhat higher level of reliability than an iPad, where IMHO there will always be some higher risk of interactional bugs etc. I did not look at some of the other dedicated EFB options... I think those options mentioned are apps. Though TY for the point-out to Avare, since my phone runs an Android fork. BTW I did just buy a OnePak (from Garmin, so Garmin data and FliteCharts). Appreciate the inputs on the chart choices. That will give me the familiar govt charts on the G1000 as a fallback, whatever I go with externally. Also a DB subscription for an external GPS. Sounds like I should try Garmin Pilot to see how it feels vs. ForeFlight (the commonality point is a good one). If I had to choose right now, I am thinking the Aera would be a good choice. Oddly, lots of models mentioned but only two listed for sale on Garmin's site. Thanks, David

Hello All, Was corresponding with a couple knowledgeable members about this and realized it would be good to ask more widely: I've been researching database options for my new plane (M20TN, thus G1000) and devices, Jepp vs. Garmin databases, plate types, etc. Read several related discussions along the way, which I *think* are still current regarding the bundle offerings (fairly confusing). Hoping to get the hive mind's opinion also on dedicated portable aviation GPSes. Historically, I'd flown with a GPSMap 196 (one of the first units with a virtual panel, black and white, latest SW release in 2011), paper govt charts, and a GNS430W. So I'm spoiled by the idea of a G1000 (WAAS + ADS-B in/out + XM receiver). Also bought a newer iPad air and Foreflight (mid-level subscription). Thinking to go with a Garmin DB subscription including the Jepp nav data but regular gov't charts for the G1000 (the "PilotPak" vs the "OnePak" with Garmin data, though some say the Garmin data is adequate esp. in the US; I don't anticipate flying up to Canada much at least in the near future). Seems like several experienced folks here favor not squinting at the G1000 for the plates, thus the idea to just get regular govt plates for the G1000. Maybe add Jepp plates to the Foreflight subscription since I've not used them much but they have nice added features. My main question is: Should I also have a newer portable unit? In the past, I've been a snob about real TSO'ed gear, even if simpler, and dedicated units, though I have to admit iPads have become a great deal better and Foreflight is a superb product UX-wise. I used to love the 196 as backup on the yoke and Garmin used to be generous with updates. Less so now. And how does this affect any software choices I might otherwise make? It seems like the OnePak would cover a new Garmin GPS DB as well, but if I read it correctly would imply using Garmin rather than Jeppesen nav data. Looking at updating the DB separately for close to $300 to have the 196 work as a backup, vs perhaps get an Aera? Is that overkill either way with the G1000 and a Foreflight/Sentry? One Aera user spoke very highly of it and opined that the G196 is basically done-for, which I think is probably true. Fun facts: I fired it up yesterday, it quickly came online telling me it was 2004 and listed my local approaches, including a decommissioned NDB... The latter fact is an old DB, but the date bug underlined the fact the software is old. Not so much trying to be cheap as frugal, but I think it will go to the great shelf in the sky. (note: above is written with a lack of knowledge of Garmin Pilot; haven't tried it at all yet) Thanks for any thoughts, David PS. Related question: as far as I've been able to determine, there is no device that lets you cross-load flight plans with the non-NXi G1000's. If I've missed this, please say.

Yes, you are entirely correct. Sorry to be unclear. I suspect this is actually a coordinated international standard, and stems from maritime practice, as do so many of our practices (I joked with my father in law that boating was like flying, only much slower; he added that you also do a lot of maintenance underway). My musings were more about what people do "in the wild". E.g. we are taught that birds, if faced with potential collision, tend to dive. So I wonder what people actually tend to do if surprised and not thinking through resolution maneuvers. This is also confounded by the possibility (probability?) that you might not be seen. And the general lack of direct two-way communications (we don't address other aircraft usually). As people have raised earlier, a person might view the world differently "heads down" looking at cockpit traffic displays vs. being visual with the other traffic, etc. Unless there is obvious coordination (via ATC or on a CTAF [local pattern frequency]) I tend to assume the other craft might not see me and try to factor in potential erratic maneuvers later (ie. be more predictable, wider berth, etc). My comment a few posts back was that if I had a choice between being blind or a closer pass, I'd choose the latter, but obviously someone might see you at the last minute and do something unexpected. Or try to resolve it via their traffic display (again, without a full TCAS there is no guaranteed separation). David

