rob

Quote: Parker_Woodruff I really like the Aspen option if you are going to stick with the C model or ANY airplane with a less than standard 6 pack. It lets all your information be right in one, well laid out place. I've flown a couple C models that I wouldn't even want to touch in IFR just because of the layout and not to mention old vacuum instruments.

Quote: Piloto The Aspen display will do nothing for the mission profile, safety, comfort or dispatchability. But it will make the panel prettier to you and that may be what is important to you. José

Correct, the 250 Is VFR only. I misspoke earlier, I have the GS Indicator, I guess it's a 209 and not a 208. My position on swapping to the 300 is that the 300 will add nothing to the value of the plane, and little to the flyability. The 430, while more expensive, will add value to the plane (probably about as much as the delta in price) and also will make it more attractive. When I do get my ticket, I intend to use it - If the conditions are safe, I'll fly the plane. I'd much rather do this with a WAAS equipped 430 than a 300XL that's not even produced anymore. For these reasons, I'm not considering the 300 at this time.

I'm considering putting an Aspen (and a 430) in my 65 C and want some opinions. The plane has about 4500 hours on it w/ 800 on the engine, no squaks, a gear up about 20 years ago. Good paint, good interior. I've got a pretty nice panel - Garmin 250XL, Garmin 340 Audio, Garmin 327 Xponder, and a KX155 w/ Glideslope. I've also got an S-Tec 30. My portable is an Aera 560. All told, it's one of the nicer older C models I've ever seen. Full engine analyser and fuel flow also. I don't currently have GPSS Roll Steering, and my current indicator (KI-208 I think?) doesn't support the GPS. I'm not instrument rated, but have 500+ hours and am going to get my butt in gear and get the instrument rating soon. My mission generally involves long (500+ mile) Cross Countries. I'm pretty sure I want a Garmin 430 at a minimum, but the additional costs of installing it and adding the roll steering and changing out the indicator to support the GPS make the Aspen costs make a bit more sense. I'm conscious of the fact that when I'm done with this I'll have enough invested that I could have a pretty nice F or even J instead, but my mission doesn't currently need the extra room, and mine is among the faster C models I'm aware of anyhow. I don't want to put myself in a completely upside-down position on the plane, and would most likely finance the improvements. So, spend my money - if you were me, what would you do? Should I skip the Aspen? Should I swap the KX-155 for the 430, or should I replace the 250XL? Dual GPS's would be nice? Should I remove em both and put in an SL-30 to interface to the 430?

Why do so many people insist on making every landing [except strong, gusty crosswinds] with full flaps? In almost three years' and 300 hours in my Mooney, I can count my full-flap landings on my fingers.

Mine was a 64GB Wifi version. While it may well have been the "bad apple" (pun intended) of the bunch, my experience with the folks at Apple (Saddle Creek Store in Memphis) was not a good one and the lack of useful applications for it made me not want to deal with an exchange anyway. I work in IT and have been using Apple products for 20+ years, even pre-Macintosh. They are what they are; often times, that's early to market with a lot of buzz - there are numerous examples of that going all the way back to the Newton. The iPad reminds me of that - a potentially good idea that's not quite ready to go. I'll revisit in a year when the platform is more mature and the apps more refined.

I was referring to the original iPhone, not the current 3Gs one. Though I do wonder if the iPad battery will suffer the same fate as the iPhones, rapidly degrading to the point of not lasting an entire workday. As far as specific problems I had with the iPad - I was victim to the Wifi glitch, I had frequently crashing Apps, including the mail app, which is embedded and written by apple. While some will claim that the iPad is not a data entry device (I disagree and would have utilized an external keyboard if I had kept it), I still expect that I can consume media, including email on it, without incident. Specific emails that were plain-text with a simple attachment (pdf or jpg) would crash the application repeatedly. The same email was not problematic on my iPhone. Apple denied that there was a problem even after witnessing it. I also found the device to be too big. I encourage anyone who's thinking about buying one to go play with one. It needs to be about 1 - 1.5" smaller on both dimensions, then it would make sense to me. As it stands, it's big and heavy and cumbersome to use. All in all, it's not ready for prime time. The "office" applications aren't compatible with the industry standards, the wifi isn't compatible with the RFC, the Apps are not ready for primetime (even Foreflight was not fully functional last I checked) My advice - wait a year. For the same money you'll get a slightly smaller, more efficient, and lighter device.

I bought, and subsequently returned, an iPad. I found it to be a waste of time. Was hopeful that it would be more useful, but I had trouble with it from the start - even things as simple as reading mail weren't working properly. I think this, like the iPhone, needs some time to mature...

