dkkim73

Thank you! That's definitely in the ballpark of what i was thinking. Also It's great that he puts his lists out there and articulates the rationale. Looks like pretty solid offerings. I would imagine an attack pilot is pretty tuned into land survival!

I meant to reply earlier. Perked up at the mention of a vest. I actually thought of this recently. It really was helpful in survival training. Among many other benefits, it provides you a way to carry things if you are forced down. Several examples in the real world involve people needing to move, rather than wait at the plane for the "instant helicopter" that is apparently not as common as imagined even in the 406MHz world. Other benefits are: familiar location of all basic equipment, organization, etc. Can work with it on (flashlight, knife, etc, accessible when starting fire, etc). Always have the signal mirror handy when the plane flies overhead. etc. Run out of pockets quickly otherwise. I am needing to put together kits over the next few months given a plan to do more flying over wilderness and mountains regularly. Thinking to use something like the above SERE vest as a core, with duffels or something containing sleeping bag, down coat, camp stove, etc. that I can vary by season. Want to keep it simple to load (so it comes with) but do the thinking ahead of time. David

The military has definitely been subjected to the social re-shaping (experimentation is not a bad word but it's more intentional than that) even more in the current administration. It was subtlely there under Obama but more brazen now. Many of the directions, as well as some of the mandates, have driven out or kept away a lot of people who would normally serve. Some of that is probably intentional. I've had some interesting conversations with former colleagues who chose to leave in the last few years. You also hint at another issue which is corrosive to the meritocracy, mirroring similar programs in the civilian world, about identity-based favoritism. Totally corrosive to good order and discipline. The generational things re: fitness, werewithal, baby wants his iPhone, etc, are all true, but they just affect the #s. The above things are more systemic and qualitative. I've definitely adopted more cautionary advice to my own children in the last few years about military service.

When I was plane-shopping, I came across this video by Martin Pauly about the 440/540 features from a Garmin viewpoint: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m_BSKxNhjJU I also thought it was a well conceived product line. Disclaimer: have not used Avidyne personally, tend to "think" Garmin, so in a way this was even more interesting. HTH, David

With a prolonged period on the ramp, perhaps a smaller, non human aircraft enthusiast got in somehow? I don't know enough to know where such an actor might set up shop. Just a thought...

I'm honestly curious (and maybe this is obvious to most here), but what exactly is the threshold for using an alternative part? I've read discussions here about AMOC (approval for alternative compliance) and also owner-produced parts (seems like it could be a wide range). Another thread involves people just re-relaying their electrical systems to make them simpler, all with sound rationale but different from spec and no mention of any approval. All of this seems more than "preventive maintenance". Is it essentially down to the judgment of the A&P and what he/she feels comfortable with bolting on? I have had several conversations with a conservative but very experienced Mooney IA, and he said, "well if it fails it's a blowtorch pointed at your firewall", also mentioned the non-welded clamps have a limited # of approved torquings to boot. A local A&P who I don't know as well yet but with lots of years commented to me he had potentially found an alternative clamp. From first principles, it would seem that there should be functionally-equivalent non-aviation parts, given all the turbos out there in the world (most not on airplanes). But... how might one tell what are the key criteria? Or is this possibly all much ado about nothing. Using unicorn hide when vinyl would do, or at least suede...

For blasting through real work in a lab or long physics academic tasks or projects, it was so much faster and more supple. Probably emblematic of how rote my quant work is these days that I only go aggressively digging every few months... I even bought a real HP12C once for some financial stuff but it falls flat on engineering. New modern 35S for general work and to teach my children, not quite the same heft all-in-all. The horizontal candybar form-factor/UX was killer even before the Nintendo era.

My reaction:

Now *that's* what I'm talking 'bout! Wish I could find mine. A more elegant weapon from a more civilized age...

When I was looking at available aircraft with WAAS and non-WAAS G1000 last year, I believe upgrading requires the GIA units in back for sure, but possibly also a different panel or panels up front to fully use the VNAV features in the exact same way as a G1000 with WAAS from the factory. I was told there was even a button lacking (either on the P/MFD panel or the GFC700 panel). I did not go down this path, so did not verify this nor research the exact model #s and how hard they would be to source. Would tend towards the piece of advice above re: getting a hold of someone who knows this stuff well and confirm exactly what you need, and whether the offered GIA63W's definitely fit your installation. A phone call to a friendly avionics expert might be the ticket... esp. since you will want a shop to install, configure, update, vet the install.

Alright, I couldn't resist. .82 mach at 17K ISA works out to 405KCAS... Man, I should've held out for the Ultra...

That's a new and orthogonal point. I can see the idea, keep speed instead of height for contingencies. Kind of like some single jets accelerating hard on takeoff to preserve options. Sounds fast but also that you don't have a problem showing down... A lot of folks warn me these are hard to slow down. Thanks for the thought provoking point!

