Jeff_S

Your only real solution on the Mac is X-Plane, but it's a good solution, probably the best one available for a personal computer. Go to http://www.x-plane.com to learn more about it. I used it for exactly your same purpose. All you really need is a Joystick, such as the Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. You can get a full yoke and throttle quadrant set up for it if you want, but to me that's overkill if you're just trying to practice your scan. There is also a good Mooney M20J model available for purchase from Carenado that you can use. It faithfully reproduces a J cockpit and has 3-D so you can move around in it. It does require some horsepower under the hood, but if you've got a later-model iMac or similar you should be fine. X-Plane also has a cool thing where you can synch it to your iPad running ForeFlight and actually see your flight on ForeFlight. It of course lets you add real-world weather, although it's tied just to current METARs and doesn't accurately show actual storm cells. And it lets you program in various systems failures so you can even practice your emergency procedures. Good luck with it. It's a lot of fun.

That is a nice looking house, and I've flown into Mallard's Landing. With any medium or short-body Mooney it is a fine strip. Not sure if I'd trust it with the Ovation though. On the Zillow link, it shows another house in the neighborhood with a price closer to $1M, but it's about three times the size. As to the deer hunters, coming from Kansas originally I have no philosophical problem with hunting...killed plenty of birds and smaller critters in my day...but I just couldn't bring myself to shoot a deer. They're just too pretty, and probably too closely resemble the horses I grew up training and cherishing.

That announcer sounds a lot like Jony Ive from the Apple videos...which I am sure is no coincidence. He is probably the best known technical designer in the world (most famous, anyway) and that is the vibe they were trying to capture with this video. I liked it!

In conversation yesterday at the NC Mountain fly-in, a compatriot said that he was told by Jerry Chen at OSH that the target price for the M10T was in the $400K range. I would presume this has to come down considerably if they hope to sell many trainers, unless that's just a "rack rate" prior to discounts to big Chinese flight schools. At any rate, we all know that clean-sheet designs and specs change quite a bit from conception to reality, so we just need to see how this plays out. We all have a vested interest in Mooney's long-term success.

I'm thinking that if these M10J's do come to fruition, it could be the ultimate "step-down" plane! I mean, who wouldn't want to get the same speed as an Ovation on 1/3 the fuel burn? I never carry more than one extra person anyway. But the proof is in the pudding, so it will be interesting to see how these move through the certification process.

Awesome to hear...thanks for the update!

Don't get me wrong here, as I am all in favor of Mooney doing what it takes to succeed. There is probably a lot to like about this plane, and much will change in the three years it will take to move through certification (if it can hit the target launch date). But I am reminded of the attempt by Piper to roll out essentially another company's airframe in the LSA category and provide the same level of support and service for that which they provide to their standard metal offerings. That didn't end too well. Cessna also tried a new trainer in the Skycatcher and that didn't end well either. But it's too early to be a naysayer, so for now I say "right on" and let's see what happens. I just hope they don't blow through all their funding on the M10 series before they fix the lack of WAAS/ADS-B problem in my Ovation 3 that I just bought!

We're all waiting to hear more about this new plane. But from everything I've heard, it's targeted as a training plane and not something to eclipse the Acclaim or Ovation 3 models. So I wouldn't get your hopes up for your wish list items!

As to the spinner polish, Mothers works, but the stuff I swear by is Flitz which you can get from any aviation supply house...Aircraft Spruce comes to mind. Flitz is awesome because it requires almost no elbow grease. Just apply it and rub it in a bit, then polish off with a clean cloth. You'll be amazed at how much oxidation comes off. Flitz is also good because you can use it on oxidized paint to restore it.

David, you sound like a ticked-off donor. Otherwise why the vehemence? As long as the group is not fraudulently absconding with other people's money...and aside from one lawsuit that seems frivolous on its merits, I can't find any other evidence to suggest this...then what's the harm in searching? It's never been a crime to seek donations for any cause, even stupid ones, as long as the full disclosure is made. And wouldn't it be great if they actually DID solve the Amelia Earhart mystery? I choose to dare to believe it's possible.

I've read the history I can find. I'm not saying I know everything about this, but from what I can gather the irony is that a lawsuit has been filed claiming they actually DID find the plane and are covering it up. I've seen the video that purports to show the evidence, and it looks pretty benign to me. Never mind the fact that if they HAD found the wreckage, they would have money pouring over them in buckets for all sorts of media deals. So to assert that they hid the finding in order to raise more funds doesn't pass the smell test to me.

