PTK

Quote: OR75 just saying that avionics / panel have been advancing much faster than powerplants and airframes. I understand that's how technology goes sometimes. Not a perfect world. I fly to go somewhere rather than to look at my my panel. What I have on the panel is only there to help me get there safely. Else, i would just configure flight simulator with the avionics I want.

Quote: OR75 what I would want in an engine ? just like what the airlines got: more power, less fuel as they go from 4 or 3 to 2 engines. VOR/RNAV and Loran are/were bullet proof.

Quote: fantom "Please educate me" I don't have that much time, or patience ;-) What you're not getting is that almost ALL our upgrade choices are "nice but unnecessary". Yours certainly was.

Quote: OR75 just wishing there was as much technology progress on the powerplant side as there is on the pannel side to keep a certain balance. We still fly behind piston engines developped several decades ago.

Quote: fantom "It's nice but unnecessary" Just like putting a GTN 750, GMA 35 and GTX 33 in an otherwise old panel....

Quote: Becca I agree Parker100%. How about in the case where a reputable buyer places a deposit proceeds to AND pays for prebuy, sets up a date to close and pickup the airplane, buys an airline ticket to get there, arranges for a safety pilot to fly home with, purchases an airline ticket to fly safety pilot back, only to find out the night before the airplane isn't available! And then takes a year and the threat of legal action to get "refundable" deposit back! What do you think in that case?

Quote: fantom Well, I think we certainly DON'T have the complete story ~

Quote: Parker_Woodruff Plenty of buyers will deposit a "refundable deposit" with a reputable dealer because they know it's refundable. Then they will waffle and waffle and waffle on a purchase because they were not mentally comitted to buying the plane. In that case, I have no problem with a broker releasing the plane to someone else (serious buyer) who puts a deposit on the aircraft.

Quote: Parker_Woodruff Well, I actually see good value in the Aspen with the GPSS being included in their PFD. Installers ain't all culprits either. It costs a lot of money to operate an install shop...or 99% of aviation businesses for that matter. Don't know where you got the India intel...I was under the impression that Aspen is working on it...

Quote: fantom Couldn't agree more, Parker. There are probably more PIA, cheapskate, know nothing, blowhard, time wasting, tire kicking shoppers around, than decent, value added brokers, like AAA, who are by almost all accounts, the best in the business.

Quote: OR75 I did not say Garmin was the culprit. I did not say they did or did not deserve to make a profit. They are in the business to make a profit and it is good for them if they do. I am sure their marketing team understands how to market and price their products. I am not sure I would be crying over their margin if I knew what it was. A WAAS upgrade on an old GNS430 is $3000. Turning now to installers/shops, it is frustrating not knowing upfront what the final cost was going to be. Also, I have not always been happy with the collateral damage done during an install (like cable mess behind the panel and broken plastic).

Quote: OR75 last time I checked, Garmin was not in the non-profit category. Why wouldn't they charge as much as the traffic can bear ? In my view their purchase of ups a few years back (around 2003 if I can recall) was not a good thing for the cosummer down the road.

Quote: fantom Thanks for the excellent write-up Craig. Your factual analysis with specific reasoning and sound logic is something we can all learn from. I also like the G500 aesthetics, and give weight to how much Parker liked his unit. But dealing with robber baron Garmin, who charge as much as the traffic will bear for everything, and don't think twice about obsolescing their last offering with no reasonable upgrade potential, is foolhardy, IMO. Peter and Aspen have proved extremely pilot customer friendly from all reports, and their technical innovations have made the bigger guys go back to the drawing board. You have the best looking and most functional Mooney retrofit panel I've ever seen. Well done!

