donkaye

Not in California, and your state may be even worse.

OK, Mitch, I deleted two words, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter.

BTW, I forgot to mention that the County (AKA the Government) will be taking over all fuel concessions. No private fuel concessions.

I got a letter yesterday from the director of airports at Reid Hillview and San Martin titled "No 100LL Available at RHV or E16 after 12/31/2021". With the liberals here in California and in particular Santa Clara County, and the even more liberals on the County Board of Supervisors who have been trying to get rid of Reid Hillview for years, this is the perfect way to help get rid of it sooner. As I said in an email to him today, "If the powers to be believe that 100 airplanes flying out of Reid Hillview can put enough lead into the atmosphere to have a meaningful impact on the health of the population, I have a bridge I'm willing to sell them." Listening to George Braly from Gami on Social Flight this evening we can expect to pay a minimum of an extra dollar a gallon for the new fuel, which isn't even available for the higher performance airplanes right now. He expects it to be a least a year until it's available for those aircraft. Your airport is next.....

That may be true, but why would you even need to control anything else when the GTN 750 controls everything that you mentioned and more with an elegant interface. From the GTN 750Xi you can change: 1. Transponder 2. All Radio frequencies from all radios, 3. Weather sources (XM, ADS-B, Stormscope). The TXi also has a GPSS roll steering guidance bug and displays height above terrain to 2500 feet adjacent to the altimeter. If you so choose, a field exits to display DME from a remote box such as the KN 63. I kept my KN 63 for that purpose.

We don't know what the future holds in avionics. While the G3X is a very capable glass display, its interface capabilities are rather limited. The interface of the G500TXi has more flexible capabilities for future developments. Those capabilities do come at a price, though. The TXi is more expensive than the G3X. For me, even though the G3X wasn't available when I did my installation, I'd have still gone with the G500 TXi. Since I wasn't going to upgrade to a turbine airplane, I decided that I would go all in for the best that Garmin had to offer. With the TXi, GTN 750 and 650 there is overlapping of data, but I find I can make use of all of it by putting different data in the various data fields on the different products. Unlike the G1000 where upgrades are either expensive or unavailable, I took advantage of the ability to upgrade my system from the GTN 750 and 650 to the Xi versions. It was simply an exchange and system upgrade. The connectors were the same. The upgrade from the G500 to the G500 TXi was a little more extensive, but only took a couple of days and a new left panel to adjust for the increase size of the TXi. Garmin also gave a discount for the upgrade if the display was returned. In regard to the G5 vs the GI275, the G5 has some additional data displayed, but the GI275 has a brighter display. That wasn't enough for me to want to upgrade to the 275. I'm very happy with the G5. A lot of people go with the GNC 255 in lieu of the GTN 650 as a second radio. I like the flexibility of having the second GPS. So, if you want to be a minimalist, go with 2 G5s. If you want a little more, then go for 2 GI275s; little more then the G3X. And finally, for the top of the line, go for the G500 TXi.

It did use the stock dimmer. It seems to dim well until the very end when it goes out, but that is very low level.

Yes. Mark just took out the bulbs from the original recessed lighting, then glued the strip in as far out as possible in the recessed area under the glare shield so the most light would shine on the panel. It looks like it was meant to be there and looks quite professional. He said if I didn't like the new strip I could just put the old lights back in, disconnect the blue strip and return to the way it was before without any other changes.

Well said. I will usually keep the lights low enroute, then turn them up on approach. However, even with the old lights turned up, some of the switches were not readable. With the new ones that will not be the case.

I'll have to find out from Mark.

I had my choice. I could have gone white, but thought the blue was more comfortable. If it turns out I don't like it over time, they easily come out and can be replaced with a different color. It is not as overwhelmingly blue as indicated in the picture. This set has only one color and the dimming works well.

For quite some time I have not been happy with the light provided by the standard glare shield lighting. I finally decided to do something about it. Mark, from Top Gun, ordered the new LED strip lights and did the installation in a few hours. I left the glare shield with him and came back a couple of days later to have him reinstall the glare shield with the new lighting. The LEDS are dimmable, but I have them on high in the picture. The pictures below show the panel with the lights off and on. What a difference!

The commonly written and taught method of taking off in crosswinds by holding aileron into the wind and lifting off the downwind main wheel first is nice in theory, but sometimes not so nice in practice, if winds are gusty. Lifting off at minimum speed in a gusty crosswind can produce undesirable results using the above technique. C83, Byron California, often has direct crosswinds in excess of 20 knots on its larger runway. It usually has the cheapest fuel in the Bay area. So, it has the double benefit of being able to practice crosswind takeoffs and landings and getting cheap fuel at the same time. Since it is rare to have strong crosswinds in the Bay Area proper, that's where I go and take students for crosswind practice. In a strong crosswind I prefer holding the airplane on the ground until beyond the normal takeoff speed with, of course, aileron into the wind, and "popping" the airplane off the ground with coordinated controls to crab into the wind. That excess speed should not be so large as to create a "wheelbarrowing" effect before takeoff. The excess lift generated before leaving the ground converts into a safety factor of not skidding across the runway downwind or not slamming into the ground by a downward gust, if the minimum takeoff speed is misjudged. To help further, I'd stay in ground effect until past Vx. Regarding crosswind landings, it's possible to land in crosswinds significantly greater than the maximum demonstrated crosswind stated in the POH. This requires practice with landings in progressively greater crosswinds. I determine flap setting in those situations by crabbing on final. I think crabbing is better on final than slipping both because it allows better continual evaluation of the crosswind strength and requires much less effort in flying the airplane. I use whatever flap setting and airspeed will keep the crab angle at less than 15° to the runway at the appropriate approach speed. Experience with the Bravo tells me that a direct crosswind of 30 knots will require no flaps and airspeed of close to 100 knots. That 100 knots WILL be the touchdown speed, meaning landing "gently" with power and gradually removing it while increasing aileron into the wind. If a point is reached during the slowdown where the runway cannot be held with full aileron, then immediate increase in power will lead to a successful takeoff. As yet, I have not found the limit where a go around has been necessary. Of course, a longer runway is necessary in these situations.

