donkaye

Without being sarcastic, if you are considering one of the earlier short bodied Mooneys, they are relatively inexpensive. Why don't you buy both types of planes? I once had a student who had cashed out of a tech company and couldn't make up his mind between a Mooney Bravo and a Bonanza A36. His wife suggested he buy both and he did. He added a PC 12 a few years later.

After a lesson and long chat with a student at Hayward last year, I took off into a 52 knot direct headwind. I was like a helicopter. I had checked the winds at San Jose and they were 26 knots with a small crosswind component. The trip home was bumpy and I was glad to be alone, but it was totally uneventful. Preplanning was important, though.

I understand the principle of setting minimums for yourself and that is a good thing, but you want to constantly be improving your skills. 28 knots feels uncomfortable for you now so set a lower limit for now. But go up with an instructor in heavier winds to be able to raise that limit. Sometimes you will arrive at an airport and not how what the winds are. Then what? Although I can't explain it, there will come time when you will know your airplane well enough that you can comfortably set up for a crosswind approach not knowing the wind and while on the approach (even on landing) know it is time to find another airport, all with no anxiety.

The truth is that with enough speed you won't run out of rudder. With the higher stall speed with no flaps the plane will be done flying quicker when on the ground. The problem can occur that after on the ground and slowing and with full aileron, the plane can't hold the runway. In that case you are at a speed that you can immediately add power and go around without any more side slip. So far I have never had a crosswind where that happened when I am on the ground. I have touched down at 105 knots with a 40 knot direct crosswind with no headwind component many years ago. The runway was long so there was time to slow down to a point where the weight of the airplane was enough to counter the force of the crosswind.

The answer to that question is that it depends. First off, slipping to a landing in a crosswind is in my experience a very poor method to use. It requires too much work and passengers don't like it. Unlike the crabbing method, it's also hard to tell the magnitude of the crosswind. With crabbing it's easy to tell magnitude by the angle of the crab to maintain the centerline. That angle tells you what you need to know regarding flap configuration and speed. If lined up on final with full flaps and normal approach speed, and your crab angle is greater than about 15°, then it's time to change things. Flaps should go to approach or none and speed should increase enough to bring the crab angle back to 15°. In any event no less than 10 knot increase to account for the stall speed increase with little or no flaps. Transition to the wing low method for landing. The plane needs to be flown onto the runway with a soft field technique. As you reduce speed and increase aileron into the wind, maintain runway centerline. If full aileron has been applied and the plane starts to drift, apply full power and go around. Using this method a crosswind limitation cannot be stated, as it depends on the circumstance (headwind and crosswind components). So, I can't give you a crosswind maximum that you should follow. As more experience is gained, your limitation will increase. This is meant to be a general overview on how to handle large crosswinds and not a lesson in landing in crosswinds. For that you really should go out with an experienced Mooney instructor in large crosswinds (25 to 30 knot direct crosswinds with no headwind component). Our airplanes can handle those. Also, longer runways than usual may be needed depending on the headwind component. Also, not to be forgotten is that with the increase in stall speed with no flaps, the airplane is done flying sooner, a good thing in such conditions. While crosswinds can be challenging, that are also fun. Oftentimes when we have strong winds out here, I'm off to the airport to practice. I recommend the same for you.

Jim, GP couldn't be simpler, if in the settings menu you scroll down to "Appearance" and select "Home" menu. A house will appear in the upper left hand corner of the display. Tapping on the house will open a display the looks exactly like the home display on the GTN 750. Tap the Flight Plan icon. A choice is presented: Enter your flight plan including SIDs and airways in a straight line or, like the old GNS 480, enter an Origin , Destination, and enroute waypoints to complete your flight plan. The end result is the same. Then in the lower right hand corner tap "Create Trip". Fill out the "Form", Tap Brief, Then Tap "File" and you're done. If I were you, I'd spend a few minutes trying out the above. While GP doesn't have all the bells and whistles of FF, I can enter a FP, Brief, and File on the fly in just a couple of minutes. So can you.

