M016576

It’s like that for all its like that for all GA planes right now. My guess is it’s a side effect of the stock market doing well, plus COVID crushing travel or at least the desire to travel via commercial airlines.

Probably the most relevant piece of that post- the ability to get weather in real time and traffic point outs are huge for pilots, that would otherwise be available. it’s easy to get that for an affordable price tag- stratus, stratux or otherwise, plus an iPad. it’s unfortunate that avionics producers can’t come up with a way to sell certified avionics at a more achievable price. Or that those that support ga avionics feel the need to gouge for database updates. Unfortunately garmin’s avionics department is a relatively small part of their company. Even though I am not a fan of their products/UI, I do recognize the need for them as a company to continue to “produce.” the world is running out of GA manufacturing and maintenance. And as it does, the prices continue to go higher.. which continues to constrain production...... and the cycle continues (for better or worse)

Thanks for bringing the new terrain database to my attention! I just looked and for some reason, I’m still only seeing 15T1 in my Jepessen app as being the newest available (for my EFB... it’s a free update). Strange.. I’ll look into it for sure. your panel is beautiful... not only do you have the best all around type of Mooney (M20K Encore conversion) out there IMO... but also probably the most complete panel! your explanation makes total sense as to why you’d want the georeferenced plates on your 750.... if I was spending time in the right seat for another pilot flying ifr in IMC... I’d want that too!

I don’t begrudge for those that want to keep all their potential databases up to date, and if I came off that way- I apologize- it was not my intention. The title of the thread is “bare minimum” garmin databases... and some of the posts seemed incredulous that anyone *wouldn’t* have the full database selection for their panel. I outlined why I don’t... and it helps me (as someone that’s not independently wealthy and struggles to stay “in the GA game”) manage costs and afford avgas, while still having fullly legal and safe ifr capability.

Do you really look at the 750 often on an approach and get utility out of that feature? Or is it more of a “that’s neato”? How do you use the geo referenced approach plates on your GTN750 that functionally changes or improves your personal IFR procedures (I’m asking because I don’t see the utility- but I haven’t spent much time using one- so I’m probably missing something). I find turning my head to look at the center of the panel while under imc to not be all that great from a spatial D perspective. If the autopilot is on that’s less of a factor, but handflying I prefer to keep my scan localized to my primary flight instruments (PFD/mfd). I just don’t see why anyone would be looking at their GPS during an approach for any extended period of time other than to cross check that their flight plan / approach is properly loaded/activated/sequenced and the radios tuned. All the actual Nav/flying/approach shooting is done on the PFD/mfd- or at least that’s how I’ve always flown. I guess if all you had in the panel was the 750- then using that more for situational awareness would make sense. But even an iPad sitting on my yoke/lap is of more situational awareness utility to me than displays located in the radio stack (assuming you’ve got some sort of waas gps in the panel along with that iPad). Particularly if you’ve got a wifi or Bluetooth gateway parroting all that sweet data. JMHO

Because they aren’t useful or necessary for every IFR flyer so spending $1000 a year on databases doesn’t make sense when you have all the capability you need for $300. Example: I don’t use my panel mount GPS as a visual reference for navigation because it’s waaaayyyyyy over in the center of the panel, away from my MFD and PFD which are conveniently right in front of me. Since I don’t look at it.... ever.... except to verify data entry... why would I need approach plates on it? Or obstacles updated? When was the last time the terrain model was updated, while we’re at it (the answer is 2015): so why would I pay for updates for that if it hasn’t changed in 6 years and likely won’t ever again (unless a meteor hits and all of a sudden the NGA re-maps DTED from orbit again... unlikely at best). you could say “it’s a great to have plates/obstacles as a backup”. But I’ve got 2 EFBs in the cockpit with me that I’m actually referencing in addition to the Aspen PFD/MFD and if I’m planning to fly into known IMC in advance- I actually print off paper plates for the destination (they are free these days, crazy, I know) and alternates as my “oh $ht” backup in the event both of my EFB’s die simultaneously. the argument to keep obstacles Updated is actually more relevant for VFR flight than IFR- as all IFR flight and approaches are certified to maintain a certain distance from obstacles. Obviously one has deviated off their approach or altitude in IMC they may run into an obstacle... so there is some semblance of safety backup in that case... but multiple safety functions in the approach would have to go wrong for the updated obstacle database to be the “glove save” that saves the aircraft/safety/life. Not saying it isn’t possible to get in that situation while ifr... just that it’s unlikely (and unlikely it would make a difference imo- but that’s a whole different argument). I do keep my Aspen MAX MFD’s plates up to date. But an MFD is of more utility to me for displaying charts than a panel mount GPS. Seattle avionics has lifetime subscriptions for Aspen mfds: I paid $799 for a lifetime subscription about 3 years ago for that during their Black Friday sale one year... in 3 years I’m already ahead money wise in just subscription prices. It’s almost like my Aspen/Avidyne panel is paying for itself compared to the garmin stuff that’s more expensive to keep updated. Then again- I’m a self admitted member of the CB club. YMMV. All just my opinion. I’m a known anti-garmin guy too lol

