donkaye, MCFI

If you want to work hard and take up brain energy (constantly adjusting alignment with the runway) that can better be used in other ways, then continue to use a side slip in crosswind approaches. If you want to not have a good feel with the amount of crosswind you have to deal with, then continue to use a side slip. If you want to clearly see the crosswind component you have to deal with, if you clearly want to see when it would be appropriate to use partial flaps, if you clearly want to see the appropriate airspeed to use during a crosswind approach, then the crab transitioning to wing low in the flare is the most suitable manner to fly a crosswind approach. I personally don't like seeing any more than a 15° crab on final. If I line up on final and see 25°, for example, at my normal approach speed of 75 knots, then I know from the rule of six's that the crosswind component is 1.25 x 25, approximately equal to 30 knots. That will not work, so I reduce flaps to approach or no flaps and increase speed until I see only 15°. At those kind of crosswind components the airplane must be flown onto the runway. The good news is that the stall speed has increased so the plane is done flying sooner when on the ground. The crab to a transition to wing low becomes simple and automatic with just a little practice. Rudder for runway alignment and aileron to control drift. One last comment from 48 years of flying: If you want to rationalize doing it some other way, I really understand. As I've told a very few students whom I've recommended to get another instructor because they didn't want to listen to me, I see where you are, I see where you need to get, and I'm not the one to get you there.

I just got finished with an Acclaim training in Chicago. Over a 4 day period of time we did 85 landings in all types of crappy bumpy winds and crosswinds before I signed him off as a competent Mooney pilot. He has not been the only one with a lot of landings before I was satisfied that both airspeed and slope management were completely understood. Based on the number of students I've had over the past 23 years I'd estimate I've done in excess of 24,000 landings with various people. I think there is a possibility that I understand landing an airplane and a Mooney in particular. However, in the off chance I'm appearing somewhat arrogant, I chose to wait overnight in Beatrice, NE last week on my way to DuPage to deliver the plane to him. With the above mentioned experience I chose NOT to tackle winds of 29G49 with Peak Gusts of 52 at angles of 60° off the runway. The next day after I arrived in somewhat calmer but still bumpy conditions, I asked the FBO if any small single engine airplanes had come in the day before. The answer was No. So, I don't care about other airplanes without flaps and the manner pilots choose to land them. This topic is about landing Mooneys. Should a pilot know how to slip an airplane? Yes. Should it be in his bag of tricks? Yes. Should he use it on final in a crosswind? In my opinion, No. For various reasons, I choose the crab transitioning to wing low in the flare in crosswinds. Without obstacles or an emergency where you want to be high, should there EVER be any need to slip a Mooney? No. Not even on a short approach where distance from the runway can adjust for the correct short approach distance.. Regarding your second paragraph above; with the experience that I have acquired as a result of being fortunate enough to have devoted full time to being a flight instructor over the past 23 years, I would challenge you to find one of my students who would say I wouldn't see that situation develop long before a slip would be necessary. It's about mentally being way ahead of the airplane and truly understanding how Pitch and Power control an airplane and, therefore, airspeed and slope in landing. So, yes, I guess we do part ways on this one.

In my opinion safe but very poor pilot technique and passenger prohibitive. If you have to slip a Mooney and there was not an obstacle on the approach requiring it, it would be a good idea to get together with a good Mooney instructor and get some additional training.

I flew across the country this week in an Acclaim that had the latest software update and GTX 345R. I was surprised and somewhat disappointed that in emulating the GDL 90 the GTX 345 does not have TargetTrend, one of the most useful features of the GDL 88.

I flew a ferry flight then am doing a transition training in a recently purchased and WAAS and ADS-B upgraded Acclaim. On the way out I saw ground speeds of 276 knots, the fastest I have ever gone in a Mooney of any type. I had ground speeds in excess of 245 knots all the way. I was glad to be headed East. However, for the first time ever, I stayed overnight in Beatrice, NE, a town I never heard of before this flight, instead of proceeding to Dupage yesterday. The reason--Winds. Yesterday, the winds at Dupage all day were in the neighborhood of 29G49 with peak gusts of 52. The winds were 40° off the most aligned runway. When I arrived here this morning, I asked if any light aircraft came in yesterday. They answered, "No." I've attached a picture when I saw 264 knots over the ground.

