Jeff_S

Applied for the Navy AOCS, was ultimately not accepted due to flat feet. This was 1986, the summer of Top Gun, so they could use whatever reasons they wanted to weed out candidates. In retrospect I wish I would have fought harder to get in, but I was young and carefree, pissed off at the rejection and decided to go teach skiing instead. Plus, I was in that generation which still had the tail end of the bad feelings about Viet Nam, so the military was not seen quite as positively then as now. But my Dad was a Navy physician so that's always been my favorite service. Besides, Navy uniforms are the absolute coolest!

My wife has a Clarity Aloft for the same reasons as mentioned...mostly so they won't mess up her hair! It is crucial to use the correctly sized in-ear piece, however. Otherwise they don't form a good seal and they are useless.

Actually, it turned into a named Tropical Storm (Julia) while it was sitting on top of us. Pretty wild...apparently that was the first time since they've been keeping records that a system turned into a tropical storm while over land. I guess that shows you how hot Florida was this year...ha! Checked the plane out today...all is well. And clean and shiny.

We only come down here for a week or two at a time so I don't bother with a hangar. The FBO has no hangar space for transients, although there is a new maintenance shop that's opened up that purportedly has some. Generally speaking I don't worry about a few weeks outside as long as there's no hail in the forecast. Like I said, I just got a free wash last night!

So, this system never progressed to be more than Invest 93 but it's still pretty wild to be sitting right in the eye of this big low pressure on the NE coast of Florida. My poor Mooney is tied up outside but I battened it down earlier tonight. It's just getting a good bath to wash off the two weeks of salty air! Check out the wind barbs between St. Augustine and Fernandina Beach. The eye is right over us at the blue dot. Pretty cool.

Thanks Robert. Give us the scoop!

God, finally. I was wondering when Spacers' Law would take hold. Please, someone, send in the fat chicks!

Very funny...so stupid people fly drones, too! Although c'mon George...I'm pretty sure that was a chimpanzee and not a monkey. You know, first American in space! (Or was that a dog...I forget.)

Yes, keep us updated on pricing and lead times. I'm away from home base for a couple of weeks but will be calling my avionics guy as soon as I get back.

You guys are cruel to the good dentist! In fact, there has been quite a bit written lately about the overuse of Bernouilli when teaching about how planes fly. The general consensus I have seen is that people are coming back to angle of attack (aka Newton) as much more critical to breaking the surly bonds. I'm no engineer, but I remember putting my hand outside the window as a kid (heck, as an adult!) and flying it just by angling it into and out of the wind. As a CFI friend of mine likes to say, you can fly a brick if you put enough power behind it. In truth both principles are probably in play...but it's not in my nature to contemplate it much more than that. To quote Ricky Bobby: "I [just] wanna' go fast!"

It's not really clear in the SB but Frank Crawford confirmed for me that the STEC systems will use Option 2. It makes sense, though, since the STEC can't do all the VNAV stuff that the GFC700 can. Yes, the glide path coupling will be a follow-on SB after Mooney & Cobham finalize it, timeframe not yet committed. Between us girls, it will be interesting to see if the STEC truly won't capture the GPS glide path, or if the installation will only state that it's not supported. Perhaps the former, but my STEC 55 captured the GPS glide path just fine with the GNS480 in my old J, so technically we know it CAN work. Just not sure what's in the G1000 software that would keep it from working.

Okay folks, we've got progress. This revised SB20-305A came out today, which addresses adding the WAAS capability to the S-TEC equipped G1000 planes. If you've already got the -30 software (which I think most do) then the Option 2 in the attached is the option that our S-TEC planes can use. The only drawback to this is that they are saying the A/P won't couple with the glide path on GPS approaches...although it should still work fine on ILS's. So big deal, we haven't had that anyway so no great loss. A final SB will be required to allow coupling of the S-TEC to the GPS glide path after Mooney collects data and Cobham evaluates. There is no commitment yet on timeframe for that SB. Also, this doesn't address ADS-B, but again, the notes I wrote above indicate that there may be yet another SB issued still this month that would provide the path to ADS-B. What this means is that, with Option 2 of the now released SB20 305A that gets us to WAAS, and hopefully a new SB very soon to address ADS-B, we could be very close to awesome before the end of the year. If all this comes out in time, I plan to get it done during my IFR cert work in October. That is of course if the cost is manageable...that's the one outlier yet. I have a call into my avionics guy to inquire about that, as there is no detail in this SB. At any rate, it's forward progress, which is a good thing. M20_305A.pdf

Yeah, not too worried about the nose gear. More worried about hitting a pothole and having my heavy front end dip enough for a prop strike. That's the real concern with the long bodies, as they are more prone to prop strikes with a longer fulcrum point from the nose gear to the prop. On the other hand, I know with the A/C in back my plane sits at a 5° nose-up attitude on the ground...I call it my Mooney tail dragger! That could be useful.

