dkkim73

This could be the site subheader.

This was my experience, though it did not surprise some of the knowledgeable people I asked. Early on I would go full rich and run at low power for minutes in the descent and approach to landing (the plane is slick and holds on to energy, hence the speed brakes, but you learn to plan ahead and it's a feature later on as you can come blistering in at 200KTAS for not much fuel until near the IAF). Anyhow, it would be low power and rich for several minutes coming in for landing and then I would goose it after a bounce and it was quiet for longer than I liked. The net assessment is that it was just too full of fuel. Now I just go comfortably Rich of Peak in the descent (earlier or later depending on how cold it is outside, to keep cylinder temps up a bit) and run a depliberate ROP (but not full rich) setting based on power/TIT or empirically around 1450F TIT during the approach or maneuvering phases and only go full rich on roll-out. The throttle is adequately responsive in this scenario if I need to finesse it in ground effect or go around. The TSIO-550G seems to favor adding power more gradually in this regime, and part-throttle is plenty to stop descending, so I go throttle-mix-throttle if I am truly going around. Sounds more complicated than it is. And I am not a CFI and may not be describing it in its exact essentials. But you can learn all of this quickly. Not sure if this applies to the slightly smaller Continentals, though I think there are conceptual commonalities in the injection systems. Above very low power the engine is entirely intuitive in response as most are. The engine "flows" well. Continental runs better LOP on the average than Lycoming based on PIREPs here, which is a huge plus for me (efficiency difference is significant, I was looking at 208KTAS at 23ishgph vs 195KTAS at 17-18ishgph a few days ago... [from memory], less cylinder stress, etc). Lycoming has other advantages (different valve problems). It is a broader Ford-v-Chevy decision that is not Mooney-specific. There are capabilities resulting from the net match up (there is a chart of different Mooney models that reflects engine + some airframe specifics). E.g. climb rate and top speeds higher in the Acclaim. That said many very knowledgeable people consciously choose the Bravo for engine reasons. Hope this is not too much of a detour for your original set of questions. D

It's important to review authoritative documentary material on this:

If you're shorter you can stand on your knees on the seat and then put the forward foot on the strip, then stand up.

Thank you, makes sense. Of course can't switch totally outside without specified visual references legally or by common sense. I am more thinking of technique in terms of scan, altitude callouts etc. Since it takes attention to re orient, if you leave the needles too long and then look back it can take a second etc. A meta point I suppose is that you shouldn't be too much in a hurry to leave a stabilized situation just because you are somewhat visual.

I had been concerned about this, having had only a few hrs of turbo experience beforehand. I did the Advanced Pilot Seminars online engine management course (Deakin et al) which was several hours, read some mooneyspace and Mike Busch, and it all came together fairly quickly and intuitively. I agree it's bad if you can't or won't learn, but it's sensible and straightforward if you have a good engine monitor. It actually makes some phases easier (climb full forward, set MP in cruise instead of learningy to react to it, etc). Overall I find the modern turbo to be easier to plan for and fly. Tricky part for me was the low end for the big Continental and getting the fuel setting and leaning right near idle, responsiveness on a go around etc. But that's not the turbo, and all engines have finicky regimes. Of course Paul has forgot more than I know, so perhaps his caution should be applied a priori. Martin sounds like a pretty detail oriented person, though. On other topics: - my wife is taller and had ceiling clearance issues with my older bulky headset (battery pack for lip light on top band, big padded band etc). Solved with a light in ear headset. But the seat is probably cranked up more vertical than it was designed. Still, overall height not an issue for many people I know. Legroom not an issue. I tried to wiggle around around and get something from the backseat floor the other day. I admit it's tight in some ways. But it's very ergonomic. Sports car is a good analogy. - turbo invaluable for mountain flying. Was just looking at a map of Croatia. Your routes should be great fun and learning to fly. Can't imagine it won't give you flexibility and time back. - how much of a project do you want vs something ready to go? An Acclaim with FIKI would be turnkey. Ask me how I know - avionics an issue? Better avionics with big screen and modern UX might help with busy airspaces (I don't have a sense of your background) You seem very thoughtful and interested. Welcome aboard!

@GeeBee Interesting. I can relate to the duck under, although some of that comes from my concern for not being too fast or high in this plane. Has this changed your practices in the real world in the Mooney? Do you continue to look at the indications after verifying you've broken out until a lower point? Or do you simply more intentionally stay on the GP/GS visually?

Happy New Year!

Amen, brother! Good to meet you last summer, happy new year to you and your wife!

