donkaye

No! Just a general comment to make a point that the GTN works as easy or easier (Telligence) in turbulence than the GNS.

If you think the GTN is difficult to use in turbulence, you aren't using the benefit of the GTN knob. Last week as we were hitting our heads on the aircraft ceiling due to thermal turbulence we had no trouble accurately changing frequencies with the knob just like the GNS series navigators. And the standby and active frequencies can be flipped by simply pushing the knob after frequency entry. Hold the knob and you can then enter nav frequencies and flip them the same way. There is just absolutely no comparison between the GNS series navigators and the GTN series navigators. The GTN just has so much more capability; SIDS that can be fully flown, same with STARS, VNAV, approach charts, holding patterns, Glide Range Ring, Fuel Range Ring, Smart Glide, just to name a few. And when used in conjunction with the GMA 35c, almost all screens can be displayed using Telligence without even touching the screen. Without turbulence the touch screen makes getting everything you want even easier. It's actually laughable to think there are people out there who would chose a GNS over a GTN.

I unequivocally choose to believe Jonny. I've flown with him, talked with him, and listened to him transparently discuss Mooney at MooneyMax 2022 like no other CEO before him, and I've been around Mooneys and these events for 29 years. As discussed in another thread, the Kerrville Factory Mooney Service Center was able to diagnose and solve an issue that even my outstanding MSC was not able to track down.

I flew to Kerrville last October in hopes of solving an issue I had been having for over 2 years. I discussed going down there with my local MSC and they thought it was a good idea. The Service Center at Mooney in Kerrville found the problem almost immediately because the issue was related to a solved problem of 30 years ago and the mechanic remembered the problem, since he had been there during that period of time. My excellent local MSC was happy I went down there, learned something from my trip, and were the ones to ultimately implement the fix with parts Mooney still had in inventory. Mike Kneeze and his crew were outstanding, and I highly recommend them.

I read the attached article that was in IFR in 1994 by Mike Bush. This well written article is the best I have read with regards to communication with ATC and helped me get over shyness many years ago. When I first got may IR rating I filed everywhere to learn the system well. After awhile you know what to expect and rarely do you hear anything new. ATC listens to pilots all day long. They can tell, just like I can tell now who is comfortable and who is not. If you're comfortable, expect to get pro treatment. You get comfortable by working within the system as much as possible, either VFR or IFR. I always get flight following if VFR. Only rarely has ATC been too busy to give it. On my trip to MooneyMax 2022 I did every leg VFR with flight following except the last one where it was prudent to file IFR due to expected IFR at Longview. On the trip back I flew the whole trip VFR with flight following. I couldn't answer the survey because I'm not stressed out flying either VFR or IFR. It's all the same. When appropriate I'll file, when it doesn't make a difference I don't. When VFR and on Flight Following you can easily change to IFR if necessary. I expect pro treatment and except for one time in the last 30 years, I get it. So can anyone else. Let's Make a Deal.pdf

With the equipment you have an intersection hold today is a piece of cake. In fact, a hold any place is a piece of cake with the GTNs.

I had previously trained Kurt in his Encore so knew the type of pilot he is, but more importantly, unlike the Private, I was in the airplane at all times. Unless one has insurance to cover one's Net Worth, an impossibility in my case, since I can't even get the waiver of subrogation and additional insured anymore, unfortunately, teaching the Private puts everything one has worked for and acquired at risk. For me that is unacceptable. It's a shame we live in such a litigious society because, unlike the 250 hours instructor who has no real world experience or assets, assets, experience and wisdom are usually acquired with age, and that could be useful to new want-a-be pilots.

If you flew it, you might change your mind. For the instrument rating it was basically useless. The altitude varied so quickly that the student's attention would need to be diverted to it to the extent that other tasks couldn't get done, and it was easy to load down the student.

