M016576

Not really a good option for the OP- as he has a GTN 650 already. the KT-74 should be a very painless way to get ADS-B out. The cost to run that connection from the KT-74 to the GTN650 (literally one wire), should be under 1 hour labor.

Yes. The entire tail is covered in both versions. Both fiki and non-fiki have identical coverage.

This is some of the best advice I’ve heard on this board.....heck... some of the best advice I’ve heard in my 20+ year career as a professional pilot. >>>>> If a safe outcome to your flight is the “real goal”, apply some common sense to your flight planning rather than relying on “being legal”.<<<<

Yes- this exactly was what I was dancing around, I believe.

I’m not sure that’s the case any longer- it looks like Bravos w/ TKS sell for about 30K more than a similarly equipped non-TKS version. And I got an email from Jimmy about a sweet 252 coming available with TKS that’s about 30K above a non-tks like type airplane. I think de-icing equipment is making a resurgence.... or maybe I’m just paying more attention to it now. but the market for these aircraft are VERY thin... and “feast or famine”...

Hard to say, really- could be that the thicker titanium was required on other installs (Cessna, beech)... or that the panel length was changed to conform to other installs... basically standardizing across the line, thus reducing overall costs. I doubt though, that if CAV states the flow rates are the same, and the coverage is the same, that they are lying to us about it. And the fluid is not different between the systems. My guess, and it’s just that, a guess, is that the “new panels” were made to increase the company’s efficiency in some way or another (install, standardization, etc)... and it happened to coincide with the faa certification. Since they only installed the newer panels (fewer panels overall required, but same coverage) on their fiki demo rig, it would go to reason that they couldn’t use the older panels on a fiki install, despite the same performance (which the company states is true- same performance between the two). its also worth noting that CAV no longer makes the “non-fiki” install... so I’m guessing the older style panels became obsolescent/orphaned for whatever reason, hence no more non-fiki installs (or could just be due to lack of demand).

I think the answer was stated above- fewer overall panels for the same coverage- which reduces install time, and probably makes install easier... since the total number of panels changed between their “earlier” non-fiki design and the fiki certified design- there is probably no way to legally certify the “old” panel setup- despite identical coverage, flow rates and ice capability. thats my hunch anyway.... one easy way to know the flow rates are the same- the advertised capacity for the tank is the same. The advertised run time in the de-Ice and anti-ice is the same. And the pump is the same. Goes to reason that if you run out of fluid at the same time, using the same pump, at the same settings... then the flow rates would be the same (since the coverage is the same).

Only at work...since I’m required by regulation to carry them and we don’t have a digital alternative (yet). They are free though- so I don’t mind. in the mooney, I’m all digital (iPad and an iPhone, both running FlyQ EFB).

Yes- exactly- that’s the best/only way to ensure that my jet is “max performing”: scribing either the fastest turn, or the smallest radius through the sky.

Yes and no... (best fighter pilot line ever: it depends!) As both a Naval Aviator in the F-18 (I flew the A, B, C, D as well as the E/F) and then an IP in the F-15C and now the F-35A.... I would never give up the ability to know my Angle of Attack. But there are differences in the way the instruments are used between a F-15C (which is a mechanical flight control system) and the F-18/F-35... which are both digital, fly by wire flight control systems. in the F-15C- the AoA gauge is calibrated into “units” which are basically a linear scale based on a flight control input and a stabilized output AoA... which means that 1-2 units might mean only a .5 degree true AoA at high air speeds, but could be more than a degree True AoA at low air speeds. As a result- each “unit” wasn’t the same in terms of actual output of performance. “Feel” though- based on buffet cues, allowed for a decent method to find the lift limit of the aircraft without referencing a set AoA... which based on the probes- varied in accuracy at the upper ends of the envelope, and didn’t necessarily give a linear response past the lift limit. Don’t get me wrong though- I still referenced AoA all the time- it just wasn’t quite to the same level as the digital fly by wire jets. So that’s why I say that he was kind of right. Because with his aircraft, he didn’t have an AoA gauge that would have been able to help him in a dogfight (but certainly if the technology was better- it would/could have)! In a digital fly by wire jet- the flight control computers allow for precise control of a commanded true AoA. So you literally set an AoA... and by knowing the EM diagram (edit: EM stands for Energy-Maneuverability- it’s a chart that shows energy bleed rates versus a commanded AoA based on thrust, weight and altitude... something we study) of the aircraft- the pilot knows exactly how well his/her aircraft is performing. It is critical. for reference- all four of those aircraft display the angle of attack in the HUD (or virtual hud in the F-35) and also in the JHMCS (joint helmet mounted cueing system). and in all four of those aircraft, you also use AoA for all landings (as opposed to airspeeds), which once mastered, allows for the shortest rollouts and best touchdown Landing zone control. Oh- and he was definitely being a curmudgeon!