Quote: mooniac58 I did. In fact, before I went to my shop I was 100% sold on having a G500. Once you start looking at the two there is no comparison in my opinion. Let me give you the hit list I came up with: - Aspen with a PFD/MFD (2 screens) is completely redundent. Each display has its own ADHARS unit (this is the brain of your glass system that knows your pitch, roll, wind computer, etc, etc). If your PFD ADHARS or anything in that system fails you just press the REV button and your are back online in a fully isolated system. With a G500 if your ADHARS unit dies your whole glass panel just died. - Due to the above item, you can remove the vaccuum from your aircraft if your aircraft type certificate allows for this (Mooney does). - With Aspen you only need a backup AI (no altimter or airspeed required). In my case, this was the only reason I could move my engine computer into the left pilots panel. - Aspen lets you do a lot more at the same time. Each screen can split into 1, 2 or 3 panels letting you set each one to what you want. G500 requires you to look at one thing at a time. With a full 3 screen system I have be looking at 8 things at once if I choose to. With G500 3 is the max. - Battery backups. The Aspens each have 30 minute battery backups (that really last about 50 minutes in my experience) plus I have the optional 2 hour battery on my MFD. - GPS Backup - in the event of a primary GPS failure (ie your 530 or 430) your Aspen has a built in GPS that will take over so you can complete your flight without a hitch. This saves you a lot of $$ if you would normally have two GPS units to cover this kind of failure - Costs of add ons and upgrades. Aspen does not charge you an arm and leg for everything. Geo approach plates are 1/3 the cost of Garmin, SVT is $3000 compared to $5000, and most updates Aspen offers are free of charge. XM weather was about half the cost of the Garmin solution. - Great company. Aspen support is second to no one. If you have a problem with your unit a new one is on your shops front door the next morning, no problem. - Data handling. If your G500 geo plates expire (you failed to update them in their 28 day cycle) you will not be able to load them. With Aspens, you can still use them but get a warning they are expired. The only two things I could find better on the G500 when I looked at the two side by side was: - XM Radio - the Garmin XM receiver and G500 will let you play XM radio stations into your audio panel - Aestetics. I really do like the look of the two wider (but shorter) screens. However, now that I have the 3 Aspen screens I like it much better overall, and I have much more power and flexibility than I would ever have with a G500. Also note that while the G500 seems cheaper than three Aspen screens (the Evolution 2500 package) - at the end of the day you will come out about even. This is because the G500 is a very labor intensive install (about 100-120 hours in a Mooney). Aspens are significantly less, especially if you forgo the panel re-cut and just drop them in your old 6-pack holes.

Quote: mooniac58 I did. In fact, before I went to my shop I was 100% sold on having a G500. Once you start looking at the two there is no comparison in my opinion. Let me give you the hit list I came up with: - Aspen with a PFD/MFD (2 screens) is completely redundent. Each display has its own ADHARS unit (this is the brain of your glass system that knows your pitch, roll, wind computer, etc, etc). If your PFD ADHARS or anything in that system fails you just press the REV button and your are back online in a fully isolated system. With a G500 if your ADHARS unit dies your whole glass panel just died. - Due to the above item, you can remove the vaccuum from your aircraft if your aircraft type certificate allows for this (Mooney does). - With Aspen you only need a backup AI (no altimter or airspeed required). In my case, this was the only reason I could move my engine computer into the left pilots panel. - Aspen lets you do a lot more at the same time. Each screen can split into 1, 2 or 3 panels letting you set each one to what you want. G500 requires you to look at one thing at a time. With a full 3 screen system I have be looking at 8 things at once if I choose to. With G500 3 is the max. - Battery backups. The Aspens each have 30 minute battery backups (that really last about 50 minutes in my experience) plus I have the optional 2 hour battery on my MFD. - GPS Backup - in the event of a primary GPS failure (ie your 530 or 430) your Aspen has a built in GPS that will take over so you can complete your flight without a hitch. This saves you a lot of $$ if you would normally have two GPS units to cover this kind of failure - Costs of add ons and upgrades. Aspen does not charge you an arm and leg for everything. Geo approach plates are 1/3 the cost of Garmin, SVT is $3000 compared to $5000, and most updates Aspen offers are free of charge. XM weather was about half the cost of the Garmin solution. - Great company. Aspen support is second to no one. If you have a problem with your unit a new one is on your shops front door the next morning, no problem. - Data handling. If your G500 geo plates expire (you failed to update them in their 28 day cycle) you will not be able to load them. With Aspens, you can still use them but get a warning they are expired. The only two things I could find better on the G500 when I looked at the two side by side was: - XM Radio - the Garmin XM receiver and G500 will let you play XM radio stations into your audio panel - Aestetics. I really do like the look of the two wider (but shorter) screens. However, now that I have the 3 Aspen screens I like it much better overall, and I have much more power and flexibility than I would ever have with a G500. Also note that while the G500 seems cheaper than three Aspen screens (the Evolution 2500 package) - at the end of the day you will come out about even. This is because the G500 is a very labor intensive install (about 100-120 hours in a Mooney). Aspens are significantly less, especially if you forgo the panel re-cut and just drop them in your old 6-pack holes.

Quote: RJBrown AAA was the worst being verbally abusive and hanging up.

Did you consider the G500 in your decision making process?

