donkaye

While not totally analytical, a good gauge of engine/prop performance is to check maximum ROC on your plane. Then compare it with book value. This should be done regularly, especially if you are planning any flights into high DA airports. It's best to do it at GW or adjust for your current weight.

When I check in in IMC conditions, I always say on the initial call up that I can give them 170 knots on final. Usually that suffices, and I am put in the que. A couple of times I've been vectored, most likely due to wake turbulence issues with larger airplanes. It is a great airport. Oftentimes, I'll do extensive transition training landings there and they are unbelievably cooperative with me, moving airliners to the other runway to accommodate our landings. If they are not able to do that, we'll play "switch runways back and forth". Only a couple of times have they been unable to accommodate me. I was surprised when calling in after my extensive time being away from the airport while my panel was being upgraded, I was met with a "Where have you been?" response.

Thank goodness "dive and drive" approaches are nearly a thing of the past if you have a modern WAAS GPS. However, if you do have to make such an approach with multiple step downs, the best way to keep it stabilized without constant big power or other configuration changes in my opinion is to use the speed brakes for the descent portion. You can easily get the 1000 ft/min I like for NP step down approaches, and then level off with minimum effort. Of course, this can't be done in freezing conditions. That configuration is part of my "flying by the numbers" for NP approaches without GP (assuming you have speed brakes). There's no one "right way" of teaching approaches. The method taught comes from the particular experience of the instructor.

At which time you will get the call, "Approach cancelled, Turn left 270° RV off the final approach course. Expect 15 minute delay vectors for faster traffic." Seriously.

As a flight instructor, the hard part of all of this is remembering which units disengage the AP and which do not. As for my airplane, I personally like that the GFC 500 does not disengage on the missed.

I thought I was going to miss it, having used it with the KFC 150. After over 2 years with the GFC 500, I find I haven't missed it at all. Considering there is CWS in the experimental version of the GFC 500, it is apparent it wasn't an accident that they left it off with no current option to have it. If someone knows the reason, I'd be interested in knowing what it was, since it is included in the GFC 600.

That would be nice, but the disconnect button is just that, a disconnect button. Treating it as a CWS button you would first need to push the AP button on the 507, which would turn the AP on in the default ROL and PIT mode and then push NAV or HDG for lateral navigation and VS or IAS for pitch--not exactly like the simple release of a CWS button as in the KFC 150.

What GPS do you have? The determination is from GPS altitude.

In 2 years of operations with the GFC 500 I have never experienced that situation, and that is to be expected because the ESP is not supposed to operated (no matter what) if the GPS altitude is below 200 feet AGL. Per my AFMS: The conditions that are required for ESP to be available are: • Pitch and Roll servos available • Autopilot not engaged • The GPS altitude above ground is more than 200 feet (for low airspeed mode) • Aircraft is within the autopilot engagement envelope (+/-50° in pitch and +/-75° in roll)