Yes- and it’s used as a measure to exactly control your AoA (which is possible through the use of digital flight control computers) to either A) gain energy, B ) max perform by setting the best turn rate and/or radius based on your tactic, or C) fly past the lift limit to slow down quickly. in any jet that is fly by wire, knowing and controlling your Angle of Attack is critical to max performing the jet- and is heavily used, not just for landing, max range and endurance... but for all aspects of air combat.

The context of his comments, too, were in relation to a visual dogfight (the feel of buffet at or near an accelerated stall)- And his point is accurate in relation to his experience indogfights with the equipment he used: no fighter pilot should be looking down in the cockpit at their AoA gauge while fighting another jet in visual range. A fighter pilot needs to be able to “feel” the performance of his/her jet, while maneuvering in relation to the other jet. That particular AoA gauge in the Eagle is, however, very useful for landings (just as it is in a mooney). It’s also useful for computing maximum range and maximum endurance profiles. In modern fighters now, that AoA information is displayed in HUD and in the various helmet mounted displays: and is most certainly an important part of a fighter pilots scan during all phases of flight. So yes- he was wrong in that video. But also right.

If money is no object- a MSC is not a bad idea. if you’ve got an A&P IA that you trust implicitly, that knows your plane inside and out- then their is little reason to stray IMO. Some say their is benefit in a fresh set of eyes. That would be the primary benefit of having a MSC take a look- but it will most likely cost you. I used LASAR a few times under the previous ownership. Ok service, knowledgeable A&P’s, inconvenient to get to, very expensive rates (compared to my other shop experiences). i used the MSC at Chandler this year, and the rates there were in line with LASAR’s rates, and had a very similar experience for annual. Knowledgeable, good work, but expensive.

The statistics on engine failures in twins may be skewed as well... I’d say you hear about far more engine failures in a single- because they have a higher likelihood of resulting in a mishap of some form (off airfield landing, ditch, etc). think about all the twins that land on a single engine and the other engine failing never gets reported. The only engine failure mishaps that do are when the pilot augurs it in... hence the skewed safety numbers.

Can anyone suggest a solid avionics installer in the Phoenix area? I’d prefer someone that would come to my hangar, but a good rec for a shop would work too. Thanks! I’m at DVT.

But much better times if the engine fails anywhere (16:1 glide ratio). Everything’s a trade off in aviation...

I don’t know- that 100K equates to between 5-7 years of ownership cost if you do the numbers. Set aside the initial purchase price of a cirrus, then buy a new mooney and fly it “free” for 5 years? Sign me up.

That’s my point. The two sell for the same price- but potential buyers see “more” in a cirrus. It looks like a better deal to them. (And that’s not subjective- the numbers speak for themselves there) mooney needs to sell at a discount to the cirrus if they want to sell more planes.

