Jeff_S

Just a quick note of public thanks to George for having joined the Mooney family and letting the AOPA use his plane in so many promotional ways. I see it in advertisements and it even got the December centerfold shot in the AOPA calendar (well, it's a fold-out anyway!). Thanks George!

Joe and Robert, I'm curious what version of G1000 software you've got. I am running system version 0401.30, which I believe is the last version that would support the S-TEC 55X A/P. But recently when they were swapping in a new MFD they remastered the software entirely and one thing in particular changed. When climbing with a target altitude selected, I used to get a "bong" at 1000' before altitude, and then one at 200' before altitude (and one at 200' after altitude in cased you weren't paying attention!). Now I only get the bong at 1000' before and 200' after. This is consistent with what the manual says should happen, but my system page says I was running 0401.30 both before and after. A little mystery I'm trying to clear up. I haven't called Garmin yet...I suppose that should be my first step.

Joe, the Engine Time on the Engine page is the closest thing you'll have to Tach time. Didn't you recently do the 310hp upgrade? Were you not required to put in a supplemental tachometer as part of that upgrade? I know that was required for the Ovation 3 instrumentation. I have a separate EI tach so that's what I use for tach time, although it's syncs up pretty nicely to the Engine Time on the G1000.

That was nice. What did you use to affix the cameras to the exterior?

Good thing I haven't invested in ADS-B traffic yet! I'll just struggle along with my TIS in terminal areas.

I would say the gear limit switch did it's job in that respect. Seems like you'd want to recover to normal takeoff speed from that exercise before cleaning up the air frame. You're essentially simulating a go-around, so you want air speed and positive rate of climb established. Good job keeping your cool, though...never let your instructor see you sweat!

Hi Paul, I've been wondering about this myself. A buddy had this done to his J, and they were in fact able to remove the existing dorsal fin antenna and put a new one in there so there is no exposed antenna. However, he was having his painted at the time so it was less intrusive to current cosmetics. I'll be curious to know what other folks have to say as well...something to keep in the planning for sure. Jeff

Radar isn't infallible and sometimes goes out of service. If it didn't show on either service that was likely the case.

I fly out of a towered field all the time that caters to biz jets, and they ( the biz jets) are much more forgiving of cross and tail wind landings. It's up to the PIC to say "unable" if you need to. One time I was running ahead of a storm and they were still landing on what was rapidly becoming a downwind runway. I asked them to switch them around and they did, because they knew others would need it as well. Sometimes you just gotta' ask. As to the takeoff pilot, it might seem to you like a big risk, and I might agree, but he's the PIC and gets to make the call. We can't know the whole story unless we're there with him. After all, he does have a parachute!

I have to say, you beat me to the punchline on that one. Peter opened himself up on that one (which, right there, could be another bad pun if we really wanted it to be!).

Realize also that the Cirrus seats were designed for a very specific g-load shock absorption based on the airplane landing as a result of a parachute pull, so that has something to do with their design and their comfort.

You guys are going easy on the newb. I think he should have to write a composition on the relative merits of flying LOP while simultaneously slipping down on final with full flaps and a 25 knot crosswind. Then we'll know whether or not he's drunk the Kool-ade.

All that sounds great, but I just have one question about the rationale. The prop strike, in and of itself, shouldn't mean an engine tear-down, unless the prop was moving at the time. Are you saying that because you operated the airplane for some unknown amount of time after the incident that this causes the tear-down, that there was potential for crankshaft damage or something? Just curious.

You also have to factor in that the standard rule changes some above 10,000'. That's why when you do fly in the mountains the altimeter settings are usually quite a bit higher than you would expect compared to nearby flat lands. The gauge may indeed by off some, but it's better to do the test with your engine resting at sea level (which is where that poster lives) and see how the MP compares to the atmospheric pressure to get a sense of it.

Awesome...a great laugh in the middle of the day.