Thank you, much appreciated. If you wouldn't mind clarifying, the "turn toward someone's tail" paradigm, over how wide a range of situations would you employ that in a normal category aircraft? In the Eagle, and I would assume the Mudhen (even with conformal tanks and 1,000,000 lbs of GPS-guided bad news), you could do that from any aspect, angle, altitude, all day long and it would work. With GA, would you do that only with a constant-bearing presentation fore or aft? You said it might be a big turn and I'm literally using my hands to try and figure out the variations (ie. this is a naive question). I agree on the formation flying point you made. Once you see an external reference, it's suprisingly intuitive to maneuver relative. It would be interesting for someone to "game this out" in terms of likely responsives to uncoordinated resolution maneuvers (vs. TCAS which coordinates this). Ie. if you presume similar maneuvability, how does the other (presumably GA) pilot's likely reaction or non-reaction figure with your planned maneuver. I think the simplest thing is the point already made that keeping the other bird in sight will mitigate risk and require the least mutual training. Thinking out loud at a lower level here... D

Thank you, also got a PM mentioning @TrekLawler and his expertise. I figure everyone's tied up during the holidays but will look forward to any advice. I suppose in some ways this bears on the whole upgrade pathway for G1000/GFCxxx systems, so I'll post back if I learn anything offline. Thanks to all!

That's a smart idea. Leverage the up-front part of the work (panel cut-outs, wiring, tech time, etc) so might not have to repeat it later. Could have a spare slot, or plan to possibly pull and sell a unit while upgrading later. Previous poster made some good points about getting feature-value out of the GFC500. I suppose part of the value calculus would also depend on how long you're keeping the plane. If "indefinitely" is the answer, then planning something further in the future would seem to make sense. If not, it would seem that minimizing spend makes sense based on what I keep reading about recouping avionics investment. Definitely respect OP's budget discipline, all of us little demons are pretty much on one shoulder.

Following this thread with great interest as a new Acclaim owner (plane still elsewhere). If you'll forgive a minor thread deviation ("Moon Flight, turn right 10 degrees, vectors for newbie"), what are some good references for understanding operational principles and best practices for the TSIO-550G, and similar powerplants? I started going through the intro portions of John Deakin's online engine course and will probably do the whole thing. So far it is focusing more on combustion theory, leaning, etc. Any advice appreciated. David

Thoughtful post overall, quoting a part here. This thread reminds me of a larger trend I've seen over the last 10-15 yrs (I associate it with software/technical people, but hey we're all guilty) to overgeneralize from discrete models and to worship data ("more data, better!"). The missing elements are usually actual real-world experience, empiric observation, etc. Also the problems of false correlation and silent evidence (e.g. "I'm making all these frequency-cluttering calls, heads-down, and being a general nuisance, and I'm still alive. Must be the reason. Yay, me! Yay, safety!" Even if it reduced safety, they got away with it). Anyhow, two generalizable points I might make are: there isn't one right overarching viewpoint, but complementary grains of truth in the last several pages data without prioritization and mental models and flows that use it well obscures actionable information With point #2, I think there's a real danger of too much mental clutter in many occupational environments, including a gen av cockpit. Thinking through how to use the tools well is important for me at least. Might be different for different people, too, I don't have enough observation in the post-ADS-B gen av environment of different pilots to comment too much more. As for de-confliction/resolution maneuvering, I would *love* to hear someone more knowlegeable comment. Your point about showing your belly seems right-on. Maybe one of the front-seater types here (rags?) or an airline driver could opine? My instinct would be to roll to keep the traffic in sight even if it meant a closer pass or pushing over. My 2 cents. That and $2.97 might get you a small cup of coffee at Starbuck's. D

