donkaye, MCFI

For the G500: To preselect Altitude and Vertical Speed do the following; 1. Press and hold the ALT Button. 2. Twist the knob to the Altitude you want to go. This Arms the Altitude. 3. Press and hold the VS Button This Engages the VS. 4. Twist the knob either counter clockwise or clockwise to select the climb or descent rate. It sounds like I may be disappointed with the G500 TXi solution, but maybe not. I do not intend to add the GCU Unit. My Display is scheduled to arrive next week and take a couple of days to install. In playing with the Sim here is the way I would handle it. Unfortunately the Sim doesn't show Arming either ALT or VS. Heading is the default so given a heading change just twist the knob as you would with an HSI. Then for an Altitude change I would twist the outer knob to ALT and the inner knob to select the Altitude. Don't know how to ARM yet, but from the above sounds like a screen tap to ARM. Should just be able to push and hold the inner knob to ARM ALT, but it sounds like that is not an option. For VS Twist outer knob to VS and inner knob either clockwise or counter clockwise to set climb or descent. I'd forget about trying to do it with the screen alone. Too time consuming. Using the knobs, I think everything can be done as quickly as with the legacy KAS 297B.

The problem is the Top Hat. I've attached a spreadsheet for the Rocket Weight and Balance. The CG range is from 40.6" to 49.3". But from 40.6 to 45.1 the plane is practically useless due to being above the envelope for any reasonable pilot and copilot weight. Do some "what ifs" with the spreadsheet to see what I mean. wb Version 3.8 231 Rocket.xls

The Rocket is an interesting airplane. I've trained numerous pilots in them. They climb better than the Bravo. Really it is a 2 person airplane. It has a screwy weight and balance envelope that makes flying 3 or more people impractical legally, since the fuel capacity is greatly reduced to stay within the envelope. With proper training a low time pilot can transition to the higher performance airplanes reasonably easily. I have found it easier to transition low time pilots because they are more willing to listen to experience than higher time pilots who think they know it all--but don't. The plane does go fast but sucks up a lot of fuel in doing so. Having had a Bravo for almost 26 years now, I prefer that airplane and the other long body planes over the Rocket. The above comments (for what they're worth) are the results of 11,000 GA hours flying time 9,200 of which are in all types of Mooneys and over 6,000 hours of instruction given over the past 25 years.

With a little weather experience it is reasonably easy to predict the occurrence of turbulence. In the past 26 years of airplane ownership I have been stopped by turbulence once. it was over Wyoming in the afternoon and there was no option to mitigate it. I've attach an article I wrote a while back that might be of interest on flying turbulence. Nobody really likes it and flying a 3,000 pound airplane in expected moderate turbulence is no fun and in my opinion should be avoided if you want passengers to fly with you again. The Mooney structure is really strong and remember it is certified for 3.8g meaning the wing can carry a load of 3.8 x 3,000 pounds or 11,400 pounds. Turbulence would have to be strong to load the wing to that amount. Having said that, if there is a significant amount of turbulence and I've used all the mitigating choices discussed in the attached paper before I call it quits and land, I'm definitely not flying above the top of the green arc. If it's uncomfortable enough to slow to maneuvering speed, it's time to land and call it a day. As a private pilot, do you really need to be flying in those conditions? On Flying Turbulence.pdf

If you have to do that, I'd just buy the unit new because between the STC purchase and the 3rd party purchase price you're paying nearly full price anyway and you'll have a warranty period.

Yes, it will work very well. As Don said below, you won't believe what a difference it makes in flying the autopilot. I've had a number of students with that combination.

Yes, it is from experience with conscious attention placed on the proper slope recognition. No, not by a small attitude indicator that has nowhere near satisfactory resolution. By the time a transitioning student is ready to be signed off by me they recognized the nominal 3° slope that will lead to perfect landings every time when combined with the proper speed. It is so important that I spend probably more time on slope management than on speed control. Unfortunately, I haven't met ANY instructor who has recognized the issue, so they miss a more effective way to teach good landing technique.

I just expanded on the usefulness of the 180° power off approach and landing. Even in the pattern, slope management is critical to a safe outcome engine out or simulated engine out.

Really? Examples: 5,000 ft = 10 minutes, 10,000 ft = 20 minutes, 8,000 feet = 16 minutes, 4,500 ft = 9 minutes. Practically no thought at all.

In my opinion the configuration one should use is dependent on the SLOPE to the airport at the time of engine failure. I like to see at least 6°. That gives a 3° safety factor. If the slope falls below 3°, there is a very good chance that you will not make the airport and immediately start looking for an off field landing spot. This can be confirmed in several ways: 1. If you have a G500, you are in the best shape to quickly determine if you can make it. After going to best glide clean and with the prop all the way back, set in the field elevation as the base altitude (worst case situation instead of TPA) and see if the range arc shows past the airport. Since wind is automatically taken into account, you have the best of all worlds. 2. Most people have GPS so, after setting up best glide as discussed above, press direct to the airport and observe the time to the airport. Note the altitude you have to loose to get to the airport. Let's assume it's 5,000 feet. As a rule of thumb for a quick calculation, double the altitude in thousands if feet and strip off the zeros. That would make it 10 minutes. Since the best glide in most Mooneys gives about a 600-700 ft/min descent rate, just note that you will need a little more time than the rule of thumb 500 ft/min to reach the airport. Compare the time to the airport with the GPS to the time you calculated. The time you calculated should be greater than 5 minutes more. When you absolutely know you have the field made, then configure the plane, but still make sure you have at least 3° safety factor on the slope. You can't get altitude back if you are on speed, but you have many options (speed brakes if you have them, gear, flaps, s-turns, and finally slips) if you have the extra time afforded by the additional slope. The 180° power off approach needs to be practiced many times in order to meet the Commercial Standards, because unlike the more draggy airplanes the Mooney will float more if your speed is not just right.

