M016576

100% valid- and totally get where you’re coming from. With the new senders that are actually accurate- having a gauge that can display that accurate information is exactly what you want. for those of us without the accurate senders, though... an instrument that displays fuel quantity using the older senders is still displaying inaccurate, analog data... just in a digital format- which might actually be a worse display of the inaccurate data (with a needle- you might get trend info.. with digital- it’s just a bouncing number!). For me, with the wing sight gauges, plus the (somewhat) innacurate original fuel tank senders, plus the (very accurate) totalizer, I’ve found that my fuel numbers are within the safety margin for my purposes. Their is one place where I’m not fully “protected” though, that @gsxrpilot rocket is certainly better off- and that would be in the event of a fuel leak. If you have more accurate senders, you’d be able to have a better understanding of the actual fuel state. If I have a fuel leak in my configuration- I’ll notice it... but I’ll probably have to land as soon as practical to sort it out regardless of my state.

Yeah, but you don’t really need the “C” gauge unless you want the fuel quantity displayed, which I don’t really care about having displayed digitally, since the totalizer works better than the gauges anyway, and I have the stock senders (which aren’t that accurate). I just went with the 30P alone- cheaper than the 900, and primary certified for all the important functions. Can’t remove the total gauge cluster, but you can disconnect and placard the fuel P, Oil P, and Oil T (or leave them, if you want). if the aesthetics are a factor, or maybe if you have those new Ceis senders, than paying up for the 900 or 30C would be a logical choice.

1200 lbs useful in sight... wow- more proof that the Eagle is the best of the longbodies. That’s a heck of a mooney, @Niko182!

At the local store in Klamath falls, $56 bucks a case (12qt) for Phillips x/c 20W50. 160 bucks? Wow... just wow. I won’t be shopping there, that’s for sure!

Generally 12K seems to be the sweet spot for where the turbulence is sporadic at best on high wind days in eastern Oregon. I have seen days where the mountain waves kick up much higher than that, though. If the winds <9K are less than 20-30 Kts it will most likely be smooth above 10. ive only just started flying down here by Phoenix... but crossing the Grand Canyon a few weeks back at 15k, I was a bit surprised to be in continuous light chop. Only 30kts of headwind at that altitude- I’m assuming it was all thermal related- anyone with more experience around the south west have any good rules of thumb?

I don’t think you’re the only one- just based on the reduction and reshuffling of the L-M flight weather briefers and the decommissioning of DUATS. Leidos now has the contract, I guess? This is another FAA catch-all... “§ 91.103 Preflight action. Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This information must include ...” there is pretty much NO WAY that is possible... unless one is judging the flight in hindsight, right? Kind of like icing being “known icing” if you see it adhering to your airplane!

The perfect mixture setting.... at 10,000’ in a NA plane! Hah!

The earth is littered with the previous rides and bodies of fighter pilots, doctors, lawyers and yes, even self-made entrepreneurs, that thought they knew better.... ok, ok, so THAT’s melodramatic! Kind of true though.... The issue is, as I see it, that taking a glance at the EFB and firing up the plane based on the nexrad picture and the old Mark one, mod zero eyeball may work, until it doesn’t. The regulations require knowing the weather prior to launching, and they do differ between IFR and vfr flight. And certainly VFR is more flexible, especially in a light GA airplane. But doing proper preflight planning fills in so many holes that the EFB’s just don’t touch. Things like icing products, cloud tops, pireps and weather fronts, interpreted by a professional into a single telling, flowing picture. Maybe the “Kid” knows how to read a skew T (but who knows what they teach out at that Mass. trade school )... if he did/does, he’d have known the tops before he launched and could have saved himself the trouble of even attempting the shortcut. I’m all for using all the tools available to a pilot, I’m SO thankful to have ADSB on an iPad while flying- it’s night and day difference vs calling up radio for inflight updates like in the “olden days” as I was transiting VOR to VOR... but why *not* properly pre-flight plan, speak to a briefer, check the flight path tools, check the notams, etc...to get the full picture prior to launching? It can only enhace the safety of the flight- and if you’re carrying passengers, you kind of owe them that level of responsibility. If the 15-20 extra minutes are really that much of an inconvenience, then should the flight even be made? That 15-20 minutes of extra flight planning can save an hours fuel... or the lives of the passengers in the plane (there I go with the melodrama again!) I’m as guilty as anyone like I mentioned before. I’ve found myself under prepared at times, both during my day job and in the Mooney. And I’m also not saying that the “Kid” didn’t do the proper planning- it just appears so in the video. maybe he spent all his money on that second 750 and forgot to buy a $300 oxygen rig, I don’t know. So with that, we can agree to disagree- I’ll continue to “over-prepare,” I guess that’s just how I roll these days in my older age

Congrats on a safe engine out landing! Fun fact. it’s called “arresting gear” at a Navy base at Air Force bases, they call them “cables.”