All of this stuff is basically highway robbery seeing as Jeppesen gets the data for free from the NGA, then just parses it to the nav standard for whatever box needs it. I have an avidyne IFD440. I buy the us navdata for 299/year... and that’s it. The IFD had a built in wifi terminal so I just sync up my iPad to that and use FlyQ (bought the lifetime ifr subscription to that in 2013 for $400) for my approach plates. im fairly certain I’m close to the ultimate CB solution that still includes GPS approach capability. The 430W, if I’m remembering correctly, didn’t require the databases to be updated to be legal for area navigation so long as you backed up the point with a chart. All waas gps navigators do require a current database though to be legal for an instrument approach (which seems pretty common-sensical)

Of course... It’s hard to shoot an approach without an approach plate.

Wow! an engine for a bravo... (6 cylinders, a turbocharger+equipment and a wet head).....for the cost of a *nice* F, or run out J... or a tricked out Tesla. General Aviation...go figure... not for the light wallet.

Absolutely correct. I personally enjoy the long range, fuel economy, speed and useful load of a missile @Missile=Awesome @Seth. Although I’m sure if a bravo or acclaim owner were so inclined they could “pull it back” and get similar performance. Albeit not with the same useful load as an Eagle or Missile. I still think the 252 encore conversion that @Parker_Woodruff and @kortopates completed are the pinnacle of all things Mooney... perfect balance of power, speed, useful load and efficiency. The hard part is finding one... they are like a unicorn. I’ve heard of them, but they aren’t easily seen in the wild!!!

I flew that nasty Seneca II down to minimums a number of times too.... and hated almost every second of it lol. N101SA... stay far, far away edit... a quick flight aware show it looks like it’s out in MS now... still flying though (much to my surprise)

that isn’t even close to the experience I had. If I didn’t have a significant amount of rudder in at 30 degrees AOB, the nose would fall rapidly. I was interested in buying one (a Seneca III, actually...until I flew this Seneca II). Now...I’ve only flown one Seneca- and don’t have a ton of hours in it- so single source of info on the airframe.. but I had quite a bit of experience single and multi before flying it... so I am confident in what I saw/felt.. and it wasn’t good. The one I flew was all over the map. Any power change required considerable re-trimming in all three axis, despite the prop sync. Small, even amounts of force in any single axis resulted in non-linear control outputs, and those input/outputs changed markedly with speed (most mechanical flight control systems do though). “Statically Neutral stable“ is how I’d define it in the yaw axis... where I almost had to continue to provide known yaw deflection inputs or the heading would wander like a lost puppy. It flew a little better the faster it went... but it was a full “riding the bicycle” experience during instrument approaches. And the controls were very heavy. Annoyingly so for how imprecise it tracked. the aircraft I was flying (the Seneca II) did not have a functional autopilot... so that experience was about 15 or so hours and maybe 15 approaches all hand flown in the Bay Area through scud layers, etc over 3-4 days. It’s quite possible that the airframe was bent- it was in use by an ATP school.

The Seneca II’s I’ve flown feel about like that. Most of the time flight control feel is a function of the design rigging and the flight control surfaces themselves (aerodynamics). For example: a Mooney at 150 knots feels heavier on the controls than a like weight bonanza at 150knots. It’s purely a function of the aerodynamics and rigging of the flight controls themselves- not the weight of the aircraft. Mooney’s could be designed to feel lighter on the controls (could be modified that way too)... but they weren’t. Most Mooney pilots consider the heavier control feel to be a “feeling of stability”... because our aircraft tend to be statically and dynamically stable.. or at least neutral... in the roll and pitch axis. when I hear Mooney pilots say that, though... I know they have never flown a Seneca II... that thing has heavy controls and is definitely not stable in the roll/yaw axis- lol... indeed... it flys like an old 1980’s Chevy S10! My point... heavy controls don’t make for a stable platform. Nor do light controls (a bonanza IMO) make for an unstable platform.

I totally agree- thanks

Oh man... that was so sad. Patrick was so enthusiastic and passionate about his Mooney... and I feel like many of us drew positive excitement from his positive attitude. It was a real tragedy (and wake up call/learning opportunity) for the entire community for sure.

