donkaye, MCFI

When I had an issue with one of the first GFC 500 installs on my M model, Garmin went out of their way to assist me in solving the problem, including allowing me to visit them on the way to Oshkosh last year. They found the problem in less than 5 minutes after opening up the avionics bay in the back of the plane. While almost everyone on their team had left for Oshkosh, an approval letter was generated for a required change to the installation that allowed the airplane to be returned to service. I was on pins and needles for most of a day, but the letter was received by the shop at 4:30 in the afternoon of the last day we were to remain in Olathe. Also, after a year and a half, the display on the TXi decided to go bonkers. I had a replacement in 2 days. So I have found Garmin service to be impeccable. Your situation is rather unique. Who ever heard of a tail from a different model Mooney being used as a replacement for the original? After talking with the flight test pilot who helped certify my model Mooney, I found that the testing for approval of an autopilot for a specific model aircraft is significant: weight variations from light to gross, CG variations from forward to rearward, altitude variations from low to max altitude, speed variations from slow to fast, etc. The expectation that Garmin would risk approval on a "one off" in the situation of a different tail assembly, I think is unrealistic. The problem lies with shop that had the temerity of replacing one model's tail with another model's tail. And why didn't the prebuy find that issue? This whole situation I find incredible.

Time to send it in for repair.

It might be compared to the difference between driving a VW bug and driving a Lincoln Continental. The C grosses out at 2575 while the Bravo grosses out at 3368; a nearly 800 pound difference. The C is light on the controls and can be landed short like a Cessna 150. The Bravo is a lot heavier on the controls, and with experience can be landed short, but not as short as the C. For longer trips over various terrain the Bravo brings more capability and options. Much more can be said, but this is a good start. The above statements come from having done trainings with students in both airplanes and having owned a Bravo for the past 27 years.

While I agree there is probably no market for the totally upgraded older Bravo with a new zero time engine for someone who hasn't owned an airplane before, for someone like me who's been through the downtime, knows the performance of the Bravo, and is willing to sacrifice 25 knots to save more than half the price of a new airplane, it would be a bargain. For those that want new and price is no issue, of course, the new Acclaim Ultra can't be beat.

I've been associated with Mooneys for a few years, like 27 years of ownership of my Bravo with another 2 years before that of decision making. I'm on my 3rd engine right now. I've been through a complete panel upgrade, starting in 2013 and adding new things up to the present. When it comes to engines, the price increases about 5% each year. Count on it. If you have time to spare in your life, cash in your pocket to spend, and want your dream airplane, then buy a Bravo with both a run out engine and original avionics. You might be able to find one for $95,000. A new reman installed, as mentioned above is close to $85,000. Your dream all Garmin panel with G500 TXi including EIS, GTS 800, GTX 345, GDL 69A, GMA 35c, G5, GTN 750, GTN 650, FS 510, and GFC 500 costs about $130,000 installed. So you would have 95,000 + 85,000 + 130,000 = $310,000 in the plane. Add $12,000 for tank reseal, $15,000 for exterior paint and 15,000 for new interior and you end up with $337,000 for an almost new airplane. This is less than half of the cost of a new Acclaim for a plane that is only about 25 knots slower. The downside is that the new engine will take over 2 months to make and other 1 month to R&R. And unless you have the Avionics shop on the same field as the MSC, add at least another 4 months for the avionics upgrade and another 2 for the tank reseal and paint and interior. That's 2 + 1 + 4 +2 = 9 months. Then add another 3 for delays. So the plane will be down for a year. The upside is that you will have an almost new airplane for less than half the cost of a new one. Then, of course, you could decide to buy a Bravo with a run out engine and a somewhat upgraded panel. The upgraded panel would probably consist of at least an Aspen, GTN 750, KX155, and GTX 345. The plane could probably be purchased for $135,000. Add the new engine for $85,000 and you are in it for $220,000, you're down for 3 months, you hope the tanks don't leak, and can live with the old paint and interior. You don't have the dream airplane, but you've bought the avionics at a discount, you don't have as long downtime, and you still have the speed of the Bravo. Also, remember airplanes are not inexpensive to own, so expect it to cost at least $30,000 per year to own for about 100 hours of flying per year. It's expensive, but at least not the annual cost of maintenance on a small turbine prop plane or small jet, and you're not that much slower.

No, labor to R&R is additional. I figure that the total cost to change engines with a reman would be about $81,000. This includes overhauling both alternators and prop governor (2,000), replacing all hoses (2,000), inspecting the engine mount frame (500), New engine mount kit (1,200) and labor to remove and reinstall the engine (10,000).