Max gross for an O3 is still 3368...I assume that's what you have on the O1. Since Mooney now owns the STC, that's who you would have to contact.

Hi Parker. Now that you call me on it, I realize I mixed some things up in my head. The deal with a WAAS GPS is that you don't need to use a non-GPS approach as your alternate. You can file for only GPS approaches for both initial and alternate approaches. So practically speaking, this means you don't have to have a NAV radio I guess, which is why in my head I extrapolated that to mean that you don't need to do VOR checks. Of course, if you intend to fly VOR approaches, then you no doubt still need to do VOR checks. Thanks for the little kick in the butt!

So I talked to Mike Trudeau at Hartzell yesterday. It was a great conversation and he is a stand-up guy, real low key, very open about all the possibilities. He told me they had purchased the STC from Bob Minnis to ensure that this option was available to Mooney pilots for as long as possible. Hartnell wanted to control the STC since it is their prop, after all. But as for performance improvements, he said there are no absolutes (which I always knew) and that much of it would depend on the starting point. Clearly, even their first Top Prop was a dynamic improvement from the 2 and 3-blade McCauleys that it replaced. He said the take-off roll was reduced by 60% (!!) compared to those props, which was as much a testament to how poorly those props were matched to the airplane than how special the Hartzell is. But compared to a plane that already has the 310hp and the older Top Prop, he felt the performance improvements would be more modest, ~3 knots in cruise for a normally aspirated engine at 6-10,000'. His honest opinion was that it wouldn't make sense to replace an almost new prop like mine, but if for some reason mine got dinged, or if somebody really wanted to buy my prop, then maybe it would be worth upgrading. I appreciated his honest assessment...he clearly isn't in it just to move aluminum parts. So, anybody wanna' buy a nearly-new Hartzell Top Prop with only 68 hours on it?

That's interesting. It seems like maybe installing the lighter prop would help me recover some of the knots lost due to having the A/C. It would move my COG even further aft, but at seven pounds difference maybe not so much. I may have to give this some thought.

About the only reason I can think of you would want Nav2 is to back up the ILS. You won't find yourself flying VOR approaches as they are disappearing, and at any rate, they all (well, almost all) have the GPS overlay of the same approach so you can do a non-precision GPS which is much easier than a VOR approach. So notwithstanding the torture that your CFI-I will put you through during training, if you've got a GTN 650 you'll fly the RNAV/GPS approaches almost exclusively, with the occasional ILS thrown in where it is the predominant approach at more heavily-used Class D and higher airports. So if for some strange reason your GTN craps out, you may still want one Nav available just to help save your bacon. But I don't think it needs to be that prominent in your panel. (And although you'll never admit it to the FAA, you'll also have your ForeFlight with Stratus receiver as a third backup if you are having a REALLY BAD day.)

Techically if you have a WAAS GPS you don't even NEED to do VOR checks!

Pretty neat. They are having an Atlanta Warbirds event coming up in September here at PDK, and I've been thinking of paying for a ride. It's $1500 (maybe more, can't remember for sure) but probably a once in a lifetime thing. I can feel the hole opening up in my checkbook...

BBQ was great but sparsely attended. Only about a dozen planes showed up. Weirdest thing was that somebody's ELT was going off right near the FBO and the signal was so loud it bled over to CTAF. We could never figure out who's it was. Weather was great also, not sure what forecast you were looking at but it was fine all day. Sorry we missed you..

Hi Jean-Claude, I haven't seen much on the difference between the old McCauley 3-blade and the Hartzell. One thing you've got going for you, if you choose, is that you can actually install the Hartzell that was designed for the Acclaim S. They have now been certified for all Ovation installations. I'm not sure of the differences between that and the normal Hartzell blended-airfoil that's been on the Ovation 2s and 3s for a while...I believe it's lighter, and may have some slight differences that improve speed. But I think it costs more than the standard 3-blade. Your best bet is to call Hartzell and talk to someone knowledgeable.

I'm planning to attend.