donkaye, MCFI

The GSA 28 Servo weighs 1.4 pounds and in the Bravo is mounted in the tail section beside the pitch servo. At that weight the CG is not going to change much. To me it is definitely worth the price.

The drag demonstration was too simplistic. There are a lot more forces or reduction thereof involved in the go around that play a more important role in the decision to raise the gear first. A mechanical engineer would be more suited to sort that out than a flight instructor. The empirical fact remains that with the forces involved, raising the flaps first in the Mooney can have severe negative consequences, especially in the long body Mooneys. Raising the flaps causes a significant nose up moment the control of which increases the pilot workload beyond that required by raising the gear first. Couple that with increased p-factor and torque associated with advancing the throttle, and you're setting yourself up for possible control problems. Mooney was smart enough to change the order to gear up first in the Acclaim. Others can rationalize the reverse all they want at their own peril. I will continue to teach gear first as the safest method to use when initiating a go around in a Mooney.

In word, Yes. 1. If there is a nose down pitching moment on gear retraction, then in over 11,000 hours of Mooney time, I've never experienced it. Even if there was, that would be a good thing because there would be less trim down needed. 2. If you've committed to a go around, go around. All you need is to change your decision, NOT have enough runway remaining, and go off the runway. No matter how you cut it, when full power is added to a Mooney in a go around and flaps are reduced first, passengers are likely to get upset when they see their pilot aggressively trimming down to control the airplane, thinking something is wrong because of their aggressive movements. Gear up while trimming down with "casual urgency" and when there is a little forward pressure from the yoke, reducing flap deployment to T/O, will not cause passengers possible undue anxiety.

You shouldn't be landing with speed brakes deployed. If you do, I'd hit the speed brake button and raise the gear at the same time.

I haven't flown the Skywagon, but I think all the high wing airplanes I have flown pitch up when flaps are applied and the opposite when flaps are retracted. Why? The CG of a high wing airplane is below the drag force vector of the flaps causing a pitch up moment around the CG when flaps are applied. The opposite for a low wing airplane like the Mooney. (The exception is the Piper. Maybe the reason is its stabilator. I don't know) At any rate you can't compare the two. I will say on the 310 HP upgrade to the Acclaim, going to full power on a go around and bringing the flaps up 1st will provide quite a surprise to the uninformed that could easily lead to an LOC accident.

Vlo (going up) is 106 kts for the Acclaim Type S.

Due to the significant pitch up when flaps are retracted in Mooneys, especially the long body Mooneys, I have taught to retract the gear 1st, trim down, then retract the flaps when going around. I always taught the student that the drag of both were comparable. While most POHs say retract the flaps 1st, in this case I think safety is more important in my opinion than an incorrectly written POH. Finally, in the Acclaim Type S the POH does have the gear being retracted before the flaps in a go around. I recently saw a YouTube video of a recent test conducted in a Bonanza on the given topic. For the Bonanza the conclusion was that the flaps should be retracted first. I decided to run the test on my airplane, a Bravo M20M. At 4,500 feet I slowed the plane to a steady 105 knots ( 5 knots below maximum flap extension speed), engaged the autopilot in altitude hold mode and extended the gear. The plane stabilized at 87 knots for a drag reduction of 18 knots. I retracted the gear and returned to a stabilized 105 knots. I then extended full flaps and waited see where the airspeed would stabilize. It stabilized at---87 knots, the same as with the gear extended. Demonstrated conclusion: Confirming my earlier statement, for safety reasons, the gear should be retracted while trimming down before the flaps are retracted in a Mooney go around.

With age being a concern, without being asked I provided very extensive documentation to USAIG, the company who has insured my aircraft for most of the past 33 years of ownership. I'm not sure if it helped but they renewed with a several hundred dollar increase over last year. Documentation included participation in the Wings Program (Basic 20, Advanced 14), Website showing Instructing for the MAPA Safety Foundation, number of years being a Master Instructor, Recipient of the FAA Master Pilot Award, Participation in the previous Wings Program for 15 years, Copy of 2nd Class Medical, and details of total time in all aircraft flown including all models of Mooneys along with details of all instruction given.