As of September 2018 the Reman cost $65,647 less $1,700 Customer loyalty discount plus $,1,248 Shipping. That assumes you get the Core credit of $29,500 after you return the core. The cost probably increased somewhat after the 1st of the year.

Due to P factor I do adjust the rudder trim to minimize constant rudder pressure in climbs and descents. It doesn't have to be done constantly, since you are climbing and descending at a constant rate. When climbing at or below Vy some right rudder will still need to be held, as rudder trim doesn't fully cover the P factor at those speeds.

Slipping any Mooney for the purpose of losing altitude is just poor form and uncomfortable for passengers. Of course it is necessary for crosswind landings, but even then, I would practice enough that you are comfortable with the crab and transition to wing low method of landing, as the work load is significantly reduced all the way to the corrections necessary in the flare. All proficient Mooney pilots should be capable of recognizing the sight picture for a stabilized approach and not be high. Having said that the long body Mooneys (M20M, M20R, M20S, M20TN) can be slipped even with full flaps. There is no prohibition in the POHs from doing them. (In the K model there is) If doing so, make sure it is done above the 85 knots Bob Krommer stated. To demonstrate this, when a student is high on downwind, I'll have them full slip around the turn to base and final. The wing is NOT loaded, the speed is greater than 85 knots (usually 90 knots), and the nose is down for the descending slipping turn. The ball in the turn coordinator or PFD is facing the inside of the turn. Do NOT skid around a turn as this can lead to an unrecoverable stall/spin. I would recommend doing this first with a Mooney Specific Instructor familiar with your airplane model. Remember, this is for demonstration purposes only and should not be the norm for flying a pattern, as I said above, the proficient pilot knows the slope at which to make all turns in the pattern.

The clock is a bit of a PIA. The clock works great if the bulb isn't burnt out. If you can't read it, the bulb it probably burnt out. Before we learned how to change the bulb simply, we had to take the whole glare shield out and that took a couple of hours. On the second time, we found that you could just unscrew the ASI, push it down, and reach in and change the bulb. It took about 15 minutes. This assumes you have the legacy six pack instruments.The bulb can be replaced with an Audi #431-919-040 that can be purchased at your friendly Audi Dealer. I do have a complete clock that came out of my plane when I did my upgrade, but the easiest thing is just go to the Audi Dealer and get a new bulb.

The answer, "For the most part". I'd really like to fly another M20M that has added the GFC 500. Only two things could be better. In turns where the bank angle goes to 30° (the maximum allowed on the GFC 500) there is some damped oscillation that diminishes after a couple of oscillations. It's acceptable. Also, on approach, there is some oscillation on the glide path that is also acceptable. I did fly Adam Fineberg's (201Mooniac) J model that exhibited none of these issues. It was perfect. So, from my perspective, the J is perfect, the M almost.

I've posted it a number of times on MooneySpace, but here it is again in flight. It is a dream panel. The addition of the GFC 500 was the icing on the cake. The autopilot holds altitude based on the G5. As you can see, it is perfect. Change the Baro setting and the airplane corrects altitude automatically. Enroute VNAV is magical, once you figure it out. I love the YD. This panel confirms the benefits of using one manufacturer when possible for interface simplicity. The EIS system wasn't available when I did the upgrade, however, due to the additional capability of the MVP 50 and the additional screen real estate gained, I would have chosen it anyway. Luckily the WX 500 did easily interface, as did the Shadin used as a backup for fuel management. I added the GCU 485 a month before the GFC 500 was certified for the Bravo. It is used mostly for Baro setting only now. Had I known the certification of the GFC 500 was a month away, it would not have been necessary. With the latest system update to the G500TXi you can change the display aspect ratios between the PFD and MFD on the fly, which I find very useful if I want a better look at the MFD..

I hadn't had the chance to read that issue yet, so was surprised when you mentioned it. Thanks for calling my attention to it.

I've never had any issue with the heat on my M20M or any other M20M I have flown. Make sure the cabin heat control is fully out and the cabin vent control is fully in. If you're not getting adequate heat there may be something wrong with the shroud and that should be checked.

Telligence voice command.

I'd need to go out and try it, but having flown a VOR approach, the VNAV still stopped at one before the FAF in NAV mode. I expect that would be the same, but I'm going to fly an LPV approach in NAV mode tomorrow and see what happens from one waypoint before the FAF to the FAF.