As a flight instructor, you get a 33% discount on Forefight. Garmin Pilot's interface is just like the GTN series navigators, so very easy to use. Brian Schiff and Mike Jesch gave online seminars that lasted about 1½ hours each that extended more than 16 weeks on the operation of Foreflight. I'm sorry, but I just didn't have the patience or time to attend after about 2 sessions. To me Foreflight has so many options as to be unworkable for me. I do use the 3D portion to look at unfamiliar airports, though. Maybe it's because I've used it since it first came out, but GP is my program of choice. For an uncomplicated weather flight I can brief and file in a couple of minutes. Not so in Foreflight for me. Through the use of either the FS 210 or FS 510 flight plan changes made on the GTN auto transfer to GP without thought. You can go the other direction, but I don't. I prefer setting up a flight on the GTN and having it transfer to GP. I'm probably the exception, but I prefer Jeppesen Approach Plates. For that I have to buy an expensive subscription for the iPad. However, with it I get Jepp Charts on the Aera 760. I probably pay more for aviation subscriptions than anyone, but as a flight instructor I need/want the ones I have. 1. Garmin Onepak for the G500 TXi, GTN 750 and GTN 650-includes Garmin Flight Charts and all database for the Aera 760. 2. Garmin Pilot Basic. 3. Jeppesen Charts for the iPad (4 Seats) and the Aera 760. Two are used: GP and Foreflight. Aera 760 is included for a price. 4. Foreflight Pro version (33% flight instructor discount). 5. Two full subscriptions to Sirius XM Weather including Audio (Very Expensive-Audio price negotiable, weather is not). One is used for the GDL 69A in the airplane and the other is used for the GDL 52 that I use both in the airplane and in flight instructing. Buying the Onepak and Jeppesen Charts at Airventure provides a 10% discount each.

I'm on my 3rd engine. With the avionics upgrade, prop and engine replacement a few years ago as the result of a maintenance issue (all zero time remans), GAMI injectors, and the new Surefly Mag, the plane is better than new.

The good news and the bad news. After nearly 3 hours of buffing and wet sanding and other things, Mark, at Top Gun was able to nearly eliminate the staining on my wing. If you really look closely you can still see it a little bit, but I am happy with the result. The bad news on the other hand is that it cost me nearly $500 of his time. Still less than repainting, but I'm not thrilled about it. As much as I want to support G100UL, I won't be using it. Mark confirmed it was the matt used by the fueler that caused the damage, as indicated by the pattern it left on the wing. Mark and his Dad, Tom, have maintained my airplane since I bought it 32 years ago. He personally upgraded my first engine to the Bravo, and changed out the other two himself. Needless to say he really knows engines. We talked today. I told him how well G100UL performed. He commented that it was probably great for the engine itself, but maybe not so great for other parts of the airplane. He was surprised at the difficulty he had in removing the stains, as he thought he could remove it more easily. He apologized for how long it took. There have been times when I have accidentally overfilled a tank and fuel ran all the way down the wing. I don't want to chance that happening with G100UL. It's just too easy to screw up. And so ends my experiment for now.

George, What polish did you use?

KRHV has a form that needs to be filled out before they will fill with G100UL. Either have the sticker on the wing or show your copy of the STC. I have it on my iPad, but haven't needed it because of the wing sticker.

I'm a proponent of G100UL. I'm on the side of the "Glass half full" rather than "Half empty" philosophy. I don't have the patience or the inclination to become an expert on fuels, as some on this forum. So, I'm with George on this. I believe in his research. Ironically, my Dad was a PHD chemist who specialized in rocket fuel research. However, just as your tongue is constantly attracted to a problem with a tooth, so am I every time I do a preflight and see the light staining on both side of my fuel tanks. It's annoying, so on Monday I'm going to call a top notch paint shop in Salinas and set up an appointment to see if they can buff it out, and if not, I think I'll have my wing repainted.

About 50%.

For numerous reasons I don't run my engine LOP. I tried for awhile many years ago, but after expensive exhaust repairs, the inability to get the TIT to behave in a reasonable manner, the lack of smoothness of the engine, and the fact that I didn't buy the airplane to go slow, I chose not to run it LOP. I've attached a LOP chart for the Bravo, however. LOPFFvsHP Bravo.xls

I've been using G100UL intermittently, since I'm not based at KRHV. I've experienced no operational change different from using 100LL other than the light staining I described earlier. I intend to closely watch fueling in the future and not allow any matt to be placed on the wing. As my plane has been hangared all its life, my paint is the original paint from Mooney. I had my tanks resealed by Weep no More in November of 2016. Since the plane is a 1991 model, that means 25 years to reseal.