Concur- even at 15K around here near Phoenix, it’s STILL bumpy. I’ve never done the northern route through the Rockies, though- so can’t help you with routing... if you do end up taking the southern route- I’d recommend. EED V135 BTY V105 FMG V452 EUG V23 to BTG... you’ll be given the STAR as you get close to PDX. TTD is actually a nice spot to stop... if you go TTD, go east of the cascades towards DSD, then cut a cross there via V165. Beautiful flight! Keep OAT’s in your crosscheck- sometimes you can find ice above 10K, even in the summer. enjoy- sounds like an epic trip! oh- the reason why I wouldn’t do the California Central Valley or coast.. tons of traffic and honestly, unless seeing the Pacific Ocean is what you’re looking to do- the view of the sierras is better from the east side in my opinion. Less services though, and fewer emergency airfields on the eastern path.

Then he has no excuse for launching into the mountains in sketchy weather with a barely private pilot in the right seat and without O-2. The video *is* good- it shows a conservative approach to dealing with changing conditions once airborne. It also *gives the impression* of what I call “reactive flight planning”- something that I think I’ve been guilty of at times, but is a terribly dangerous method if the weather is not severe clear. A better approach would be traditional, proactive flight planning, and to be prepared for the situation you’re launching into, particularly if you’re taking off VfR in between cells of thunderstorms. You could argue that he was prepared, as he turned around airborne and took a more clear southerly route. Curious why he didn’t bring O-2 though. And what led the “looksee” approach rather than just starting with the clear southerly route. Now we’re deep down the rabbit trail. I don’t know what this “kid’s” planning process actually was- but what I refer to as reactive flight planning is this: “well.. my EFB shows a couple holes in these cells moving through, and I see clear skies over there... let’s just launch and find out.” vs. getting an actual weather briefing, and thinking more objectively about courses of action. In the video, the “kid” was narrarating his thought process... and it was essentially what I wrote above, but he may very well have had a more robust process... it just didn’t appear that way. Also at about minute 8:20, he mentions how he would be forced to look for blue sky and try to fly that direction while over the ocean due to lack of tools, the be forced to retrace his steps. perhaps necessary there in a small plane (although I didn’t really have to do that while I was flying over the ocean regularly), maintaining that attitude is, IMO, complacent at best when better tools are available stateside. Again- all I know is what’s in the video though. oh, and yes, he’s still a “kid” with a nice, expensive bonanza (not sure who’s footing the bill- would love to be furnished with one of those.. guess I’ll just have to stick to Fighter jets and a Mooney). The Bo is not a bad choice for circumnavigating the globe. The bonanza as the kid’s choice also somewhat proves the initial point that with some O-2 and an IFR clearance, would have been able to get over those clouds, even without the turbocharger. I think I’d rather do it in a Mooney though. all this from my “throne” at zero knots and 1G, 18 inches from a computer monitor. Hah!

Their only issue that precluded them from going over the top was that they weren’t carrying O-2. That IO-550 bonanza can still get up to 16500/17500, which would have put them safely over the top of the clouds... really- what they NEEDED to make that trip *smartly* in either a 231 or that IO-550 BO, was O-2 and an IFR ticket. Those “kids” are doing something right, though- that’s a very nice bonanza.....

The problem with a low-side O, though, is that they aren’t really low side... after you budget for ADSB and the run out motor, it’s not quite as good a deal as it looks. I looked at some Bravo’s like that, too... they need love where a High end J or K would be turnkey

That’s some major work. I went back and checked the invoices on my panel upgrade (nowhere near yours)- Mine had a 430W already installed- but to install the following- ImAspen PFD1000, GMA340, CGR-30P engine monitor , axp-340 xponder, ifd440 (Slide in replacement for 430W) was a total of 65 hours through Chief. Not nearly as invasive as your project, though. And I do love the look of those laser cut panels- very slick. so, long story short- my time estimate above was waaaayyyy off.

