Jerry 5TJ

Looks fine for backup and it has independent HW & SW compared to my otherwise all-G suite, a comforting fact.

A turbocharger is a good adjunct to FIKI as a strong climb rate in ice can be a good thing. Regularly flying Purdue to Toronto probably calls for FIKI, as you have decided. Purdue is not listed an airport of entry, alas, so although you may fly to Canada your return may be via an AOE.

We carried our CoMotion tandem in the C model. It fit into the baggage area tho only via the door. Admit that the bike does have S&S couplers so the frame splits in three.

I know that at low altitudes my PT6A-35 (750 hp gearbox & about 900 hp sea-level thermal limit) with its fixed blade compressor stages dumps a lot of high pressure air out of its bleed air exhaust valve. That’s not an efficient use of the engine. At 27,000’ it is much more efficient and the bleed air valve is closed so all of the compressor output is used. Up there engine delivers about 325 hp to the propeller shaft while the core ITT is around 700C, near the limit. FF is 30-32 GPH. GE is developing a new version of the Czech turboprop design. It is closer in size to the PT6A-67 series but it claims 10-20% improvement in SFC. If those figures are achieved in the field that engine will be an impressive upgrade for TBM and PC12 sized turboprops. It will be far too large for a Mooney airframe, alas. All that is nice, but when ATC holds you at 8,000’ the engine’s high altitude efficiency does you no good.

Isn’t it true that if you run the 500 hp turboprop engine at an altitude where it produces 250 hp while running near 100% RPM and near max ITT limit it approaches its best efficiency?

Your Ovation has 2 batteries. If you don’t have any external power you can run the avionics off one for a good while — I’d suggest stopping before the battery decreases to 21 volts. Then start the engine with the other battery next flight. Although not intended for the purpose, if you have a battery minder connected while running the avionics the voltage will be supported for a long time.

The startle time even with a good takeoff briefing is likely to be 5-10 seconds during which time the pilot may do nothing or may even take incorrect actions as his brain processes the situation. Reference When training for the turn back after a simulated loss of power in a single engine plane it is probably realistic to add a 5-7 second wait to simulate the startle effect’s delay. That can add significantly to the required altitude to make the field. In some cases the response delay can make the situation unrecoverable if the airspeed decay is very rapid.

It is good practice and is legal. I call this a “heads-up” approach as you are looking outside as you fly the procedure.

A new M20J if available would cost what, $850,000? Probably more. So your annual cost is about 1% of that value, plus the airplane you are maintaining is 40 years old. 1% of replacement cost seems a reasonable maintenance rate for a mechanically-complex capital investment that is well into its mid-life cycle. Actually, I think it seems low.

Impressive indeed! My P46T will “true out” at 248 knots but it takes 30 GPH to do so.

An alternative opinion—if you have an engine IRAN with a decent shop then you can in better conscience offer the plane to a buyer.

There are a number of Mooney-specific CFI around. Not nearly as many as, say, experts in the 172. Yes, do get your CFI and hang out your shingle as a K expert.

Suggest you first get a pulse oximeter and try a few flights wearing cánula while cruising in the mid-teens. Adjust the oxygen flow for >92% saturation. If you’re comfortable with that then consider buying a good mask and/or O2D2.

If you lose your horizontal stabilizer why would you care if your wing spar is intact?

There are three CFI listed in Ohio alone in the Mooney Flyer list https://themooneyflyer.com/cfi.html

Yes, the question I have is what caused the loss of control, not whether the structure failed after loss of control.

If the image is at 15 frames per second, and if the camera is raster-scanned then the start of the scan is about 66 milliseconds before the end of the scan. That’s enough to seriously distort the details of an object crossing the field of view at perhaps 1/2 foot per millisecond. Technical video details aside, I’m more interested to hear how this M20R got into an un-stabilized descent in the first place.

Are you in Maryland? or Michigan?

I think it’s great news. For decades the threat of interruption in the availability of 100LL has had no solution. Now there’s at least one viable path that requires no engine modifications. Heck, I am so encouraged I might buy another piston airplane.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2007/september/27/ntsb-releases-final-report-on-crossfield-crash

True — I’ve taken students to Atlantic City and to NAS Patuxent but I call ahead to see if a controller is there.

Some civil as well as military airports offer radar approaches, yes. PAR and ASR approaches are listed as “Radar Mins” in the approach plates index. Here is the list from Atlantic City International:

Poor.

I’ve been flying a new Tecnam P2006T recently. It reminds me in some ways of my old M20E: At 2600# gross, about the same weight. Each has 200 hp, tho the Tecnam has it divided between two 100 hp Rotax 912s. Cruise at about 140-145 knots is similar. Fuel flow similar, around 9-10 GPH total for both engines. Useful load and range, again, about the same. Even the landing sight picture is similar: Both planes sit low on the ground. With one engine inoperative the Tecnam doesn’t have much performance left, but it will slowly drift down to around 5-6000’ and maintain that altitude.

Yes, it was a clean-sheet design (starting around 1982) for a pressurized 6-seat single cruising 200 knots at FL200.