I'm sorry to be negative about this but... I've been working with an instrument student in a Turbo Arrow IV. It's been upgraded with the G500 TXi and GTN 750Xi. It has the Aerocruz 100. In the Mooney Flyer it says the Aerocruz "will annunciate pitch trim", i.e., it doesn't have pitch trim, so won't hold altitude. At least the Arrow version is not certified to fly approaches either. With one knob and a push button, it's also not that easy to use. It's a terrible autopilot. If you were to put it in a long body, you'd never be able to sell the plane or certainly not without taking a huge discount. In the future, if the Aerocruz 230 is ever certified, maybe all will be different, but for now, unless the new STC is set up for altitude hold and approaches, you're wasting your money. The Instrument Rating would have been so much easier with a decent autopilot. My student is set up with Pacific Coast Avionics in January to have the GFC 500 installed. Super long wait times now.

While that drag curve is fine for non laminar flow wings, it is not for laminar flow wings. The backside of the curve for laminar flow wings is much steeper. Therefore, more difficult to control. I do not recommend using the procedure you describe. It's dangerous in a Mooney. A stabilized approach at the nominal 3° slope at 1.2Vso is the safest procedure for short fields in a Mooney. If you can't land on a field with that procedure, don't use that field.

Before I saw that video, I don't think I had an appreciation of the magnitude of the bad weather associated with that type of front. It is not discussed at all in preparation for the various ratings, but should be. It is interesting that this type of front may not have much temperature change across it, but has significant dew point spreads across the front.

I've read about them, but this video provides the best reason to avoid them. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/weather/what-is-a-dry-line/

We're leaving next Wednesday from San Jose, California and expect to arrive Thursday early afternoon. We only fly in the morning and we lose 2 hours going there, so time goes faster.

Maybe not. I was teaching at the MAPA PPP Mountain Flying Class about 20 years ago. Of course flying into Leadville is a must. I had flown in there many times before this issue arose. Anyway, we got out, got the shirt, and cup, and were headed out. The student couldn't get the engine started. I let him try too many times without resting the starter for enough time, and it finally failed. You need to know the airplane. I would estimate the DA on that day was over 13,000 feet. Hindsight says the mixture needed to be almost at idle cutoff to get the correct fuel/air mixture. Then both the throttle and mixture needs to be adjusted in coordination for both taxi and takeoff. Push the mixture full in on the runway and the engine will be flooded. It's necessary to apply a little mixture, then a little throttle, then repeat the sequence until full power is established, and then takeoff-a lesson well learned that day.

Are you sure about that? I've never seen a boost pump light come on at full power in an Ovation. In the Bravo the Boost Pump comes on at full power along with a light indication, in the Ovation I don't think so.

Let's look at it this way: The 252 has 210HP, the Encore 220HP and the Bravo 270HP. That says something. However, from a fuel burn point of view, the 252 and Encore are more efficient. I like them both. But, meaning no disrespect for all other model Mooneys, the only Mooney I want, having flown and taught extensively in nearly every model in my over 10,200 hours of Mooney time, is the Bravo, and that includes the Acclaims. I love the G1000---on other people's airplanes. I like the flexibility of avionics upgrades on the non-G1000 airplanes. When all tradeoffs are considered, from my point of view, the Bravo is the best value out there right now.

It does not automatically. It should. You can program in an alert for tank change. If there was a a way to recognize the altitude in the alerts menu, then it could easily be set up.

That's why I mentioned DA. I didn't do a DA check that day as I was descending, but Chandler at 2,243' had a temperature of 102°F that day. Standard at SL is 59°. Assuming the standard lapse rate of 3.5°F/1000', standard at Chandler was 51°. The temperature was 51° over standard. A rule of thumb is DA increases 1,000' for every 15°F over standard. That means the DA increase from standard at Chandler was 51/15 x 1,000 = 3,400' and the DA was about 5,600'. I'm going to extrapolate and say that at 9,100' the DA was over 12,000'. Frankly, the POH says 12,000' and doesn't quantify to DA. So. if you wait until 12,000 to turn on the boost, it could really be above 15,000' from a DA point of view. It's either confusing or the writers of the POH deliberately didn't take DA into account. I'm certainly open to hear why that might be.