Hello All, So, I'm the proud new owner of a 2009 M20TN (BTW thanks to all the kind people here on MS who've been generous with advice and time!). The plane is down at the Mooney Factory Service Center, having an annual (out of a pre-buy) and some additional work done (LHS, bigger engine heater, software updates, certs, etc). One thing they found when pulling the servos for inspection and torque checks: 2 of the 3 weren't able to be reset within specs (pitch trim and roll). They are looking into options which might include: swapping in used field units return/refurb/new from Garmin potentially upgrading to the newer model which apparently does not require as-frequent an inspection interval They said this wasn't common. Which begs the question, has anyone here dealt with the problem? Thanks for any thoughts, David

@blaine beaven How far north of the border do you live, and do you plan to fly to the states? It might speak to your assessment of ADS-B utility ("out" being required in a number of situations, and "in" being nice to have, though you can recover some of that utility with a separate receiver and ForeFlight). So also if you were to (blasphemy warning) ever consider selling the aircraft; a flyer closer to the border (or on this side) might value the install more. There are hypotheticals, but worth thinking about since: 1. you'll have everything open anyhow, and 2. you are already thoughtfully considering the synergies between equipment. Meta-observation: We are all upselling you, but isn't it fun? You knew this was going to happen.

Ah, *those* robot wars. I thought you meant the *coming* robot wars. You know, once They have enough of them in place in our homes, factories, and on the roads.

I saw this little guy used on the plane I recently bought (owned by the broker) and I thought it was both very slick and very safe in how it worked (little risk of over-torquing the nose wheel): https://acairtechnology.com/products/ac-tracktech-t1v2 Doesn't really fit your price criteria new. I think Ray's suggestion of trolling for a used tug is probably best for a low-priced solution. I wonder if anyone's rolled their own, now that I think about it... David

Congrats to all! That Citabria will surely treach stick and rudder skills. I was sharp for a while after flying one; I probably need to again... Cars, planes, girls. Just need to start juggling chainsaws but that sounds pretty banal by comparison.

Hi Kevin, My knowledge is incredibly dated, but I actually solo'ed at Osan AFB as a teenager in the 1980's at a USAF aero club. I wonder if there are any MWR (morale, welfare, and recreation) facilities where there are A&P mechanics who might know of a network of people with the correct factory-recognized experience? Ie. any flying clubs attached to USAF or ROKAF bases? Even if they aren't able to work on your non-US civilian aircraft, they might know of people who might be certified to work on Mooneys (perhaps having had US experience). It's a very long shot, but maybe better than nothing. Or perhaps you could hire a Mooney mechanic to come to Korea for a vacation (a win-win)? HTH, David

This makes an enormous amount of sense to me. I used to fly with paper charts and a GPSMAP196 on my yoke in addition to dual VORs and a 430-530 stack and a lousy wing leveler at best... At the same time I want more 2D SA with moving maps (ie. I want a big screen G1000 or Avidyne or Garmin touchscreen GPS), I really don't want it to all suddenly go dark in the soup. Dual anything.... esp. a 2nd bus, etc, all that kind of talk is music to my ears.

@wombat I have not done much detailed research into the earlier Mooneys, although I did check Controller recently to see if there were any TC/TN TKS birds posted. I would be open, I think Certainly seems like a nice capable solution and it seems as if the people who have them like them a lot. Are you looking to part with yours?

Thanks for the anecdote; that's exactly the kind of situation I'm thinking about. Was just doing some groundwork with a local instructor this AM and he was also telling me the climb rates out of KMSO on missed approaches etc. really ask for a higher-performance airplane, too. Also high DA in the summer. As for load, yes, I should be more specific. We are close to being empty-nest. Two children, one in college, one with two more years in high school. So at some point it will be 4 adults, 2 of them large-ish. Although I suspect a lot of the trips will probably be 2 people. For the commute it would be me and light baggage.