Thank you sir, that was exactly the ticket. I had wondered/hoped but did not know they even had M20-specific trainers. Interestingly, the Real Sim Gear guys have an interface between their bezels and the Garmin product (at least for Cirrus). If I do go that route I may see if it works. OTOH that money could just buy some avgas and a GPU, and I already have a book and the many pipes of the interwebs.

Somewhere in the middle age-wise (between this crowd and the masters-of-the-universe 37 yr-old Cirrus pilots) but my ECR (effective curmudgeon rating) is high. I have a mindset very attuned to failure modes, human factors, swiss cheese models of accident occurence, etc. I also have been neck-deep in technology since I can remember. IMO there is a huge difference between 37cent USB chips and good quality 802.11* gear, or hard-wired RS-232/NMEA/etc vs WiFi du jour, and between general-purpose OSes and firmware (esp. TSO'ed panel units). I may be crazy to worry about G1000 failures given the # of years of experience with the system, but I still want backup. As great as the current revs of iOS are, there is still something about a purpose-built unit that is compelling. As for ergo and panel, I'm all ears to all the inputs, but several very experienced folks (incl. Don) have weighed in to me in and out-of-band on the value of having a close-at-hand redundant view, and more so the plates without relying on the G1000. The main input to the contrary has been clutter, hence the discussion above re: a close-in fit to the yoke. I hope to get you a PIREP at some point

Thanks, Dan. I hadn't looked there. Do you mean they have an online simulator/procedure trainer? (so a person wouldn't need the old PC-based trainer) I had been thinking to buy one of the old CD's; I think they used to be in circulation but haven't seen any recently.

Moving down this road myself now... Naïvely searching brings up a different RAM mount: https://www.mypilotstore.com/MyPilotStore/sep/14532 Looking further finds a base/proximal portion that looks like @donkaye's: https://www.sportys.com/ram-claw-yoke-mount-for-garmin-aera-760-a.html But the last piece is not positioned optimally as noted. Further search yields this: https://www.expressmounts.com/ram-mount-extension-cradle-plate-with-ball-rmr-b-164-f (using the part # for the distal plate which is pictured in the example) @donkaye do you recall which exact configuration you bought or where you bought it? Having it in centrally and tight like that looks optimal esp. with regard to CG/center of rotation as you noted. There might be a small increase in moment of inertia but yours and other PIREPs indicate it's a non-issue. David Edit to Add: this looks like the closest "pre-configured" solution: https://rammount.com/products/ram-b-125u There appears to be a choice between a "medium" or "short" socket arm (the dogbone-looking thing that grabs each ball).

Do you have any more information about this? The G1000 is still a bit of a mystery to me in terms of system integration capabilities. Is this a Garmin protocol that runs over RS-232 or some custom connector? IIRC the older panel units could cross-load FP data. That's kind of more what I was thinking, not necessarily the newer wireless stuff which I do not think exists. As I understand it, connection to the newer 345R transponder is purely for positional and traffic/broadcast data, ie. ADS-B received data, not anything from the G1000.

I'm sorry, as you seem pretty dialed-in aeronautically, but doesn't parasitic drag go up as a higher power than 2? The reason that might matter is that those little dudes are pretty small (FWIW I was quoted a very small equivalent flat-plate area of the Type S when clean, so it's a big difference at speed when they pop out) and things are slow in the landing regime. Just following on to the discussing of speed brakes vs. true spoilers (the ground spoilers on a big wing will actually result in significant down force as I understand). D

Hi All, I think this is the right place to post. Looking to buy an old copy of a G1000 (non-NXi) PC trainer for an appropriate single (e.g. Cessna, Diamond, Bonanza, etc) that I can use to prep for flying a G1000 Acclaim. There is an NXi available and some used Mustang discs, but I'm worried they're too different. Thanks, David

I think there was a recent discussion of that, but I am not sure if it's possible with the non-NXi G1000. I would be keenly interested if there is a way to get routing info pushed from the 760 to the G1000. There is probably some RS-232 thing somewhere but it is not clear to me that FP sync can be achieved. I am all ears if so. I am teetering on the verge every night of ordering an Aera 760, in large part due to postings and advice from @donkaye. I am impressed with ForeFlight but have a real old-school desire to have firmware'd or even TSO'd gear as a backup. Got loads of mileage out of a used Garmin unit on the yoke in the past. Anyhow, it sounds like a great backup for plates and SA as well. D

This is a much more general question. Perhaps a lawyer will step in on the legal basis of insurance practice. Insurance companies discriminate heavily and in a fine grained manner based on many things. No way they will give the same policy to a healthy 25 yo as to a fat 52 yo with a positive family history. Even the gravy train of last resort (the government) implicitly does this with up front selection eg for military, as they may own the lifetime risk, eg disability determination when mustering out etc. We may see something interesting with the "all people should be made perfectly equal" vibe in political society currently. There is already some mandated risk acceptance in the law, eg portability. I suspect there won't be enough of a lobby to force companies to take hits on GA, not enough of an audience of voters to appeal to. Just my hunch. Not an insurance guy, just a physician who's watched the govt play Econ 102 Sim Lab with healthcare for 15yrs... DK

That's sad to hear. Guessing from your handle you were going to do some dentistry?