Quote: HopePilot So on a 100F+ degree, humid, day we have to execute a go around. We are at about 500 ft, with very little climb rate, as I retract the gear. Without telling me my CFI raises the flaps (doesn't "milk them"). This is followed by a pronounced sinking feeling, like the floor has fallen out. I now have my hands full as I am working to maintain our airspeed until everything has cycled. The thing I don't get is that he used to own an "E." It was probably quite a bit lighter (my "J" is on the heavy side), and maybe he could get away with it. Opinions? I don't usually get mad, but I was annoyed.

Quote: txbyker Being relatively new at Mooney ownership (1987 M20J) I have some questions for you guys in regards to landings. What do you do with the yoke when all 3 wheels are down, leave it neutral, keep elevators up, push them down, flaps at full? The reason I ask this is that when I land I seem to continue to float down the runway even though all three wheels are down and throttle is at idle. If I apply the brakes hard to try to slow before a taxiway exit I can skid very easily which tells me I dont have a lot of weight on the tires. I have missed a desired exit or two. Do you push forward on the yoke to create more weight on the wheels or just leave it neutral? I have a lot of hours in C172s and was taught often to keep the yoke back and noise up to lighten weight there. I might be favoring a pulled back yoke position which in my mind will keep the plane light on the wheels.

Sounds like everybody uses HDG mode on the ap. Reason I ask is I had the ap on NAV mode flying an approach. It requires a course reversal which is part of nonstandard holding pattern to the right. In nav mode it tracks fine to a transition and then outbound. When it comes time for the course reversal the plate requires a parallel entry and turn to the right of approx 210 degrees to reintercept the course inbound. In nav mode the autopilot wants to fly the course reversal to the left! But the plate says parasllel entry to the right! So I have to be in HDG mode to accomplish this and follow the plate. Or be vectored by ATC to final. I'm referring to KMIV ILS 10 approach if anyone cares to look it up. Coming into Ladie, which is the FAF, on the 236 degree radial from VCN and turning right outbound the course reversal is to the right, but ap wants to go left in Nav mode. The GTN does properly, it seems, annunciate parallel entry although it could be teardrop also. It's just that in NAV mode the ap wants to go left. I guess it's not getting it that it is non standard entry?? Is it possible that the GTN annunciates parallel entry but the ap is trying to fly a teardrop?? Does it matter that Ladie is also the FAF??. Any suggestions?? Can someone shed some light on this?? Thanks!

Quote: txbyker Allsmiles, just wondering why wouldnt you fly it in APR mode? I flew an APR approach with GTN and it tracks it very well.

Quote: flyboy0681 Yesterday we were using the KAP150 in Approach mode. Watching it fly the glideslope was incredibly cool but one thing we did notice was that when it flew the localizer it was sort of "scalloping" and not flying a really straight-in approach even though the wind was fairly calm. It was making shallow "S" turns. Had you experienced that at all?

More WOW!!!! moments today ! I flew a few GPS approaches. It is definitely cool to fly an LPV approach with autopilot capturing the GS and bringing the airplane down the roller coaster to ILS like minimums without any ground aids and totally by satellite!! I never had this capability before until now with the GTN750 and it is definitely awesome!! I do have one question however if someone cares to entertain. Do you guys fly an approach with ap in NAV mode or HDG? I have the KFC150 and GTN750. I know in vectors to final we fly HDG but I'm referring to self flying the approach to a transition outside the FAF without being vectored. Do you fly in NAV or HDG mode?? And if the answer is NAV mode I have another specific question to follow!! Thanks!! HAPPY FOURTH TO ALL!!!

I reasearched this a few months ago. It seems to be a fairly priced portable (VFR) that will probably do an average job. If you want a battery and an antenna you must buy EXTERNAL ones. You can plug it in to the cig lighter and you will want a least the antena. All this means higher cost but what's worst, permanent WIRES AND MORE WIRES all over the place. It would get old real fast in my airplane as I like a neat cockpit! Also it doesn't come with a mount. A yoke mount is available but, IMHO, the unit is too big to mount on the yoke so it must sit on the right seat. Maybe an iPAD is better if you are going to have it on the right seat because you can take it with you after your flight. Considering all these points I would rather look towards an Aera and mount it neatly in a panel dock! You need to compare it to other portables and not to the GTN! BTW I just had the GTN750 installed along wih the GMA35 and GTX33. I couldn't be happier with my decision. Check out the not so good pics on my gallery!

Quote: flyboy0681 I feel the same about Anglisano's piece, he seemed to miss the mark. I was also dismayed by the feedback they published from one Bruce Jordan about the memory requirements for the GTN simulator software. My PC does not have 5 gig of RAM and the simulator works just fine. I don't even think he got the numbers backwards because my PC only has one gig of RAM and the simulator works great.