donkaye

1. Generally speaking cowl flaps are Open in climb and slow flight; closed in cruise. 2. Don't slow down during descent. Make up some of the time lost during climb. When VFR, a simple way of determining when to start a descent: 500 ft/min is best on the ears, so at 500 ft/min how long will it take to get to pattern altitude at that rate? Every 1,000 feet will take 2 minutes, so multiply the number of 1,000 feet by 2 and that will be the number of minutes to reach pattern altitude and the time to start your descent. Example: 6,500 feet to pattern altitude => start down 13 minutes before arrival at destination. Regarding slowing down: Our engines can be cooled at a rate no greater than 50°F per minute. CHTs are considered cool at 250°F. In cruise they will be at about 350°F. So you can lose 100°F during slow down and that should take 2 minutes. Armed with that information, even without speed brakes, the J is simple to slow down to gear speed, and then flap speed, and then approach speed. Training with a Mooney Specific Instructor is imperative in learning these procedures. Your non Mooney specific flight instructor will not do you justice in transitioning to the Mooney. 3. Regarding flying the pattern: In knots nominally in no wind conditions for the J: it's 90 on downwind with gear and approach flaps, 80 on base with full flaps, and 75 on final. If in MPH, then the above is nominally 100/90/80. The file below works for the J. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to get a Mooney specific Instructor for your transition training. Enjoy your new Airplane. Traffic pattern M20F.docx

No Mooney that I know of has a published maximum crosswind component specified in the POH. Most have a "Maximum DEMONSTRATED crosswind component specified in the POH.

If you're "long in the tooth", that's all the more reason for going all glass. From an instrument point of view, it's much easier to fly on instruments with glass than with a legacy panel. The whole scan is done in one glance. It takes a few hours to get used to the tapes. Once you're comfortable with the display, there is no way you would ever want to go back to the legacy panel.

This past Saturday was a milestone birthday for Shirley. The Sierras are beautiful in the wintertime when they are snow covered, and a beautiful way to see them is by train. We've done the trip from Sacramento to Reno a number of times and have enjoyed every one of them. This year December provided enough storms for a record amount of snow. Shirley asked that we do the trip. My plan was to fly up to Sacramento Executive Airport and Uber to the train station downtown where we'd pick up the Zephyr to Reno. The train was to leave there a 11:09 am. At 6:00 am KSAC was reporting ¼ mile and indefinite ceiling. I read the TAFs, the MOS, and called Flight Service. All indicated that things should begin to clear by 9:00. If I drove, I'd have to leave by 8:00. The benefit of flying is a short 30 minute flight and leaving by 9:00. If I were to believe the forecast, then I could leave at 9:00 and have time to make the train. However, if I left at 9:00 and the fog didn't lift, we'd miss the train. I really wanted to fly. However, Nature doesn't really care what I want to do. The decision was obvious. We'd drive and hope it was still ¼ mile and no ceiling when we got there, to validate the decision. It was a beautiful and clear drive---until about 7 miles from Sacramento when the LED signs lit up beside Interstate 80 for low fog ahead. And it was low fog. Yeh! Interestingly, I could look up and see the sun, but there was no way it would have worked to fly. The old saying, "If you have time to spare, go by air" could also be modified to, "If you have time to spare go by train." The Zephyr was almost 5 hour late arriving in Reno from Chicago for our return trip. It seems there was a rock slide near Glenwood Springs, Colorado and they had to wait to clear the tracks. The trip both ways was terrific.

Gear, Speedbrakes, Flaps in that order. This assumes it is not a go-around, but a normal takeoff.

With Garmin, they have been pretty responsive. When I found at least 10 bugs in the 796 when it first came out, within one month they had a new software update fixing all of them, and then surprised me with a free 1 year database subscription. I am still waiting for a bug fix on an issue with the 500TXi that they confirmed.

Without owning an airplane it would be very difficult to learn all the ins and outs of a complete Garmin system. I think many instructors "sort of learn" on the fly while teaching. That's not very satisfactory for a student. I feel fortunate to have my own airplane to fully check out all operations of all my avionics. For the past 10 years I've been on the forefront of all the new stuff Garmin has come out with. Unlike almost everyone except for the engineers among us, I have read all the manuals multiple times of all the equipment I have, and then put that knowledge into practice. Sometimes I've got to come back and re-read some information after flying with a product. For example, I got a little more clarity on the Smart Glide after flying with it and coming home today and re-reading the material. But Garmin logic is similar across their aviation product line, so I can get up to speed on most of the products I don't have very quickly (the GI275 as an example). Having used the equipment, it's actually a lot of fun teaching people how to use it.

What a waste of money putting in the button would be! After having my G5 updated today, I went out and tested the system. It worked as advertised. I was a little surprised for a few seconds after I engaged it with some power still in. The plane immediately pitched up and I waited to see what would happen. I don't remember if I had it on altitude hold. I need to go out and try that again. At any rate, it pitched up significantly climbed and bled off airspeed until it hit best glide speed, then maintained it as the descent started. In thinking about it, I need to go out and redo the test, this time with power off before engagement. Actually, that probably isn't a bad idea if it was planned that way, as airspeed converted to altitude would increase the range. Regarding the button, holding down the Direct button is a no brainer, as is going to the main menu and pressing the Emergency icon.

email me at donkaye@earthlink.net

I was about to jump up and go to the airport, then noticed it was 3:00 and decided I didn't want to fight the long line of traffic to get onto 280 when I could get the same result tomorrow morning and go fly and try it out .