All of that seems pretty concerning to me. Intensive training should IMHO still be dependent on each student. Has anyone here used PIC (Professional Instrument Courses)? https://www.iflyifr.com/ I used their textbook during my training which I found extremely cogent and thoughtful despite it's relatively short length (I'd already done ground school with the Jepp Textbook but this covered all the academics very practically as a review). I thought I would consider them if I ever went for this type of refresher training. Maybe a resource if you want something else to finish up. I would think you would want to view that original school with a lot of skepticism. HTH

That thread on # of hours going into a Mooney is an interesting read. -Background: just shy of 300 hrs TT, instrument-rated, about 40-50 hrs HP. Solo'ed as a young kid at an Air Force base club but never got my PPL until later on (time and money). When I did it was with a very dialed-in instructor who'd just come from a part 141 school and trained me with that mindset and syllabus (though I did not do 141). Flows, ComAir checklists, tight standards. Flew often and got extra training because that's what I wanted (mountains, some IMC/IFR, etc). I can really feel the effects of the Law of Primacy through my subsequent training (great IFR instructor but less formalized in his style, and several more variable instructors), and even as I've done some refresher work recently. Long hiatus from GA during which I flew only as non-pilot crew. - I went through a different but related calculus this year. I chose an aircraft driven by a practical mission (new commute, though obv. other benefits including getting back into GA). I definitely "feel" the intent behind your thinking and resemble it in some ways, though want to caution others. My thoughts for what they're worth: - I haven't started my Mooney transition so I am speaking to other aspects, which will apply to you more or less based on your situation (see below) - Since you're on the front end, I think you should consider the overall journey, not just the later phases of getting used to the Mooney and flying it. - Cost will be a lot less in most cases to do initial training in rented trainers. - Availability, as mentioned, will likely be better if you're less dependent on a specific airplane. This will directly affect your time to progress (in any way) and hassle factor. What are your resources? - finding an airplane was a significant part-time job for me; so much so that I decided to defer some other projects outside of work and also effectively postponed my refresher training. It was distracting and a lot of time and some money. - I was tempted to shortcut this by outsourcing to an expert or making simplifying assumptions; after modest digging I realized this would sacrifice a lot of suitability, or money, or both. So I ended up being a lot more detailed. For all I know I might still have hurried too much. One broker I spoke with asked 3% to take the problem out of my hands and find me several aircraft based on mission and vet them. I ended up benefiting from smart advice gratis and selectively hiring out different tasks and advice, but still drove the process. - How taxing is the rest of your life? I was nearly "all in" outside of work as a single person when I doubled-down on getting my PPL in early 2000's and doing a good job. And work wasn't too taxing at that time (ha, that has varied). For instruments, I had a busy but regimented life that I could manage, and was very motivated for several reason. If you have a lot of money, do you also have time? One alone isn't quite enough. - The value of doing good primary and instrument training is IMHO enormous. People have mentioned mil pilot candidates here. I was a flight surgeon. Those people are young, talented (from whom much is given, much is expected), and *focused* for the most part. It is also 110% clear their job is to learn and perform. It is hard to convey some of the stress (I speak mainly from the post-Clinton USAF viewpoint, it might've been different before). But to suggest that dropping a highly-selected 20-something into a T-38 after surviving UPT is similar to an accessible civ path is I think risking missing some factors. The Navy primary experience back in the day has some relevance I imagine.... I think a better analog might be (from my observation) a smart fast-burner going to a part 141 school, taking advantage of opportunities afterwards (CFI, traffic, sight seeing, etc), being disciplined/professional and getting into the regionals with a few 100 hrs in a good job market. -> My instinct from multiple observations and the psych/human factors viewpoint is that what we civ-primary pilots should target is: - adequate focus/resources on whatever we do - structured and pedagogically-sound teaching (that's part of the value of 141 but there are also instructors out there who make things magically clear and spin gold from their lips, but they aren't all that way) - intelligently managing our own paths. - So, my practical advice is: 1. get the best foundation you can, doesn't matter if in dinky slow planes, they'll make you better for the experience (and save money and dispatch waits!), for our situations plan right away to continue to instruments. If you've got the money and bandwidth, also do tailwheel to improve your stick-and-rudder skills, upsets/aero etc., get some XC experience. 2. in parallel learn about the space and the planes you like (Mooneys, of course, right?). Kind of like keeping an eye open for real estate or learning to shop with appreciation without buying (I try to teach this to my children). Then when you pull the trigger on that antique watch (or Encore, or Acclaim?) all the parts will snap into place... Other thoughts: You might be a highly-capable person and be able to navigate this well. You might also be very well-resourced and can effect shortcuts that will get you there faster. But the training aspect, and the unknown/known unknowns in aircraft sourcing can only be boiled down so far. All of the above and $2.79 will get you a small coffee somewhere HTH, David

Merry Christmas all!