From my experience (6,000+ hours teaching mostly Mooneys) it should take between 8 and 15 hours depending on how quickly you can recognize slope and manage your airspeed. With the Mooney, between 20 and 30 landings--minimum.

If you lose the 7" EIS you still have the information on the large screen of the 10.6" Display either on the side or on a separate EIS page on the MFD. So, as long as you have MP and RPM you are in good shape. My revised panel will be back next Wednesday. Shipping of the Display will be on the 25th of next month. I expect to have my latest upgrade completed near the end of the 1st week in June. Now if Garmin would just certify the GFC 600 for the Bravo...

Each application takes a lot of time to become familiar with all of its utility. I haven't taken a lot of time to become familiar with Foreflight, so I don't know it very well. I have spent a lot of time with Garmin Pilot, so know it very well. It is an excellent app. I can file IFR in less than a minute after putting in the flight plan. A 360° view of best glide range is shown on the Map page. I do have the Jeppesen approach plate overlay, and it works well, but I primarily run the approaches using the Aera 796 on the yoke with iPad, G500 (soon to be the G500TXi), and GTN 750 as backup. One of the reasons for staying with one manufacture is that you can count on everything interfacing well together. Personally, while I'm glad there is some competition for Garmin to keep their prices somewhat in check, the quality of their products and how much I like their human interface will keep me coming back to Garmin for any new avionics I want. Now, if they would only certify their GFC 600 for the Mooney...

I'm a flight instructor, so I teach a method that will not get a pilot behind his airplane. When you get comfortable with the plane, that method can be modified. For example, in my case, coming into San Jose on the ILS, I'll fly a constant slope variable airspeed approach to five miles out, then it's speed brakes, then gear, and then flaps, timed to be at approach speed at the start of the flare.

NO! You have to raise them to get a good climb rate, then lower them to be used as a speed brake before power reduction to get to the required downwind speed without overspeeding and quickly getting behind the airplane.

Attached the M20K model procedure. Traffic pattern M20K.pdf

My procedure simplifies the whole pattern. The gear is retracted to reduce drag and maximize climb. They are then extended first to be used as a brake, followed by a power reduction to achieve the required downwind speed. if they were not retracted, then it would be necessary to do several power changes on downwind.

I've attached the M20F landing pattern procedure I teach in the F Model. My website is: donkaye.com Traffic pattern M20F.pdf

I'm going to have to disagree. I'm currently upgrading my G500 panel to the G500TXi and I needed to make a new panel to have everything fit like I had before. As you all have probably seen before here is my current panel. Simple, but effective beyond the obvious. Also, in level flight, the nose is down far enough not to impact the view ahead. I'll post the new layout when it is done sometime in June, since my delivery time on the GDU 1060 is the end of May.

The taller panel makes upgrading much easier. The displays are easier to look straight at. In level flight I don't even notice it. In IMC I feel like I'm in a nice cocoon. I personally like it much better than the lower panels. Speaking from 25 years of experience with the tall panel.

If you want a trouble free unit and great support, then pick the more expensive ESI 500 over the Quattro. It seems many people are having trouble with the Quatro and can't get much support.

John, while I love the ESI 500, I haven't used it in the manner in which you want to use it. Frankly, using it that way is a bit cumbersome and would require a bit of practice to get comfortable with. The preferential way to simplify your situation with your new setup in my opinion would be to use the G500 TXi exclusively. Nav 1 for primary navigation and bearing pointer 2 for the crossing radial. That way you are looking at the same display with very little interpretation required.

I waited a long time before going LED because they just didn't match up to the incandescent bulbs. Then I saw the AeroLabs demo at Oshkosh last year and bought them on the spot so to say (SunSpot 4596 and 4587). They are significantly better than the originals, although I might buy all 4596s instead of the 4587 taxi light. The spread of the 4587s are much greater than the 4596s, but the 4596 does have greater range.

For serious IFR flying, safety not money should be the consideration in my opinion. I personally won't even teach the Instrument Rating now if the person doesn't have a second AI in the panel. They are so inexpensive that it just doesn't make sense to not have one. Having said that I have a friend who had the small $1,500 Dynon and I just didn't think it worked all that well. With the FS 210 feeding my Aera 796 that is ON THE YOKE I get smooth motion on the Ai and am sure it would be satisfactory to get out of IMC and land with the plane right side up. Still it's not as good as either the mechanical Castleberry or the G5. I'd get the G5 and sell it down the line when you upgraded to all glass.

All gone. Not sure in that the airplane was reweighed after my upgrade and I picked up at least 10 pounds of useful load. Then picked up another 6 pounds with the change to LED strobes and nav lights.