Thanks, Adam. Finally! I've been waiting since Smart Glide first came out. It gets updated tomorrow morning.

I just called Top Gun and they purchased them from Aircraft Spruce. They were about $38.

The Manual for the 750 states that a requirement for the Visual Approach is a valid Terrain Database.

Surprisingly, even this latest manual shows the Maximum TIT for the Bravo to be 1750°F. See Page 3-9 Notes

This manual mimics the data in mine for the TIO540AF1B engine, but a later version. I like it because it is searchable and information is easily located. All your questions are answered there including your comment that the engine should only be operated ROP. The Advanced Engine Management Course has arguments against the restriction, but I choose to follow Lycoming's recommendation.

1st Engine: 2,295 hours or 295 hours past TBO. 2nd Engine 1,600 hours, then replacement due to Shop error. I'm confident it would have made it to TBO. 3rd Engine only has 324 hours on it since replacement in 2019.

From the Lycoming Manual Page 3-84 at Standard Conditions. As you know, the AF1B is the AF1A with oil injection. 20220109_SEA LEVEL PERFORMANCE.pdf

To answer a couple of your other questions, the addition of an engine monitor made engine management a lot easier. First off, I added Gami Injectors on the 2nd and 3rd engine. In spite of that my engines have not run well LOP, so I run ROP. Running ROP, TIT should be a minimum of 100°F ROP when operating above 65% power to keep internal pressures to an acceptable level (reference the Advanced Pilot Training Course given by Gami). I tend to operate richer, so I keep the TIT below 1600°F. At lower power setting I'll lean to peak TIT. Due to the high operating temperatures of turbochargers, I now proactively overhaul the turbo and watergate at midtime. Main Turbo in Visalia, Ca. did mine and they are reasonable.

The red Lycoming Engine manual that should have come with your plane. As you know, the POH doesn't show settings as a percentage of power. In fact, if you used some of it's settings, the engine wouldn't make TBO.

75% power. For engine longevity it is recommended that cruise power be no greater than 75%.

The first engine did not have an engine monitor, yet still made it to 2,295 hours at which time I got a reman. I felt comfortable taking it over TBO because it got the Bravo upgrade at 1,300 hours. The second engine would have made it to TBO had there not been a shop incident at Annual where the gear was accidentally attempted to be retracted without the plane being on jacks. The prop was bent requiring a new prop and engine teardown. That engine had 1,600 hours on it. Since a new engine would have been in the cards in 400 hours (or about 3 years), I chose to save the money of the R&R, get credit for the teardown and loss of use money, and get a new reman early. As much as I was unhappy with what happened, the upside was that I got a new prop ($18,000) and a new reman ($85,500 installed) and saved $76,000. The shop's insurance company was cooperative and totally responsive to my requests. The 3rd engine now has 324 hours on it and is the smoothest and coolest running of all of them. I would just about be up for a new engine now when wait times appear to be nearing 6 months. So in hindsight things really worked out for the best.

For that setting, that sounds about right, but you're running it at 78% power, which is a little on the high side. I might do that to get out of turbulence faster or when flying in a large headwind, but for the most part cruise should be at 29"/2400.

If you choose any turbocharged engine, an overhaul is going to cost more. While the Acclaim is about 20 knots faster than the Bravo, paying nearly twice the cost of the Bravo for 20 knots doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me--and that engine has two turbochargers to maintain. I'm on my 3rd engine so I know it quite well. I have the EI MVP-50. I have questioned EI extensively about the accuracy of their instrumentation. They say it is extremely accurate. Based on the MVP-50 and 29"/2400 power setting, cruise burn is 18 gal/hour in cruse the first hour and 17.5 gal/hour thereafter for a TIT of no great than 1600°F. My CHTs are no greater than 370° on the hottest cylinder.

I've been enjoying the posts of CitationMax on YouTube. His family started out with a Cirrus and quickly moved to a Citation M2. After a short time they found the range of the M2 unsatisfactory and stepped up to the Citation CJ3+ to accomplish their required missions. The same can be said for the Mooneys. Each satisfies their specific goals. Once you have moved to the turbocharged models you wouldn't want to move back. In my opinion it's absolutely ridiculous that the Bravos should be priced the way they are. That does, however, provide opportunities for the smart buyers. For a well trained pilot the Bravo is no more difficult to fly that a J. It's just different. If you're flying like a pro, you shouldn't even notice control pressure differences (there are some) because you will be flying with control pressures and not just jerking the airplane around like an amateur. I can't tell you how many times I've had to teach otherwise good pilots how to fly with "grace", and not like an aerobatic pilot. I've had my Bravo for 29 ½ years. A turbine would not be unreasonable. I choose to stay with my Mooney because it satisfies my needs and wants. That says it all.

Although 8 years old, the best actual Instrument Flight Test Prep I have viewed, and worth every bit of the nearly 2 hours it took to view.