Please read Section 6.6 Revision N of the GTN 750 Pilot's Guide. If you have further questions after reading that, come back and ask away.

If the speed brakes are "popped" AFTER touchdown no problem. I do that all the time. But, if they are extended BEFORE touch down you could be in for some trouble, as I found out when I tested that scenario in a strong wind with gusty conditions and up and down drafts. I was going in on Runway 26 at Tracy California on such a day. There is a big ditch to fly over just before touch down. Flying over the ditch I flew into a huge downdraft. I applied full power. At a given power setting speed brakes add another 200 ft/min to the descent rate. Even with the power of the Bravo, safety demanded immediate speed brake retraction. I don't recommend using speed brakes on approach other than short usage for slope management if absolutely necessary. Certainly not continuous usage.

2200 feet in a long body airplane like mine with a strong crosswind is basically a non starter. You just can't do it successfully--too much speed is necessary. The C model is different. That model can be landed as short as a Cessna 150.

Here's why not. A few years ago coming back from Oshkosh one of our stops was Ogden, Utah. I pulled up the ATIS, but apparently didn't listen well enough. They were advertising 0G20. I'd never heard that before. On final I applied full flaps. There really wasn't a crosswind, it wasn't bumpy, and there wasn't any variation in airspeed as I came down final. Then it happened. I was in the flare and was just touching down when the gust hit. Instantly we were pushed up about 20 feet in the nose high landing attitude without the benefit of ground effect. Anyone who has flown with me knows that I'm a "fly for the passenger" kind of person. That's how ATPs are supposed to fly. That means every control movement is done gently and smoothly so as not to alarm the passenger. That was NOT called for in this situation. Without thinking I pushed the nose down and crammed the throttle full forward, not a good thing to do with a turbocharged engine. I figured it was a prop strike for sure, and possibly worse. Somehow the speed at which the nose was lowered and power added saved the day, as we hit the ground somewhat hard, but not hard enough to do any damage. I could have salvaged the landing at that point, but decided to go around and do it again--this time with approach flaps. The second approach and landing went uneventfully. Shirley was still upset as we pulled up to the self service fuel pump and got out of the airplane. As I was pumping the gas in no wind conditions, all of a sudden a huge gust came up and nearly blew me over. Shirley looked at me and we knew what had happened only minutes before. I know that had there been a prop strike and I said a big gust came up and caused the problem no one would have believed me. I wouldn't have believed me. The moral of this story is that there are times when full flaps are NOT appropriate.

As a Moooney instructor for 23 years with nearly 6,000 of instruction given in nearly all models of Mooneys, I agree with the above.

My rule of thumb is if the crab angle to maintain runway center line is greater than about 15°, I will go to approach flaps at a minimum and possibly no flaps if I can't hold 15° with subsequent increase in speed to that associated with the flaps applied. The increase in speed should be about 10 knots or 10 mph depending on how your ASI is labeled. The increase in speed gives a higher stall speed and more rudder authority. Therefore, you can touch down faster and yet the airplane will be done flying sooner. That's good. The plane should be flown onto the runway, which means that at the higher speed there is more chance of bouncing, so it is important to fly it on smoothly. I choose to make life easy on myself while constantly seeing the magnitude of the crosswind by crabbing all the way to the flare, where I transition to align to the centerline with rudder for directional control and use the aileron for drift. So far in 24 years I haven't found a crosswind that the plane couldn't handle. I've done 35 knots, but I probably wouldn't go at 40 knots direct crosswind. At that magnitude the ride would just be too uncomfortable. At 35 knots I touched down at over 100 knots. By slowly reducing power while maintaining control, it is possible to either come to a complete stop under control or applying immediate full power at a point where even with full aileron the runway couldn't be held. Winds like that are definitely not for the pilot who hasn't practiced a lot of crosswind landings and worked up to it. It also requires a long runway. The day I made my landing video I flew over to Oceano (L52), the crosswind was strong, but variable. The runway is also reasonably short at 2,360 feet. I went around twice. I told my SO that if I couldn't make it on the third attempt we'd go to Santa Barbara. On that attempt the winds straightened out enough to be able to make a successful landing. Others have not been so fortunate. I once saw a Bonanza dug into the mud off the end of the runway. If the wind on takeoff is such the you have to ask yourself whether it is safe, then for you the decision is easy, don't go. On landing, if you feel uncertain, same thing. Go somewhere else.