You are correct. If you have an older GTN 750 and not the Xi there may be an issue, if the AFMS says you must change to VOR for the FAS, as it doesn't look like Garmin updated their manual. That is not the case with the latest GTN 750 Xi version. See attached. Since both models were certified to TSO C-129 standards, you would think they could both fly the VOR approach similarly. I deliberately left off a Localizer type approach, since the FAS must be flown with the CDI in localizer mode, as there is no way to monitor it with a bearing pointer.

I'd refer you to AC 90-119. PBN, Performance Based Navigation. Read especially Chapter 12. AC_90-119_Coord_Copy.pdf

Can a stand alone VOR (Not "or GPS") approach be completely flown using GPS as the primary source of navigation--especially on the final approach segment? Too many people either don't know the answer to that question, answer it incorrectly, or are confused by AIM 1-2-3 Notes (4) and (5). Careful reading of AIM 1-2-3 with support from AC 90-119 (draft) provides the answer. My intention is just to provide the answer without going into a long dissertation. The answer is a qualified, YES. Qualifications: 1. A WAAS RNAV system TSO'd under TSO-C129 capable of navigating the final approach segment. 2. The underlying VOR must be operational. Confusion arises by misinterpreting Note (4) in AIM 1-2-3. It states, "Pilots may not substitute (my highlight) for the NAVAID providing lateral guidance for the final approach segment). Note (5) says, "Use of a suitable RNAV system as a means to navigate on the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure based on a VOR, TACAN, or NDB signal, is allowable. The underlying NAVAID must be operational and the NAVAID monitored for final segment course alignment". At first glance it appears that Notes (4) and (5) are contradictory. They are not. The critical word it SUBSTITUTE. Substitute in Note (4) means using GPS exclusively for the approach. Note (5) refers to using a "suitable navigation system" (for example a GTN 750) used in conjunction with the underlying VOR to run the approach. Thus a VOR approach can be run using "a suitable navigation system" (WAAS GPS certified under TSO-129) as the primary source of navigation as long as the underlying VOR is operational and monitored along the final approach segment with either a CDI or bearing pointer.

Something must be going on because my Bravo puts out plenty of heat.

Don't take it personal, but with over 11,000 hours of Mooney time both personal and as an instructor and 33 year M20M long body owner, I disagree with almost everything said above. From experience for best results the pattern on the long body planes should be flown: 90 kts gear and approach flaps on downwind, turn base while reducing power to a nominal 15" (12" on the Acclaims) and adding full flaps while trimming for hands off and no greater than a 3° nose down attitude (this automatically slows the plane to 80 kts). Anticipate and turn final such that the bank angle is not greater than standard rate, adjust power to nominally maintain 75 knots at midweight, and start the flare about 5 feet above the runway by slowly bringing the yoke back in a continuous motion such the you bleed the speed off at such a rate that you touchdown in about a 7° nose up attitude still being able to see at least 2 stripes ahead on a centerline striped runway. The long bodies using appropriate control manipulation (Throttle, MP, RPM, Speed brakes, Gear) can go down and slow down at the same time. The long bodies with their speed brakes can be smoothly slowed from 160 kts to 75 kts over a 5 miles distance when, for example, being placed between jets on an approach.

I guess I don't get that. I've had Jepp Charts on my iPad for years. Regarding Smart Charts: I used to have the approach plate on the iPad as a backup, and used the Aera 760 (or latest Garmin handheld) on the yoke as my primary chart source. No more. Smart Charts are so good that while I still use the 760 as my georeferenced approach plate track up as primary, the iPad stays on my lap as primary for briefing and getting critical information FAST. I looked at Forelight's Dynamic Charts. Watched the video. Played around with it some. Certainly not extensively, so didn't get good with them. In a few words, I won't be using them.

There are some nice things about the Foreflight Charts, but when all is said and done I think the Garmin Smart Charts are both easier to use and provide data in a more useful form. The overlays on Foreflight are better, since Garmin doesn't have any--yet, as well as both visual on lighting and 3D view of the runway.