donkaye

Here's the J. SPEEDS, CHECK LIST M20J.pdf

I've flown the Ovation all over the US many times. It's best altitude to fly is 9.500 feet. I've gotten it up to the 15,000 foot MEA to go over the Rocky's before. The climb rate becomes anemic above 12,000. At that altitude you have lost 12" of manifold pressure. 3" MP is approximately 10% of power, so you have lost 40% of your power. There is very little cushion for downdrafts. So, yes, you can get up to 15,000, but it will be slow going above 12,000, with little or no options with any kind of downdrafts. Example: Early in the Ovation's life there was an issue with the exhaust that Mooney required be fixed in Kerrville. I ferried a lot of Ovations to Kerrville. On one return trip to San Jose there was building weather in the San Joaquin Valley. I first thought I could climb above it. There was no way. I had to divert to San Diego where I did the ILS into Montgomery in the hardest rain I've ever flown in my over 12,000 hours to date. I had to stay in the plane for 10 minutes after I landed until the rain let up a little. The weather up North didn't break for 4 days. (We could sure use some of that now).

Here it is. SPEEDS & CHECK LISTS M20M.pdf

The Ovation is not the Airplane to be flying over the Alps. You want a turbocharged airplane for that. The Ovation can comfortably land on runways as short as 2,300 feet, but you need to fly it right. SPEEDS, CHECK LISTS M20R .pdf

The truth is that everything happens faster---if you let it. It doesn't have to be. The dynamic range of the Ovation is very large. The stall speed is 59 knots at gross weight fully configured for landing; less at lighter weights. I've trained people in it right out of the C152. You can fly it as slow as a C172 until you get comfortable with it.

But what about the Installation Manual? I'll still bet it can be changed with an installer card, not just in maintenance mode.

I was responding to a post above about my panel. The first answer to the 2 questions are that neither was available at the time I upgraded my panel. However, I have since flown with students who have the Garmin EIS and I find the characters too small for my preference. I don't want to think about character size every time I try to read something. It also takes up screen real estate. I like the 60/40 setup on the G500 TXi for the PFD/MFD and the ability to change it to 40/60 during cruise. That allows for a magnificent flight plan page on the TXi that gives an unbelievable amount of information, much more than even the GTN 750Xi has. With the EIS that wouldn't be possible. The EI MVP-50 that I have (not the JPI 930) in my opinion is the best separate engine monitor out there with multiple pages of good information. WRT the G500 vs the G3X both are good, but the TXi is newer, brighter, has some additional functionality, and supports more external sources. As I said, I wouldn't change a thing that I have right now.

For one thing, the Garmin audio panel, GMA 35c with Telligence. Yes, you can get by with the G500 TXi, GTN 650, and iPad, but I don't like the iPad mini due to character size and screen brightness, and the larger iPad is too bulky for me to put on the yoke. The screen size of the GTN 650 is too small for me to use the display much. I use it mostly for its default page with its 6 data fields. That's just my preference. Some could be satisfied with the above, but not me.

The Aera 760. Even with all the other displays I make use of the 760 constantly. One could say I have too many displays, but I have the capability of having four types of weather ( XM (GDL 69A older version), SXM (760), ADSB, Stormscope,) up all at the same time. I, also, use the 760 for Jeppesen Approach Plates backed up with Garmin Pilot, Foreflight, and JeppFD on the iPad, all with Jeppesen Plates that I favor.

Absolutely Not! The screen size, chart display, and other ease of use functionality make the GTN 750 a must have for me.

As of today, I wouldn't change a thing.

While I don't know the answer in this situation for sure, if it's like the G500 TXi whose V speeds can be changed on a per flight basis like you say, the permanent speeds need to be changed by an Avionics shop in the setup menu.

I'm in California and I still find being able to load Airways very useful. As an example, when going from San Jose (KSJC) to French Valley (F70), the way to do it with the lowest terrain is by taking V459 from Lake Hughes to DARTS, then V186 to Paradise, then Direct F70. If you don't know the LA Basin well, then being on Airways is the best way to go. That flight plan can be loaded in under a minute. The same thing goes with coming back to San Jose from San Diego. Using V23 to Seal Beach, then V459 to Lake Hughes makes traversing the LA Basin a piece of cake. Even though most trips are done GPS Direct, having the ability to get on an Airway when necessary in parts of the country you are unfamiliar with shouldn't be underestimated.

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/