Larry, I personally like Jeppesen plates better than government plates. So I purchased a Jeppesen subscription for the iPad and for an additional $60 got it for the 796. This also gives Jeppesen Charts for Garmin Pilot in addition to JeppFD for the iPad. Since I went the slightly more expensive route, I now have Flightcharts for the 750 and G500 in addition to the iPad, and Jeppesen for the 796 and iPad. Coming back from Hawaii yesterday, I put up Garmin Pilot and watched the plane fly the Jeppesen ILS 30L overlay into San Jose on Garmin Pilot.

It certainly would have been nice had the designers of the KFC 150 designed for automatic adjustment of the ALT when the altimeter setting is changed, as is done in the GFC 700.

A good avionics shop should know. On my panel upgrade all old wiring was removed and replaced. This is the hardware in the back of my plane and how a good avionics shop's work should look like.

From experience I have found that Speed brakes should be used in the manner I described in the writeup on my website.

The 796 has Bluetooth and the 696 does not. So the 796 can make use of the FS 210 and FS 510. That's the only benefit.

I have the 796 and to the best of my knowledge Database Concierge and Sync doesn't include the 796 (so I have to update the 796 manually). It would be nice if it did.

Tim, I don't remember, but I do know it was easy. You can get it for sure by calling Garmin and pushing 1 for databases.

Garmin had a deal on the FS 510 for owners of the FS 210 that was good until the end of December. $500 off the FS 510. Maybe you could talk them into giving it to you for that reduced price. I'll bet you could make that deal. I have both, and use them both for different purposes at the same time. I have the 510 feeding the iPad and the 210 feeding the 796. It could be reversed, too.

However, Garmin data can be downloaded multiple times for your backup cards, while Jeppesen cannot. With the new Concierge, all data is download in the background to the iPad and transferred through the FS 510 in a couple of minutes except for charts that takes about 10 minutes.

I feel I have the best best of both worlds and support both companies. I, too, like Jeppesen Charts much better than the government charts. So this is what I do: 1. Garmin OnePak for G500/GTN 750/ GTN 650. This solution gives Flight Charts on both the G500 and GTN 750. It give the complete data package including Flight Charts to the Aera 796 (used to cost $499 and then was reduced too $199). It also gives the Premium IFR package fro Garmin Pilot. (You still have to purchase the Garmin Pilot Basic Package). 2. I buy the Jeppesen iPad Subscription, which for an extra $60 gives me Jeppesen Charts for the Aera 796. It also gives Jeppesen Charts (overlayed on the Map) to Garmin Pilot as part of a deal Garmin and Jeppesen made. 3. For the new price of $210 Jeppesen supplies all the databases for the L3 ESI 500. So with the above I have Jepp Charts on the 796 and on the iPad for both Jepp FD and Garmin Pilot. Those are my primary source of charts in IMC. I have Flight Charts displayed on both the G500 and GTN 750 so no $4500 unlock fee to display Jepp Charts on those instruments. The charts on those displays are of marginal use in my opinion anyway. All other databases are available on all the other boxes that require data bases. Total yearly cost as this time: $799 (Onepak) + $299 (iPad) +$60 (796) + $210 (ESI 500) + $79 (Garmin Pilot Basic) = $1,447. Not inexpensive, but the best buy for a complete package for everything I have in the cockpit.

That's the way I'll be renewing again this year. The Garmin Nav data is not as complete as the Jeppesen Nav data, but not enough incomplete to out weigh the extra benefits of using the OnePac. Private airports are still not shown, and just today the airport data on 3O1, Gustine, a small airport, did not have the runway layout or pattern that I believe Jeppesen had. Still, overall, the Garmin Nav data is acceptable.

TargetTrend should be provided on the iPad from the GTX 345.

Some work, some don't. Maybe you will be one of the lucky ones. Ultimately, Garmin will fix the problem. Meanwhile, expect to possibly be a beta tester. Until the issue is definitely resolved, I personally wouldn't trust it in IMC. I don't have a G5, but have read all about it's issues on BeechTalk.