I too dislike scenarios that encourage illegal and unsafe behavior... and whether I like it or not- a very real one exists, which we’re all debating on this board: what was actually done to raise the gross weight on the J models, and could an STC be made to do that very thing. Let me be very clear on this point, however- At no point, and in no way, have I, or anyone else in this thread ever recommended flying outside the legal published limits of ones airframe. Like you mention above- operating outside of the published limits is illegal and asking for trouble on multiple levels. It’s reckless behavior and contradictory to legal and safe piloting. what we are debating is whether or not an STC should/could be entertained, engineered and approved. some have stated that they feel that the J/F would be unsafe at a higher gross weight than what they are originally certified for... my point is, that with a proper, legal STC, I don’t see why any pilot would feel that it would be unsafe to fly up to their legal, STC certified Max gross weight, so long as they take into account their operating environment... just like one currently has to do in every other aircraft they fly. To make my statement in the form of an example: is it smart(legal?) to launch a c150 at max gross from Leadville on a high density altitude day? Absolutely not. Does that mean that C150’s need a lower certified Max gross weight? No.

That’s not necessarily fair and is also speculation on your part; to imply that Rocket’s STCs are not sound or well engineered (because they certainly are). The missile and rocket mods have been flying for 35+ years and tens of thousands of hours without mechanical issue, and passed all FAA requirements to be certified. I do admit that I’m biased... but your implication is unfounded.

I’m fairly certain those are the same landing gear components that take the missile up to 3200lbs.

And thus begins the eternal debate any time we all bring up the potential for a gross weight increase on the older J’s/F’s... should it be allowed based on subjective assessments of “is it safe/smart?” some like the opportunity/flexibility that having the options- provided that the pilot knows the limits/performance... brings. others say “I’ve flown a J/F and the extra 100-200 lbs would be way to dangerous in conditions X,Y,Z.” my thoughts are this: to certify the aircraft to that max gross weight, it would have to comply with normal aircraft category standards. A pilot must also take accountability for their actions/understanding of how to fly their airplane. the newer J’s are certified up to 2900 lbs... if it’s proven that the older ones and possibly even F’s are rated up to that weight... I don’t see why anyone would feel any less comfortable flying up to those weights in the older models. But the paperwork/research still needs to be completed to legally “get there.”

She looks beautiful- congrats!!!

That’s an issue I’ve found with the Bravo’s- useful load isn’t always what I’d want it to be, if it has TKS. in my TKS’d Missile, I’m constantly running up against max useful load when I’ve got my wife, kids and dog aboard... and that’s with a max gross over 1000lbs usable. I don’t think we could legally make the trips we currently make in a Bravo (not that the aircraft couldn’t handle it- just that it’s not legal). I have yet to find a Bravo that has the same max gross weight as my missile, or an ovation... or a modded encore... and the speed difference vs fuel burn doesn’t make up the difference. (175KTAS at 10K ~12gph vs 220KTAS at 20K ~20+ gph). I think you’re right though- the modified encore is probably the best all around mooney out there for speed, capability, useful load... that one Parker had another it 5-7 years ago was pretty amazing: what was the useful load on that- 1150lbs? Solid.

These tubes *were not* modified with the missile mod. I have the STC paperwork that describes what was done to up the gross weight to 3200... it’s a couple of new model K landing gear components. My guess is the extra thickness on those tubes actually isn’t a required structural change at all... but instead some sort of supply line/manufacturing synergy. Just a guess on my part.... but I do know for a fact that the missile and rocket mods *do not* have any changes done to the cage. I should also mention that my aircraft is a 1982 J that was modified to a missile: it would not otherwise be eligible for the 2900lb stc, if it hadn’t been made a Missile (up to 3200)

This is the same story I have heard regarding the 2900 limit. And based on rocket engineering getting the stock old school J/K airframes up to 3200... that supports this argument.

I’d agree with you if it wasn’t for the fact that rocket engineering upped the max gross weight on the old J’s and K’s to 3200 with no alterations to the steel cage at all, just a couple of low cost landing gear components. So really it comes down to this: the factory has the test data for the later model J/K’s to 2900... and rocket engineering has the test data for 3200. The factory isn’t/won’t/can’t use the rocket test data... and Rocket has no interest in producing the gross weight increase for a stock J/K, as their STC most likely exclusively considers their engine mount/power plant. I think of a third party DER took an analysis... or even just drew an inference based on the current 2900 and 3200 max gross weights, they could get a “STC kit” together for pretty cheap, and relatively easily. I’m willing to bet each kit would cost the producer under $750 once all approved, said and done... and I bet they could sell that STC for $2500 and they’d move like hot cakes.

I totally agree with you- but requests in the past have fallen on deaf ears- lots of speculation why. actually- it should be relatively easy and not particularly time consuming at least for the 2900lb weight, as all the test data has already been vetted. So it would literally be a matter of proving that the changes made to allow for the 2900lb increase are valid. You could probably write the entire STC without flying a single additional test flight... it would all be paperwork.