There are certainly exceptions to what I'm about to say, but except for frontal activity, which can be seen or fairly well predicted several days in advance, flying early in the morning (off the ground by 6:00) and being done flying by 11:00-12:00 most times provide a favorable outcome to a flying day. Oftentimes looking at the long term graphical forecast would be discouraging because it seems to forecast moisture content as occuring all the time. In reality the mornings many times are clear and the afternoons look like the predictions. The comfort of flying now is provided by the weather products that are now available in the cockpit, the ASOS and AWOS available at most airports around the country useful for diversion, and ATC's watchful eye with weather inputs. For me the Stormscope, being real time, complements XM and ADS-B weather. I wouldn't go on an extended cross country without both of them. Regarding ADS-B weather vs XM, from experience, there is no comparison. Recently I was assisting a student I had just transitioned to his just purchased Encore. He wanted me to accompany him on the trip home to Greeley, Colorado. We started from San Jose, California. He had built in ADS-B but no XM. I had the Aera 760 and GDL 52 with both ADS-B and XM weather. Over much of the route (Nevada and Wyoming) we got no ADSB overage, but complete XM coverage. That was the first time I saw the disadvantages of ADS-B weather up close. We arrived at 12:15, and by 3:00 looking back to where we had come from there were monstrous TS leading into Greeley. Had we not left when we did, we would not have been able to get into Greeley that day. Even my flight back that night was delayed by the weather. Right after I got my instrument rating, on almost every questionable weather flight I would call a more experienced pilot and discuss the weather. I learned a lot. Gradually, as I flew more and more long cross country flights, I got to understand the weather much better, until the go/no go decisions became obvious. Books such as Severe Weather Flying by Dennis Newton, and Weather Flying by Robert Buck were invaluable resources. You don't have to be a meteorologist to fly cross country. If the weather is such that you do, the decision is really easy--don't go. The Instrument Rating is a "must have" rating if you want much comfortable enjoyment in your GA flying, but not from what you might expect. A 3,000 pound airplane is no match for Mother Nature when the weather turns nasty or even in straform clouds without TKS when near the freezing level. This can happen even in the summertime. It's great for traversing a marine layer, but going IMC around anything convective is a recipe for disaster. I think the lessons gained from the rating are more about how to fly precisely, how to use ATC effectively, understanding the weather, and when not to fly in the clouds. So, as mentioned in other posts, its good to take a look at the weather forecasts a week out, but not worry about it. Get serious about planning a couple of days out and call an experienced friend or Flight Service for detailed help if you feel uncomfortable about any aspect of your proposed flight. Have a backup plan for "must do" trips. On the day of the trip, if you have ANY misgivings about any aspect of it, use the backup and never look back.

Only the AP Disconnect Button is required on the yoke. There is no CWS on the GFC 500, and there is no YD button in the yoke.

You're right, the YD Servo Kit was bid at $722.50. So 722.50 + 1275 = 1997.50 in parts. Still worth every penny.

The servo costs about $1,275 (15% discount quoted), Labor $2,000? It sits right next to the Pitch Servo. I think there are 4 wires. Time to look for another installer.

Notwithstanding the tech bust of 2000 and the financial meltdown of 2007-2008 (both of which if you held on to what you had would have produced fabulous results as of today), the best time to do a panel upgrade is--NOW! Had I not done my upgrade starting at the end of 2013, it would have cost me thousands more to do it today. The value of the dollar has really gone down over those intervening years making everything cost a lot more, and with inflation rearing its ugly head once again things are going to cost even more in the next few years. When I say everything, I mean everything; cars, airplanes, real estate, and yes, even panel upgrades. Mark my words (as an older person who has seen it all). If you pass on doing your upgrade now, you will be very sorry a few years from now.

I'm on my 3rd engine. I want a zero time engine, so opted for the Lycoming Reman as they are the only ones allowed to zero time an engine. The difference is about 6-7K, but worth it in my opinion. My last one was done at the end of 2019 and Lycoming was pretty much on schedule at that time, 8-10 weeks. Mine was ordered at the end of September of that year and came around December 8th. The exhaust system comes with the new engine, except for the tailpipe, which needed some work in my case. I OH'd the alternators at the time of change. New hoses should be preordered so you have them when the engine arrives. Turnaround time when the engine arrives should be 2-3 weeks. Top Gun in Stockton, California, a Mooney Service Center, has done all my engine changes.

"In tests" it is noticeable, but doesn't really interfere in any significant way with aircraft control--even in crosswind landings. However, as stated in the AFMS, it should be off for landings. Since it responds to "rate of change of rate of change" (the 2nd derivative in mathematical terms, lateral acceleration in layman's terms) among its 4 inputs (yaw rate, roll angle, lateral acceleration, and airspeed), it responds much better than a human in response to turbulence. I've rested my feet on the rudder pedals during turbulence without any control input from me, and feel the immediate minute movements of the rudder to mitigate it. For the small cost of adding it, it is worth every penny in my opinion.

In the light jets it is turned on almost immediately after takeoff after the gear is raised. The AFMS says the YD is not to be used for takeoffs and landings. It then says, "Yaw Damper Engagement with Autopilot Off –- The yaw damper, if installed, may be engaged with the autopilot disengaged. This will provide yaw damping and turn coordination. YD will be annunciated in the autopilot status box." So, like the light jets, I engage it after the gear and flaps are up on takeoff (Rudder trim is full right) even though the AP isn't engaged until 800' AGL. After I level off in cruise, I disengage it, trim the rudder for coordinated flight, and then reengage the YD. I feel this puts less stress on the YD Servo. Except for landing, when I disengage the AP, I'll still keep the YD engaged.

