donkaye, MCFI

Given the changes you are making, for a little more money you should consider trading the GTN 750 for the Xi version to pick up Smart Glide.

I think the Mooney Caravan is one of the most professionally run, most organized and safety conscious groups I have had the privilege of flying with. I've flown into Oshkosh with them a number of times. No one is permitted to participate without training. My main reason for not flying the Caravan the past few years has to do with my weekly logistics, the fact that I don't want to taxi on grass, and I want my airplane hangared for the week. As such, I land in Madison, rent a car for the week, and drive through some beautiful country for an hour and fifteen minutes on my way to Oshkosh.

I did my upgrade in 2014 with additional upgrades to the upgrade since that time. I spent a month full time researching what was available and reading the details of each piece of avionics (I was previously a display electrical engineer, now a full time flight instructor). For my purposes I'm satisfied with the speed of my plane so was not interested in "upgrading" to a turboprop or jet. Therefore, I wanted the best of the best. We're all concerned with monetary input, but for me not over the avionics I wanted. However, that didn't mean I didn't want a good deal. The best deals seem to be had by going to AirVenture. I've been going for the past 24 years and looking at anything new. At the time Garmin had just come out with some of the best to me avionics I could have wanted. They had some extremely good deals there when buying multiple units. I saved a bundle in that way. Selling all my old avionics also proved very valuable in reducing the overall cost of the upgrade. Garmin did not have their EIS at the time, but even now I wouldn't have chosen it over the EI MVP-50 that for me does everything that I want and doesn't take up valuable real estate on the display. Except for the upload to an iPad I think the MVP-50 provides more information than the Garmin EIS. Of course there is the competition like Aspen or Dynon, but again for me I didn't want to worry about inter connectivity so for the most part I went all Garmin. To me they are the Rolls Royce of the avionics world. That doesn't mean you won't like the others. It just means that I like the Garmin interface and displays best. Even given the avionics market today, I wouldn't change a thing I have done so far and I don't think there is anything else I could add that would give me more capability with a single engine turbocharged airplane. On my trip to AirVenture this year i made use of everything including the Stormscope WX-500, my active traffic GTS 800, GDL 69A, and Aera 760 among other things. Done by one person 10 years ago the upgrade took 6 months, an excruciatingly long time. A bigger shop could most likely do it quicker, but when mine was done there were no mistakes. The upgrades to the upgrade include the G500 to the G500 TXi, the GTN 750 and GTN 650 to the Xi models, Alpha Systems Eagle AOA, Microkits LHS, conversion to all LED lights, and lastly conversion of the KFC 150 to the GFC 500 4 servo autopilot. You're in for quite a ride, one that I would NOT like to do again.

I'm sorry I can't provide the manual because it is copywrited material used for the Mooney PPP that people pay money to attend. An analogy would be a car going down a steep slope. You would accelerate and need to step on the brakes if you didn't put the car in low gear. Low gear would be low RPM. I personally use low RPM when coming into my home airport, San Jose, at say 170 knots and wanting to slow down rapidly without damaging my engine with MP below 15". We have lots of alternatives for slowing down, but I like to be most efficient. Rather than increasing drag too soon by using the speed brakes and gear, I'd rather slow down rapidly without hurting the engine by reducing MP over time to 15" and rpm to 2000 to make sure the engine is running the prop and not vise versa. When I'm close in, if I'm above 140 kts gear speed, I'll add speed brakes to slow to 140 kts then on downwind put the gear down keeping the speed brakes out to slow to flap speed, then go to approach flaps, slow to 90 kts and retract the speed brakes. At the 3° slope to my aim point I'll reduce power to nominally 15", go to full flaps and turn base, do the gumps check and verify 80 kts on base. Turn final and establish 75 kts nominally and make the landing. Anyway, that's the procedure I've been using for the past 32 years of M20M ownership. If you're interested in any other credentials just go to my website, www.donkaye.com. I've written some articles that you might find useful.

I stand by what I said 9 years ago. For normal descents 2400 RPM is fine, for expedited descents it is not. Each 100 RPM drop is approximately a 3% power reduction, therefore, a 400 RPM drop results in an approximately 13% drop in power. Reducing the MP by 4" accomplishes the same power reduction, but is detrimental to the engine when MP is dropped below 15" in an expedited descent. Doing so would mean the prop is running the engine and per the Mooney PPP can cause detrimental effects such as ring flutter which eventually can cause them and the piston lands to break. To quote from the PPP manual "Rapid descents with cruise rpm and very low manifold pressures allow piston rings to flutter, which eventually can cause them and the piston lands to break."

The KFC 150 was a great AP, but the GFC 500 is on another level; ESP, LVL, VNAV, Smart Glide (needs GTN 750Xi), YD. Paint vs the GFC 500--a no brainer for me--the GFC 500. A servo WILL fail on the KFC 500, the plane will be down, good money down the drain to repair. With a working system you should be able to recover over 5K from the sale of the components of the KFC 150 to help with the cost of the new AP.

I looked up the owner. It looks like he's based at Watsonville. I don't know him. His plane is literally 10 flying minutes from me. It would have been in his best interest to have contacted me. After his plane is repaired, he still should.

In my opinion better training including bounced landing recovery training and a willingness to get that instruction. It takes an instructor with lots of Mooney time to be willing to do that type of training.