Thank you all the great responses so far! One thing I wanted to clarify re: flying "in all conditions". I didn't mean that I would expect to entirely avoid icing (practically), just that I didn't think any aircraft in my scope would be able to complete the mission in any wx. Ie. IIUC it would be good to have FIKI to remain legal and (in some sense) prudent not having to divert if there were actual ice reported in a layer ahead of me on approach, etc. I would imagine, from prior midwestern experience, that it would be mostly an issue in layers at each end, or extending time during an inadvertant encounter. Sorry if I was being unclear there. It sounds like the devil's in the details with the Lycoming vs. Continental choice. If running the Bravo rich yielded adequate or better reliability, that might make the cost argument *for short trips* which this is for the near-term. Cruising at those levels it does seem like LOP is the long-term way to go. It is a bit hard to follow the multiple G1000 threads. Has there been any recent top-level guidance from Mooney on long-term commitments to upgrade paths on the G1000 installs in the Bravo DX, Acclaims, etc (once WAAS is upgraded)? IIUC the up-front cost and time of the STC is the issue, and thereafter there would always be the costs of Garmin equipment. Have existing G1000 users here felt anything basic was lacking, or just chafed at the lack of upgradability? (I would understand this being a tinkerer). Not to threadjack, just trying to understand if I need to go a lot more deeply into this before making what would otherwise be a more airframe/powerplant-driven set of decisions. Thank you, David

Mooneyspace post Hello Everyone, I'm new to this forum, although I have been lurking and reading for a couple of weeks. Posting to ask for thoughts on potential choices for a plane to use for: -Commuting in central-western Montana over the next 18-24 months, between Billings and Hamilton (so KBIL to KHRF or KMSO), as weather allows -General family trips in the region, a secondary and less often consideration, more so after that period in 2-3 yrs, which may extend further and will primarily involve western WA (Puget Sound) and Utah (SLC/OGD area) I started looking at a range of aircraft and settled quickly into looking for FIKI singles with TKS (currently I am only ASEL-instrument rated and a twin would add a lot of issues), and most likely turbocharged. The Mooneys seemed to rise above Cirrus and Bonanzas for a combination of cost and reliability while still being FIKI. Questions for the group and things I am pondering: -Any thoughts from people who've flown in this region? Note I am not looking to fly "in all conditions". I'm probably going to expand my operating envelope carefully, and run the trip with go/no-go parameters driven by wx briefs. Fallback is the car or scheduled commercial via 2 hops. -Trade-offs between Ovation (2DX probably) - Bravo - Acclaim for this role I've read the main thread here about the Ovation/Acclaim comparison. Have also spoken to a couple of very knowledgeable and kind gentlemen (who I think may also be on the forum) who shared some thoughts on the models. Q: If dealing with the Bravo's complexity and maintenance cost to get a turbo, does the Acclaim make more sense (assuming can work the cost)? Q: Some have opined that the Acclaim can be flown in different ways. Can the Acclaim be flown "gently" to achieve the same longevity as a non TC/TN engine like the Ovation? -The need for turbocharging/turbonormalizing: Several locals have strongly recommended this to climb above icing conditions, though there will be times when that will definitely not be doable in a non-pressurized piston. Sustained climb rates might be an issue. Q: Has anyone from an Ovation in this area? (looking at the 310hp/TopProp models) -Avionics Have read some very reasonable opinions on non being locked into the G1000, also many people seem to be happy with the G1000 situational awareness and overall feature set. This obviously ties in with the model choice on the higher end above. Most of my time is in 6-pack aircraft, less in TAA planes, so I really do want *some* glass for the higher SA and a good autopilot. I am in that sense biased towards either a fancier panel or upgrading it soon (at least to a big-screen GPS). Anyhow, that list I realize now is quite long, and probably enough to frame the situation. Any thoughts appreciated, David