C'mon guys, let's dare to dream a little bit. I've read all the findings and I don't believe this group is sensationalizing anything. They describe their theories with the right mixture of facts and conjecture tied to what they've found. The evidence is certainly compelling at any rate, especially the artifacts they've discovered on land. The "suspect sonar signature" doesn't look anything like an airplane to me, but I'm no expert on reading sonograms so who knows. Wouldn't it be cool to put at least this one mystery to bed? Then they can determine who REALLY shot JFK!

It is wickedly ironic that the plane crashed into a Flight Safety International building. Hollywood couldn't even script that up. It will be very interesting to learn what details they can from this accident.

Let's not forget the "Mooney Campus" images that circulated a while back as well. I think a lot of people may be having concept discussions and something like this could really be floating around as an idea, but it would be a major change from the type certificate and would likely have to go through complete recertification. Now, if the FAA ever passes the Part 23 re-write to make it easier to do, perhaps it could be interesting. It reminds me of the plane that Pipistrel is producing with their Panthera...also a composite, high-efficiency 4-seater with good cruise speed characteristics.

Joe, I've got a question for you. Were you pretty loaded with gas during that takeoff, or was it extra hot that day? It just seemed like your ground roll took longer than I would have expected for a fire-breathing dragon such as the Acclaim S. I'm comparing it to what I experience with my O3. Admittedly I've got a few more horses to play with at ground level (before your turbo advantage kicks in) but I was just curious about that.

I agree it's cool...but also agree that the least they could do is tell you about it. Of course, once you put something out on YouTube it's pretty much fair game for others to use unless you specifically try to protect it.

If it were me, I'd go for the Hartzell 2-blade scimitar. I think they look bitchin' and they are supposed to give you some of the climb advantages of the 3-blade without the speed hit. I had the older 3-blade Hartzell top-prop on my J, which I bought that way, and like Hank I had no problems with it. Never experienced any vibration or anything, and the climb was certainly better than a 2-blade, but I probably did lose a few knots. I was toying with the idea of replacing it with the scimitar 2-blade but decided to upgrade to an Ovation instead. As the saying goes, there's no replacement for displacement!

I'm closing in myself, but I keep buying faster airplanes which isn't helping anything! I guess I just have to go farther now.

Count me in as John Wayne as well. I did choose the Spitfire over the F/A-18, mostly because I thought if I ever really did get in an F/A-18 I would probably throw up all over the place. And there's some part of me that says if Brad Pitt can fly a Spitfire, so can I!

This is good info...I may pay a visit to the TCM factory since it's pretty close by (especially at Ovation speeds!). Thanks for sharing, Paul. Still no takers on 51K?

So I got a reply from Frank Crawford at Mooney Support, and he acknowledged that the POH also points to the TCM owners manual for guidance, and sent me a copy of what we already knew, namely, TCM says to preheat below 20dF. He did also say they were looking at whether they should remove or revise that part of the POH. So I wonder if this is the first time anybody ever looked at it, or if they just forgot about it. Anyway, we have debunked the -13dF recommendation as a clerical error.

I have sent a note to Stacy and haven't heard anything yet. I will check to see if there are any updates to the publication. But just for the record, the calculation for F to C is actually correct: -13 - 32 * 5 / 9 = -25. So they didn't get their math wrong, but perhaps the whole philosophy is misguided. I will keep digging into this and report back what I find. Thanks all. Jeff

So here's one I just ran across, thinking about the colder temps coming eventually. Atlanta isn't a real problem area in this regard, but we do get the occasional evenings into the teens in the mid-winter time. The general guidance I've always seen is to pre-heat below 20°F. Some folks argue doing this even below 40°F. But the Ovation POH says, and I quote: "For engine operation at outside air temperatures below -25°C (-13°F), the engine and engine oil should be preheated to at least -25°C (-13°F) before the engine is started." Wow! Mooney is saying that it's okay to start these engines at sub-zero temperatures. Does anyone have an explanation why the POH would use guidance that seems much more liberal than even the engine manufacturer? Just curious...

Don't hate me just because I'm beautiful!

My fuel warning lights always seem to come on with 8 gallons remaining...at least this was true in the J. I haven't tested it in the Ovation, but I seem to recall that's what the POH says. I'll have to double check. But are you sure your POH says it would come on with only 2.5-3 gallons left? That seems awfully low...almost like that's the unusable fuel in the tank. You might want to check that again. And then... Well, just checked the POH and here's what mine says: "RED light indicates 6 to 8 gals. (23 to 30.3 liters) S/N 29-0170 thru 29-TBA of usable fuel remain in the respective tanks. Switch to fuller tank."