To be clear, I never advocated doing a soft field takeoff from a high density altitude airport. In fact I don't advocate landing on grass fields, although a number of people live on airparks and do land on them with Mooneys. The risk level goes up due to minimal prop clearance. I'd actually recommend doing a short field takeoff from a place like Leadville. Achieve full power for the altitude before brake release. Still, I'd recommend staying in ground effect until Vx before climbing out. Practicing soft field technique is used to better understand the aircraft envelope to help prevent LOC accidents on the ground or on a go around.

I don't do "Flight Reviews" any more only the Wings Program that qualifies for the Flight Review. I find it to be much better than a basic review in that 3 knowledges courses are required and then 3 different flight activities, each activity relating to accident prevention. It also has the benefit of giving one free pass in 5 years on a violation that was not deliberate. Over the past couple of years the FAA changed Activity A070405-07 to include soft field takeoffs and landings among many other types of landings. So, I'm doing them all the time. It's a little different in the Mooney than in a Cessna in that the nose comes up pretty quickly and there is a balancing act that needs to be performed on the mains just before the plane is ready to fly. Then as the wheels come off the runway the nose needs to be lowered to stay in ground effect until 5 knots below Vx at which time the climb out begins with momentum taking the airspeed to Vx. One big benefit of the soft field takeoff is that it trains a pilot to know his airplane in a regime where you are at the edge of the envelope having maximum torque and p-factor and at a speed where the airplane wouldn't fly were it not in ground effect. Not being able to do this has caused a number of accidents by pilots, for example, attempting go-arounds. One happened at San Carlos a number of years ago by a pilot returning from a transition training after a long day of flying. He lost control and destroyed his newly acquired Mooney. Luckily, he survived. Before I'll sign anyone off on a transition training they need to be able to perform soft field takeoffs successfully every time.

To be perfectly clear I don't and wouldn't recommend anyone doing cross controlled stalls in a Mooney. At the time I was doing them with students the FAA was concerned about recovery from the base to final turn cross controlled stall. For that matter it is still a concern, but after my experience with them many years ago I won't be doing them in a Mooney and neither should you.

In a well rigged Mooney I have never had an airplane snap into a spin at the stall with the ball centered. To prevent a ridiculously nose up attitude on a power on stall it should be started at approach speed and at 65% power. I have had airplanes that were not properly rigged start to roll off on a wing near the stall, but recovery was immediate and there was no uncontrolled spin entry. The only time I went into an inadvertent spin in a Mooney was about 25 years ago practicing cross controlled stalls out of a left turn. Luckily the stall practice was started at 6,000 feet and recovery took 1,000 feet. My article about that can be found on my website www.donkaye.com under useful aviation articles. As a point of interest and comfort, every Mooney that came out of the factory was flight tested, and the stall strips were adjusted for each airplane to stall straight ahead in a power off stall.

Mike, you're right. I modified my post above to say that I agree with most of what he says. But there will come a time where it would be beneficial for an average pilot to really understand both the benefits and potential problems associated with ground effect, the benefits being on takeoff and the problems being associated with energy dissipation on Mooney landings.

I did and commented on it. And btw, I don't care if anyone chooses to follow any of my recommendations or postings. If you think you can benefit from them great. Otherwise...

Well, I bow to Cliffy with 60 years of flying. I only have 56 years, having gotten my Private in 1968. I agree with most of what he says. I don't advocate flying on the edge, just using good piloting technique as conditions demand. Using ground effect to your benefit is one of them, both in takeoff AND landing. While it's of real benefit in takeoff, when it comes to landing the Mooney it can create problems in judging rate of energy dissipation.

Personally, I do accelerate to 5 knots below Vx on most takeoffs before I climb out. It happens rapidly in the M20M. I hit Vx on the climb.

I don't know, I try to keep and open mind and learn from others, especially those who might have more experience that I do.

OK, from this 30 year flight instructor, I will. But who said you should take off in marginal conditions as determined by doing a proper preflight including a review of the POH? If you are going to takeoff from a high DA airport you want the greatest margin of safety, and that means flying in ground effect as close to the ground as possible to get the maximum reduction in induced drag to get the maximum performance from the plane, especially a non turbocharged airplane.

Sorry, call me crazy for thinking we should aim for a higher level of proficiency. Of course you should use your superior knowledge so you don' have to use your superior skill, but you should have the superior skill in reserve in my opinion. The greater the margin of safety the better in high altitude operations.

All the more reason to stay close to the ground and be grateful to own a Mooney.

Using a musical instrument as an example. You'll never get anywhere without a lot of practice. The same goes for flying. Even a low time pilot should be capable of flying down the runway at no more than 1 foot. It just takes practice. For high DA the proficient pilot should be able to use ground effect to its maximum effectiveness and 25% reduction just doesn't cut it with me when it could be 50%.

My experience with ALL students has been that, even though they may want to, they just won't stay in ground effect. In ground effect induced drag is reduced by an amazing 48%. Everyone thinks they are going to hit the ground. Why? The Mooney wing is a little over 36 feet in length. Ground effect is 10% of the wing length or about 3 feet. But the landing gear extends about 3 feet. So just as the wheels leave the ground you need to level the plane a few inches off the ground. People just won't do that. However, if you do, the plane will accelerate much more quickly to Vx, where you can then start your climb.

Ho about an ignition switch for $701?

My data fields setup. The 760 is in Simulator mode so the bottom left 2 data fields are populated. When fed MapMX from a GTN 750 Xi they are blank.

You need to go to Interface and see what protocol is feeding your 660. When I had Aviation In feeding the 760 it worked, but I had no curved flight path including holding. Since I posted this, others have indicated having the same issue as I, so almost certainly it is a Gamin software issue that they don't seem interested in solving.