Also, assume that after I get this clearance I set my altitude bug to 3000' and push the VNAV button. I'll then also press the APR button for the approach. According to Steve at Garmin, for the GFC 500 you do not have to set the altitude bug below the lowest altitude. This conflicts with the Supplement to the POH, which is written incorrectly. Steve is correct. I have tried it. Also, if TOD is more than 5 minutes away, you will have to push it again within the 5 minute range. I have TOD as one of the data boxes on the GTN 750. First question. With my default descent angle it looks like the GFC will need to cross KIREC at 4300' because the descent after that will need to be steeper than my default angle. So I'm guessing that TOD will be set 8.5 NM prior to KIREC and the GFC will stay at 6000' until it reaches TOD. The path will then be set to cross KIREC 'at' 4300'. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Second question. With my default descent angle, it looks to me like the descent from KIREC to OPIXE will need to be steeper than my default, but not as steep as a 3 degree glideslope. Since I pressed APR, VNAV guidance will stop at ENNGL and the GFC will level off and wait to capture the GS. So the question is, will the GFC strive to cross ENNGL at 3500' or will it cross ENNGL a bit higher along a constant rate flightpath between KIREC and OPIXE that would cross OPIXE at 3000'? It will cross ENNGL at 3500'. Remember VNAV ends at ENNGL, one waypoint before the FAF. GP should be armed and enabled within 2 miles of the FAF. If the GP shows above you on the G5 or G500TXi you are good to go and will intercept it and the GFC will fly you down. If you are above the GP then you will need to push V/S and go down to meet it before the GFC 500 will capture and fly it. Third question. If I leave a FAF crossing restriction as an 'at or above', does the GFC VNAV path strive to hit the FAF 'at' that altitude? Or do I need to change the restriction to an 'at' restriction for that to happen? VNAV isn't applicable after one waypoint before the FAF. Garmin does a horrible job of documentation on VNAV. They should give examples. Beechtalk had the best thread where Steve answered many questions. It can be found here: https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=171218 The best thing is to go out and practice on the approach to see what it does versus what you expect it to do.

Here's the GFC 500 interconnect diagram from Garmin. This is how mine is wired. Your shop should have the details.

The display functionality of changing between 60/40, 40/60, and HSI map inset is what I was referring to. I am not very knowledgeable about the G3X (not ready to read another 492 pages of a product I m not going to be using), but my understanding is its interface capability is more limited than that of the G500TXi. For example I hear that the GDL 88 (I have one of those) won't interface and some nav radios. Also, this thread discusses some other things that I would not be happy about. Still, it's a great alternative to the TXi. https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=171954

I wish Garmin did have a 50/50, but they only have 60/40 and 40/60, and, yes, you can change it on the fly with the last system update. Pretty slick.

I originally thought about keeping one mechanical VOR/GPS head, but was talked out of it by my installer. That was one of the best decisions I made on the planning. I would scuttle the mechanical indicator. Remember you have the same course shown on the G5 should you loose the G3X Touch. Also, move all the switches and clock somewhere else and either move the G3X to the left or move the G5 to the left side and also the JPI under it but turned 90° to make it vertical. See pictures below for my panel. I couldn't quite center the PFD over the yoke, but have not noticed any issues at all flying it as shown. I took these a couple of days ago. Due to cost I won't try to change your mind about installing the G500TXi over the G3X, but look at the fantastic display possibilities available with it. On approach before the final approach course I keep it on the 40/60 size for a larger map display, then switch to 60/40 for the larger PFD. And then, of course, there is the inset HSI map if you want it. BTW, the autopilot flys the G5 altitude not the G500TXi altitude.

I see you plan a GFC 500. VNAV is really a nice function to have. The only way you will get that is with a GTN. While the GNS 530 still has some value and you're doing a major overhaul of your panel, you should consider a GTN installation now. The 355 won't cut it.

By now most of you might have heard that our very good friend and long term supporter of the Mooney Community "Flew West" last Sunday morning. He's been a fixture in the MAPA Log for years with his interesting and often humorous and well written articles. We shared a home with Bob and Ricci for over 20 years in Oshkosh at AirVenture where Bob never failed to give at least two Forums and was instrumental in bringing pulse oximeters to aviation. He gave numerous presentations over the years at the MAPA Homecomings. Bob owned an M20E, M20K and finally an M20M. He loved flying, and Shirley and I would often fly up to Sacramento where Shirley and Ricci would go off shopping and Bob and I would go flying. Those shared times will be missed...

I carry 2 pulse oximeters. One I hang on the prop control in clear sight. I check the reading about every 10 minutes. While these finger pulse oximeters seem like a good idea, wearing another piece of hardware in addition to the cannulas is not very enticing to me.

I had the stabilizing regulator. It didn't work in my airplane, which is also an M20M like John's. It was hooked in series with the altitude compensating regular that comes with the airplane and created the problem according the the people at Mountain High. I don't know how other people make this work with their altitude compensating regulator unless they are satisfied with an O2 saturation level of 92%. At the highest level of oxygen flow I don't 'think there is that much of a savings over the mustache canulas, but I don't have a scientific basis to say that.