The OP is right...there's no prohibition in the POH from switching the batteries with the Master on. In fact, the official checklist calls for it! However, I was doing this one time as a test (just on battery power, no engine) and I also experienced a momentary power outage on the G1000 system and it reset itself...poorly, in fact. I ended up having to do a cold reboot to get it back in operation again. So from that point on, I leave that switch alone once the key is turned.

During run-up at near full RPM, lean until you see your regular EGT ranges for a takeoff at sea-level altitude. That's probably around 1200° but go by what your engine usually shows. That's your fuel setting for takeoff. But I wouldn't worry about this unless you're really in the mountains. If you're in the flatlands and its just a really hot day, I would use normal takeoff procedures.

Give us a PIREP on the runway and suitability for a long-body. I've always felt that would be one turf strip I'd be willing to risk with the Ovation. No problem with a mid- or short-body, but the consequences of one poorly placed pothole are pretty extreme with our heavy front ends. (A buddy asked me if I miss the J, and most of the time I don't, except thinking about Triple Tree, Moontown, some other grass strips I haven't gotten the courage to go back to!)

I kept wondering why your stall warning horn was going off during the formation takeoff, but then I realized that you were jockeying the throttle to stay with the O3 and that was probably the gear warning horn instead. Pretty cool vid. Thanks!

Geez, I thought these were the burnt out valves Marauder saved after running his engine LOP for too long!

Mike, I wasn't at the other events you mentioned except for the Mooney Summit last year, but during that event I didn't get the feel that this one issue over-rode all others. Perhaps I missed a meeting! But also, the tone of my note was actually quite hopeful (I thought) and my point about the Summit was that based on what I saw in the letter, there may be the new SB out by that time so it would be a good venue to discuss that SB. I have always maintained a positive approach and attitude about this issue. That said, I think the G1000-STEC owners have had a legitimate reason to be concerned about the upgrade path for these planes, and Mooney didn't do themselves any favors by not being more open with communications on this issue over the last few years. Tom B actually alluded to this in the letter I saw. I know there had been idle talk about a class action law suit but no one really wanted or wants that...instead that should just be a signal to the company about how much we love our birds and want to be able to enjoy them with all the latest advances in safety and capability. But again, it seems like the corner has finally been turned and if the new SB is indeed published by the time of the Summit then all the conversations should be very good indeed. I will be there with bells on! Cheers.

I don't want to jump the gun on this until it's officially published by Mooney, but I have seen a letter written by Tom Bowen to a Mooney owner that spells out the path for getting our G1000 w/STEC systems fully upgraded to WAAS and ADS-B. I believe the recipient of that letter is a Mooneyspacer so if he chooses to publish that letter that's his prerogative. But it points out a three-phase approach to getting the WAAS GIA units in place first following SB20-305A, adding the G1000 s/w upgrade and WAAS capability through a device and method that is supposed to be published as a new SB next month, and then finally with some potential upgrades to the STEC unit. So, it seems that we're seeing progress and I look forward to Mooney making this official very soon. The unknowns still are cost, especially the costs of swapping in the WAAS GIA units and the expected ADS-B unit. There is some hope/speculation that if we banded together we might be able to do some negotiation for bulk pricing at least for the GIAs, but that is pure speculation right now. At any rate, the new CEO will supposedly be at the Mooney Summit next month and with any luck the new SB will be published and we can have a meaningful discussion about this. Fingers crossed!

Okay, just for fun, some results of my trip from KC back to Atlanta on Sunday. I climbed straight up to 15,000' and the performance was very similar to the numbers I posted above, within a minute at each altitude. And this time it was a pretty standard ISA day. Had a good tailwind as I was riding that cold front all the way. These first pics show cruise performance at 15K (1st one's a bit blurry cuz I was trying to shield the sun with one hand while shooting with the other). The third pic was on descent from Rocket (Huntsville) via the BUNNI4 arrival. First time I'd ever seen 200 KTAS in my own plane. Pretty cool!

Wash Wax All is your friend. Apply it often to keep the dirt and grime away and the paint shiny. But if it's just a few months I also feel you might be over-thinking this one. Planes were built to be flown, after all, and you can't do that in n a hangar.

I took BD's comment as a joke, and a pretty funny one at that. But Don, are you saying that taking off isn't a phase of FLIGHT? Is that why BD's comment doesn't fit into the theory?

And to think, Don was trying to stop the debate. Ha!

There was an article recently in one of my flying mags about a topic called "normalization of deviance," and this seems to be a prime example. This phenomenon was made infamous by the Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters. The general premise is that as human beings, we tend to overlook deviances in expected behavior/performance if over time they seem to have not caused dramatic effect. In the case of Challenger, they knew that O-rings got brittle and less pliant while cold, but they had taken off before in cold temps so they decided to ignore it. Similar with Columbia, they knew foam from the external fuel tank had broken off before, but up until that time it had never caused enough damage to be a problem. Seems like this is what happened here, based on what we know so far. There had been deviant climb performance leading up to the accident, but according to reports the pilot did have it investigated and was told that it was normal. Rather than further explore the deviance he just accepted it, with unfortunate consequences. We are all guilty of it to some degree, but it is something to monitor in our own behavior.