This is non intuitive but I also think true. I agree with several instructors who have consistently said "it's easier to fly the real airplane". Although I suppose the X Plane Mooney does not bounce as much. Which is not realistic. The real plane dials in the energy and speed management and maneuvering in ground effect better. But we are mostly talking about IAPs here...

Easy there, Rockefeller!

I actually almost made an 8-Track comment. Your response validates me. Or damns us both. Who knows. The 8-Track (when I was a little kid I called them "ape track tapes") is actually a quintessential retro format, less effete than the Betamax video tape. I can't help think of them when I see older classic cars or reboots like the Dodge Challenger Comp T/A 392 (ref: The 2017 Dodge Challenger T/A 392 Is A Middle Finger To The Future Of Cars) I did a regional flight with my daughter yesterday and we actually used the $20 bluetooth dongle instead so we could both listen to music. I started with the AOPA 100 flight playlist and she picked stuff later inclduing "Staying Alive". So I kicked the rudder in time with the hand motions. Good times.

@GeeBee does the RedBird have a setup that can simulate the M20R, or any Mooney? Or do you essentially have a G1000 Cessna with that arrangement? I imagine it would still be very useful as 85% of the thinking and almost all the Garmin switchology will be the same. I have a frankensimulator at home right now with touchscreens and Airpanel manager with X-plane. It's not completely set up, and there are some quirks getting the Acclaim and G1000 simulation going well. It's a work in progress and I haven't used it too much to date. I couldn't quite get to spending for the Real Sim Gear physical panels, though that would improve it. The ideal along this path would be the RSG panels, a force feedback yoke, etc. Plus a custom physical panel if you're an enthusiast or retired maybe... some people go quite a ways and do simulated ATC, etc. I used to be much more diligent with sim early on (after my IFR ticket in the 2000's), had a copy of Elite IFR and would practice multiple approaches with that. Overall, I tend to agree that the value of sims is primarily rigorous drilling of IFR workflow. And the BATD would help get credit for that. There is a Redbird at the local airport and I might just sign up to try it.

Do you find that the phonograph skips unless the air is really smooth?

Yeah, did that for a while, or tried to delay start up. Kind of cumbersome. Also, helpful to get notifications if waiting for text, and music is occasionally nice. So I oversimplified it a bit. But yes, you are correct to insinuate I am not living up to my CB aspirations.

I've been very impressed with the DC One-X(P). I wanted some passive attentuation, so I didn't look at the A20 and A30 beyond just making sure they weren't subjectively that much better to me. My toughest choice was between the Zulu 3 (very well-built) and the One-X(P) (P is the LEMO plug option). Voice clarity is excellent and it's surprisingly light. My prior headset (have had it for 26 yrs, still use it) is the DC 10-13.4 with a retrofit years ago to the Headsets Inc ANC system (just a bit of soldering, not hard) and a refresh a couple yrs ago with Oregon Aero muffs and a headband. Still very comfortable and great sound, I just needed BT for clearance calls fairly often. It's my main passenger headset. So you could probably find an affordable rebuilt/used solution if you wanted. Agree DC's factory service has been good for many years. A minor plug for Sporty's, as they were very helpful in the selection process and were pretty assertive about encouraging me to try headsets and swap them if I wanted. Also the local avionics shop let me borrow to try, you might try that option. HTH

@Ibra you are living the dream! Great pics. Wish I'd got back into GA when my kids were still little.

Don't worry, a carrier-style smackdown followed by a cinematic slow motion bounce will be along shortly... But , kidding aside, I'm sincerely happy for you in the meantime. It's been an engaging journey figuring out the dynamics of this airframe.

How is it that you are so knowledgeable in discrete, orthogonal areas? I stand corrected. Re-listening is fun, I must admit...

Or Tom Jones. In case you're attacked by Martians...

@Mscheuer Interesting. I can see why that might be problematic. Posturally even if not technically. I suppose the whole fact that there is a communication protocol means it's a different beast. Too bad. I think there's room in the ecosystem for both. And I really like what I read about the capabilities of the PS Engineering units. Looks like a lot of thoughtful and clever features that work backwards and forwards in design terms.

This is actually oddly interesting to me as I recall helping a CCT with otologic issues when I was a flight doc (I caught an odd diagnosis actually, and the insight from going out with them on training ops was very contributory). Did you do the JTAC qual as part of being an attack pilot, liaison, etc?

I assume you couldn't hear anything over the main speed brake. I think it's a GAU something-or-other...

Now you've done it.

I think that might really be the answer to the question. Otherwise it might be just splitting hairs; several of the turbo Mooneys would "be able to do it" for the occasional long flight, and be great for regional jaunts. Hard to beat for 2.5 hrs-ish. I'm pro FIKI but a lot of good points have already been brought up.