Doesn’t the 500TXi come with an engine monitor (ala g1000)? Or does it just interface with one?

I guess it depends on who you go to... but 50 hours at 100 an hour seemed like a pretty good estimate to me. I think the harnesses are not too different between installing a single GTN750 with a bunch of legacy avionics vs a GTN750, plus a G500TXI... but maybe 80 hours is more realistic. (So 8K install costs)

Figure at least 30-40K. Need a waas gps (GTN750 plus flight stream and cdi-). ~15K The G500TXI (10”). ~15K ADSB transponder (gtx345). ~4K install costs- 5K and that assumes you would be OK with whatever second radio/Nav unit and backup ADI is already in your plane, as your secondary sources. Another GTN (650) will cost an additional 10-11K. Install labor would probably remain similar though. So upwards of 50K in that instance. Youre muuuuchhhhh better off financial to find an airplane that has the 70% solution and go with that. Or if money isn’t a factor to you, just realize that you will most likely never get your money back out of an upgrade like that on an older Mooney (maybe you would on a Bravo or later, but that remains to be seen)

They didn’t help me out- ended up having to buy a new antenna... but my antenna was 6-7 years old. Maybe is yours is only a year old, they will replace it under warranty? be thankful you weren’t navigating to a divert field in imc when it happened to you... it was a very sketchy situation for me when it happened- I’m glad I was able to dust off my VOR/DME-> ILS skills (the area I was in doesn’t have rapcon or lowalt radar for vectors... TWF for those wondering). Glad you’re safe though!

It works out to be about 25-30 hours for me... but really I change every 4 months or so. Wish I was flying enough to be worried about the hours on the oil, not the time!

1. Yes 2. The FS-210 would be useless 3. Yes (the 540 and 550 come with this feature as a default- make sure you ask for it on the 440) 4. Yes both to and from the IFD 5. Yes 6. Yes 7. Yes, not sure about splitting arinc inputs though 8. Skytrax-100 (avidyne’s adsb-in box)

Your CPA knows about aircraft engines? That’s a quite a coincidence!

Nice! Love that aspen display

And that’s the key of a turbocharged airplane.... the increase in density altitude means thinner air. The turbocharger “re-compresses” it... so you get the effect of less parasitic drag, without paying the price of loss of manifold pressure (when you think of it like a NA airplane). And that is where a turbo charged aircraft really shines... a high density altitude day. with a turbo-charged car- you still deal with the road (drag), and you don’t really set the TIT and MP in exactly the same way.... depending on how the turbocharger is built/integrated you can see degradation in performance in higher temps.... partly because you’re kind of NA until the turbo “kicks in” in some builds (ie turbo lag).

@Piloto I think your numbers are a little out of date... I wish I could get avgas for 2.00/gal or paint the mooney at a shop for 2500!

Hmm.... a seneca II or C310 burns about 20-22 GPH in cruise... which isn’t far off from a large bore turbo. a NA large bore mooney is in the 12-13gph realm a 4 cylinder NA mooney is down at 8-9GPH in cruise The difference between the operating costs (fuel/oil/O2) of a light twin and a turbo’d mooney may not be too far off- but the operating costs between the NA and turbo singles are pretty significant... like 60% difference. Ive played this game too- as a pretty sweet Seneca III came up for sale on my field at a rediculously low price. You can pay for a lot of avgas for 50K.... but the problem is- one doozy of an annual and you’re out some of that “avgas money.” If you really want to spend your money in the flight levels, and your mission is just you or you and one other pax to go from point A->point B, then a bravo is a great ride. With fiki TKS right now, they go for about 210. There are three rockets available right now that I’ve seen posted for sale- one has TKS- but I’m about 99.9% sure it’s not FIKI. It also has a weather radar- which is a waste of useful load if you ask me... so it’s probably somewhere around 820lbs (but that’s just my estimate). Just don’t expect to be able to load up your family like you did in your E-model, which despite the smaller power plant and airframe, most likely had 150-200lbs more in useful load, and burned far less fuel per hour (albeit at a 30-40kts penalty). a light twin might be in your wheelhouse if you’re seriously thinking the Bravo is for you- your family would probably appreciate it more- although lots of extra room for those solo trips.