Actually, the airplane was equipped with the G1000 NXi. I believe there is data recording with that unit, but I could be wrong. Do you know, Mike? Unless it was totally destroyed, you would think the NTSB might have been able to get some engine data from it and found out the cause of the engine issue.

It's true, we'll never know, but the POH says to turn on the low boost above 12,000' for vapor suppression. I don't know if that includes DA above 12,000', and we don't know if he turned on the low boost. Also, we don't know from the report if there was total loss of power eventually. This accident was disturbing to me for so many reasons I can't get into here. Mark had taken me over to Minden the week before to pick up my plane after installation of the GFC 500. I had been unable to do his transition training due to insurance problems. He had completed his transition training with another Mooney instructor. He was excited about the plane.

The final report on this accident was issued a couple of weeks ago after nearly 3 years. Basically no new information was provided. Continental reassembled the engine with some new parts that had been destroyed in the accident and it ran fine. We'll never find out what really caused this accident, but the only reasonable guess, since they couldn't find anything wrong with the engine, would be vapor lock. I was coming back from MooneyMax 2019 that day and landed in Chandler a few hours before the accident. I remember the temperature at Chandler when I landed was 102°, a perfect setup for vapor lock. I wish he had just circled down and landed at P48 even though it was a gravel strip. The airport has since been closed. Report_WPR19LA167_99594_5_30_2022 8_17_42 PM.pdf

The Mooney behaves well in slow flight. Unlike the C150 and some other trainers, I have never flown one that "snaps" into a stall from a non accelerated condition. I have flown some earlier models where the rigging needed improvement. The plane would give good indication of what it would do approaching the stall by having the wing start to drop off just before the stall. Still it wouldn't "snap" at the stall, so proper stall recovery could be accomplished very quickly. Each new Mooney was flight tested and the stall strips were placed where needed to get the best possible stall characteristic. In all the newer Mooneys I have flown, you can hold the elevator full back, the airplane would not fall off on a wing, and the nose would just bob up and down during the stall. Having said the above, the Mooney does have a laminar flow wing. One of the characteristics of that type of wing is that, unlike non laminar flow wings, the back side of the power curve becomes very steep very quickly. All stabilized approaches in any airplane are done to some extent on the backside of the power curve--but near the bottom of the curve. All of this is to say flying a short field approach nose high hanging on the prop in a Mooney is a good way of diminishing the size of the Mooney fleet and its pilot population. Approaches should be made at a slope of 3° at no less than 1.2 Vso or greater than 1.3 Vso for the weight in no wind conditions. With a proficient pilot and good airspeed and slope management good short field landings can easily be made.

Richard, I'm sorry the weather didn't cooperate to do your transition training after our cross country to bring the plane back to KCOS from Florida. I'm still willing to come out later this summer if you wish. Meanwhile, I think it would be a good idea to take the Mooney PPP in a couple of weeks. It will be very close to you. The ground instruction and manuals are outstanding and many Mooney specific instructors will be present. I will be in Texas for MooneyMax that weekend so won't be instructing there. Several great instructors you could request are Jerry Johnson, Paul Kortopates, or Parvez Dara.

When Garmin certified the M20M airframe for the GFC 500 they had to completely redo the flight control system. Even a little "sticking" on the yoke can cause oscillations. Have you all extensively lubed all hinges on all flight control surfaces and especially lubed the yoke inside the airplane? Have you slowly moved the yoke back and forth to make sure there is no point on the movement where the yoke is "sticking" even slightly and requires a little more force to move it? Before complaining to Garmin make sure all movement of all flight controls is smooth as silk.

In addition to being short for a long body, it's like landing on an aircraft carrier with drop offs on both sides.