If the business could be streamlined, and maybe shave 100-200K off the sticker price of an M20U/V.... maybe... maybe... mooney would sell more. But the plane lacks a modern look/feel (carbon fiber, switchblade doors, etc). I can see why consumers are turned off of mooney and turned on by cirrus. to put it another way- a (very rich) student goes through flight training in a 14 year old Cessna 172. That trainer, while sporting nice paint and a garmin panel, still feels... well... like a trainer 172. Now it’s time to go shopping. You’ve got this sleek composite plane on the ramp with these cool doors and seats that look like they came out of a Ferrari. It’s got a side stick. Tons of room. A higher useful load and seating for 5. It feels like it was designed in the last 30 years. in the mooney, the doors open.. normally. You see rivets in the wings, on the tail section... it doesn’t “look” as modern. The avionics are practically the same, but it has a yoke, like your trainer (albeit covered in supple leather). The interior is OK... but the seats just aren’t as nice... and the finishing feels a little underdone (compared to the cirrus). The plane carries four people and you kind of have to be small people to all fit (due to useful load being lower). Not to mention you don’t sit “normally” in a mooney- you’re lower- with your legs stretched out in the front. Finally- there is no BRS. I would personally pick the mooney- assuming the new one’s useful load isn’t totally anemic. But I can see why cirrus gets a huge chunk of the new plane market. While I don’t think it’s justified from a performance standpoint- at the price point both these aircraft are at I totally think the market has this one “right.” If Mooney can drop their prices, they *will* sell more airplanes. The question is- can/will they do it... and can they remain solvent if they do.

Less an oddity- more a function of using a prop/engine combo pulled from a twin.

I am pretty sure that some missile and rocket conversions were performed by shops other than Rocket Engineering itself. I think people would buy the stc and another shop would perform the conversion. In my missile stc paperwork (which is quite substantial- basically a whole new POH worth of data), it shows the old N number, then the changed N number (switched it from a “201” to a “301”.. go figure). Regardless- Rocket should at least have a record of the STC being sold and presumably applied to your aircraft. Maybe the actual conversion was done somewhere else? as for numbers- I think only rocket knows for sure, but from what I’ve gathered here on this board- about 45 missile conversions and 150-200 rocket conversions. I think when the rocket conversion first became available, several years worth of 231’s were just coming up on their overhaul... perfect time to market a bigger, faster mooney! The missile didn’t catch on quite as well... strange because the Ovation seems to be very popular, and it has near identical performance characteristics (and in some ways, the O is inferior to the missile, IMO). I think the reason is probably due to the relative cost of the upgrade/stc in relation to an overhaul on the engine at the time... or it might have been strictly a performance thing- the rocket puts up a bigger performance delta between it and the stock 231/252 at altitude than the missile and a stock J does at its normal cruise altitudes. Finally, and this probably has much to do with it- the initial missile stc only certified the maximum gross weight up to 2900lbs... so useful load was cut down significantly. Eventually, Rocket did more testing, changed out some landing gear components and increased the max gross weight to 3200lbs- which gives the missle one of the highest useful loads of all the Mooney’s out there (mine has TKS and still sports 1020lbs useful... most other missiles are over 1100lbs... the M20S’s are higher... Parker’s oldencore conversion... and a very few M20F’s seem to be able to break the 1100 mark) . Maybe it was too late to “save the mod” by the time they did the gross weight increase. Hard to say- but the rockets certainly outsold the missiles.

Makes me wonder if the pilot accidentally grabbed the condition lever when they meant to grab the mixture....

Cowl flaps are removed on the missile... I think they are removed on a rocket, too.

It is definitely NOT a missile- the cowling is too short and the exhaust isn’t the same. I think it’s just a stock J with a 3 bladed prop

That’s exactly what I was getting at above. and more to the point of free market and competition... Lycoming and Continental both have a serious moat in the form of certification requirements. I can’t imagine it would be easy to steal market share from either company.... first a new comer would have to build the engine. Then they’d have to find an airframe that could use it. Then they’d have to certify it for that airframe... and then they’d have to do that same process over and over again- for each application on a certified airframe. It would probably take a decade just to get the foot in the door. And by that time conti/lyc could price them out. That’s a HUGE amount of risk, for a potentially limited reward (market). the experimental market is a different animal- probably why we see “other” motors there- rotax , etc. yes... the end state of a monopoly- ever rising prices and reduction to production. Why build more for less when you can build less and charge more.