I didn't even make it a full year in my Cherokee before I had the itch to move into the Mooney. I see you're in Adams, TN - if you're ever down near Memphis, let me know. I fly a 65 M20C that I think is the perfect airplane! Would I like the speed of a J, sure, but I'm not willing to pay the premium for it. I love my manual flaps and gear, and have a T Panel in so it's a modern looking interior. It's plenty big for anything I've ever wanted to do, including a short trip with 2 men and 2 women, or a long trip with 3 guys. I don't find the throttle/prop/mixture controls the least bit awkward either... That's my 2 cents!

Regarding maintenance and upkeep of a Cherokee vs. a Mooney: I had a 1981 Warrior prior to my 1965 M20C. Was the Warrior's annual cheaper? Yes, it was, but that was more than made up for in the amount of fuel I *don't* burn going the same places in my Mooney. The Cherokee is a very plain and simple airframe. A great trainer or weekend flyer. The Mooney, as All-American calls it is a "real" airplane. The gear retracts. It's fast and slick. Of course maintenance will be higher, but the value is also higher. My M20C has been relatively trouble free. There have been no Mooney-specific issues (ok, so maybe a bit of a fuel tank repatch, but no big deal) in the time I've owned it. I do expect to replace the landing gear springs at the next annual. A Warrior wouldn't have had that cost. But my Warrior had it's own issues, all airplanes do - new or old. Get the Mooney. You'll not regret it. If you get the Piper or the Grumman you'll always wonder what it would have been like to be in a Mooney. If you get the Mooney, you'll not care about the other two.

Does it have to be exactly 75% power? Actually, come to think of it, I don't see how anyone could make such a statement - the airplane's not going to roll onto its back unless you allow it to do so. I've done power on stalls in my Mooney multiple times and have never come close.

A HOWTO on this would definitely be appreciated!

Quote: hansel The panel looks great! I also have the PS8000 in the same arrangment. PS Engineering did a great job with this product-- I'm sure you'll be happy with the results.

The 4 cardinal direction groundspeed average will not be as accurate as a little simple trig (the formulas are well published and easy to locate) on the same four course run. Do yourself a favor and do the real math.

Does anyone have any experience with flying into either KPIL or KBRO to head to South Padre for a weekend? Pro's/Con's, suggestions welcome! Thanks!

I also do a lot of non-standard pattern landings due to airspace. What I try to do is think of a straight-in as a pattern without the turns. I still try to compare where I am to where I would be if I was flying a full pattern - and setup the plane as I would in the equivalent space. In other words, I think of a straight in as sort of an "unwrapped" pattern. I also spend about one day every three months or so doing several full patterns (at a field nearby with a 4 light PAPI) just to refresh and reinforce the sight picture in my mind.

Add me to the fray. I had 130 hours, all in FG aircraft (most in a Warrior) when I bought my M20C in May of 08. 10 Dual and 10 Solo later and I was flying her from Mississippi to Montana and all over creation. I had little if any problems making the transition and now have accumulated over 300 hours in the Mooney, and haven't had any troubles. A low time pilot can most certainly fly em! As has been said, things happen faster and require planning, but otherwise, you pull back and a Mooney goes up, just like any other airplane.

I had my DG overhauled about 9 months/200 hours ago and haven't had any problems out of it since. I had the folks at Rudy Aircraft Instruments do it and they did it pretty quick. It's an S-Tec linked DG and I believe the OH cost somewhere around 400. YMMV.

My aircraft has both the strobes and the beacon. I generally run the beacon as the load on the system is identical. I figure once the beacon gives up the ghost, I'll remove it and run the strobes

Averaging any number of legs will be less accurate than the method KSMooniac is advocating. However, both will be close enough for the girls I go out with if you include at least three legs. Additionally, no accurate method will show a NA E model doing 180kts.

If the GPS showed 183 groundspeed and you had 20-25 behind you, then you're doing 160 or so TAS. At the altitude you're referring to, I'd expect to indicate about 145-150 if I was doing 160 true. Your picture, though, shows an IAS of 160, and a GS of 183. At 3500' that would be about 170kts TAS, so the winds would have had to have been 10-15 behind you instead of the 20-25. You appear to be in a descent from the photograph taken.

I think that either your ASI is malfunctioning or you're misreading it (might it be in MPH?). The speeds mentioned, especially 160k IAS at 7000 are significantly faster than you should be. I don't think ANY NA Mooney is that fast... (You're talking about a 180kt true airplane) Additionally, it makes no sense for you to indicate 155kts when your ferry pilot indicated 160 at twice the altitude. IAS should decline as altitude goes up.

I would land with the existing traffic. 5 knots is no big deal. Jeff, fly the proper airspeeds and you won't experience any float.

About a month back I was returning to Memphis from the Detroit area. A front was moving in across the entire route of flight, and it looked to mirror my path almost exactly. Lightly loaded, I was only able to muster approx 95kts groundspeed, even after dropping down to around 2000'.

I saw 175kts GS in my C the other day at 5500' and it made me start shopping for Js