Without meaning to be sarcastic, it is time to upgrade to the GFC 500 if you don't want to spend a lot of money troubleshooting the KFC 150. The KFC 150 is over 30 years old and I'm sure some components were not temperature compensated at that time. Finding out which one could be time consuming. OTOH, if it is a known issue, an autopilot specialist like Bob Weber could assist. He can be found at 616-822-1999 M-F 8am-6pm Eastern Time or email at bobweber@webairconsulting.com.

Also, one of the best additions to the GFC 500, over the KFC 150.

It's probably best not to find out and just keep the YD off in that case until you are in level flight.

Per the GFC 500 setup you are supposed to set it for 100%. You are not allowed to deviate from any required setting on the G5. Regarding hand flying in turbulence: first I try to pick a time to fly to minimize it. If that is not possible and I get unexpected turbulence in the air, I go higher. If that doesn't work and the AP is "overworking" the yoke, I disconnect the AP and hand fly. I can damp the turbulence much better than the AP by going with the flow. I use my eyes and not an FD or any raw data, if I understand the question properly. The exception is that the YD can anticipate better than I can so I leave it on, as it is independent of the autopilot when the AP is off.

I posted this on Beechtalk, but for those not following BT, I think this would be useful here, too. I ran a GFC 500 YD test today. I have rudder trim, but kept it centered for takeoff. Given the HP of my airplane, there is a lot of P-factor and torque associated with a takeoff. I took off and held right rudder. At 800 feet, I turned on the YD and released the right rudder pressure I had been applying. The ball would not center. I turned off the YD, applied full right rudder trim, and turned the YD back on. The ball remained centered. I leveled off, increased speed, then turned the YD off. Upon release of the YD, the plane significantly "kicked" left indicating the YD servo had been working pretty hard. I centered the ball with rudder trim and engaged the YD. It remained centered. Conclusions: As mentioned in previous posts and by Garmin, the YD is not a rudder trim. Its purpose is to dampen yaw in turbulence, and based on its inputs, better coordinate turns. If you have rudder trim, use it as appropriate to center the ball, THEN engage the YD. So, for example, in the climb engage it after the rudder has been trimmed. Turn it off when leveling off, trim for cruise flight, THEN turn it back on. Results will be as expected; yaw damping in turbulence and coordination in turns. Some additional comments: The GFC 500 is really good, but I've found that if turbulence is moderate, I can fly turbulence much better than it can. Having said that, the YD stays on, as it really dampens yaw in turbulence better than I can. If you're upgrading to the GFC 500, complete the package with the addition of the YD. You will be glad you did.

I, too, have flown the regular 280 HP Ovation across the US many times, while on tour with one of my students. Several times flying the MEA Westbound I needed to get to 16,000 feet. It was a struggle and my GS was 70 knots at times, since the winds at altitude were huge and there was no option to go lower. The flexibility of turbocharging could really have been used. Certainly the 310 HP is better, but that just means you have a little more power to go a little higher. I personally like to be at least 5,000 feet above the highest obstacle and like climb capability at those altitudes for unexpected turbulence or other potential emergency situations.

The Ovation is a great airplane, but if you are considering flying all over Europe, it is NOT the airplane for you. By the time you hit 11,000 feet it's really starting to poop out in climb performance. That even goes for the 310 HP conversion that is absolutely terrific on a sea level climb, but also poops out at the higher altitudes. The turbocharged Mooney models have critical altitudes (i.e. 100% power to the critical altitude) over 20,000 feet. The comfort of going up into the high teens or even 25,000 feet in the turbocharged Mooney models cannot be overestimated, if you plan on flying the Alps or other mountainous areas. As far as extra costs go, expect a turbo and waste gate overhaul midtime and a lot more money on an engine change at TBO should you choose a turbo version. Regarding training in a high performance Mooney, it can be done (you can always fly the plane slow), but expect it to take more time to get your rating.

Congratulations, Marc!

I thought I recognized that registration number. I've flown your plane 12.7 hours when I transitioned Dave Norinsky from his previous J to the Bravo. We flew it from Don Maxwells to Petaluma, California in one long day.

Yikes! An easier way of recording and reviewing data might have been the following: Engine Breakin N91595.xlsx

I stayed and watched my very experienced avionics guru do the install of the LHS System. Without any wasted time it took 7 hours. 3 hours day 1 to cut the inspection plate, install the unit, and run the wires to the panel, and 3 hours day 2 to run the wires behind the panel, install an on/off switch, and wire up a circuit breaker. As a person who has probably done more landings than anyone on the list over the past 29 years, including thousands and thousands of landings in my 6,500+ hours teaching and transitioning students, and doing a landing video, the LHS system is worth having. The safety of having the gear callout alone make it worth the price, and for an airplane, a small price it is. Even I find the 1 foot callout helps make every single landing work out well. For those new to their airplane it's just one more assist in learning to land properly.

I calibrated the donut at 1.3Vso. No quick mental calculations are necessary for weight dependent final approach speed. At gross weight the donut appears at about 71 knots.