My real concern would be for high DA takeoffs with quick gear and flap retraction. If you're always quick on the draw for gear and flap retraction (as I've seen many times) there's the likelihood you'll do the same at a time when it is inappropriate, therefore my 50' or no more runway for gear retraction and 300' for flap retraction.

My mentor instructor, who was an aeronautical engineer, said that approach flaps (takeoff flaps) provide ⅔ as much lift as drag while full flaps provide ⅔ as much drag as lift. So, gear up at 50' or no more runway to land on and flaps up no less that 300' (to account for sink when flaps are raised) or after I'm done with a takeoff turn (for added safety margin). That's the way I teach it.

So the answer to my question was provided to me by Bruce Williams from the same posting I made on BeechTalk. It was substantial and can be found here: https://bruceair.wordpress.com/2021/05/14/vor-approaches-with-lnavv/ Basically this is an undocumented addition to the GTN Xi series. Apparently, unlike the App version of the XI, there were no cautions associated with this approach in the actual GTN 750 Xi. It can be fully flown with GPS provided a CDI OR Bearing Pointer is used to monitor the approach, which I did today. Actually, that's pretty exciting that you can run a VOR approach and get vertical guidance on some approaches with the GTN Xi series of navigators. It's getting closer and closer to the end of "dive and drive" on an approach. Thanks to all who contributed their input above.

I've attached a photo taken from the GTN 750 Xi today showing this approach into KSNS. I flew this approach in VFR conditions today and got Vertical navigation. There was no caution like on ILS approaches about flying this completely in GPS mode. If one were to switch to VOR at the FAF the VNAV would disappear. This approach does not appear in the legacy GTN 750. The question: Can this approach be flown legally totally with GPS with no monitor of the VOR? Many of us with the G500 TXi and 750/650 don't have a second VOR head in the panel, so could only monitor the VOR with a bearing pointer. I have never seen an approach like this before.

I used the circuit breaker that had been the Trim Switch circuit breaker when I had the KFC 150. We added a resistor to bring the max current down to 1 amp. I had an empty switch that had been used to switch inputs when I had the ESI 500 for the other switch.

I saw this the other day. I was surprised, but shouldn't have been. JeppFD has always been a simple and easy to use App. One of my reasons for using it was for the Jepp Enroute Charts. Looks like they'll be gone now, too.

If someone told me I'd be a flight instructor for nearly ⅓ of my life when I graduated college with a BSEE, I'd have told them they were crazy. But that is exactly what has happened. Flying never gets boring when teaching. Each person is different. Each flight is different. I've had many experiences I would never have had doing something else. When doing transition training, I do a fair amount of demonstrations in order to transfer my experience into the student's head as quickly as possible. I do a fair amount of critiquing in the beginning. By the end I shouldn't have to say a thing. Specializing in Mooneys, owning one, and loving, buying, and mastering all the latest in avionics has been critical to my success as a flight instructor. I value my time, and with 29 years experience of flying Mooneys and over 27 years teaching in them, I feel I have more to offer than most flight instructors. I've always been goal oriented, so when the Master Flight Instructor Program was started at both NAFI and SAFE, I went for it with both organizations--10 times so far. Because I specialize in Mooneys, I have never wanted for students, and I think most have had both a good time and enjoyed their training, although I'm a pretty tough task master. A side benefit of being a flight instructor has been that costs of my personal flying including my airplane have been covered.

When Bendix King was Bendix King so many years ago, I remember the service was great and the products were always leading edge. The KLN 90B is a great example. I used it for 20 satisfied years. They totally fell apart after their management failed to take the advice of a couple of their engineers who later had the foresight to start a competing Company, Garmin. I can't think of one GA product that has successfully come out of BK since that time. Why would anyone believe a thing that came out of a mouth of anyone who worked there? In my opinion, if you want an autopilot with all the modern bells and whistles before you are too old to fly, then your choices are limited to one or two vendors who actually have product "off the shelf" now. I imagine, if you consider the discounted cash value of money, that by the time any of these vaporware companies have a "real" product out on the market for a Mooney, the price of the autopilots available today will look pretty reasonable.