donkaye

Thanks for the reply, Paul. The Garmin Charts load within a couple of minutes to the 750 using Database Concierge. The long Chart Streaming to the G500 isn't really a bug just a big file problem. Garmin sort of solves the problem by streaming all the Charts in your flight plan if you use Database Sync and all the Charts haven't transferred over. I choose just to update the G500 TXi from the Card and be done with it. I'm also tired of trying to track down why there is either a delay or a hang in database transfer to the 650. Updating the card only takes a couple of minutes at home. The the new data transfer technology just isn't worth the trouble to me.

Upgrading a panel is not for the faint of heart or for a light pocketbook. Mine took longer than anticipated, but cost what I anticipated. The problem was that Garmin kept coming up with new goodies that I just had to have, so two more panel changes later I have exactly what I want. It made sense for me to do what I did rather than buy a new airplane. I wouldn't like to go through the process again.

Since it was already installed, I kept the FS 210 and use it interchangeably with the FS 510 in flight. When it comes to Database Concierge, it's less than a toss up as to its usefulness. First, I've had problems with syncing from my 750 to the 650, so I need to take the 650 card home and transfer data to it from flygarmin.com. Same goes for the G500TXi. Database sync seems to work with it, but Flight Charts takes about an hour to transfer over, and while that can happen in flight, if the flight is less than an hour and the transfer is not completed, then you get to start over again. That's unacceptable, so that card is also loaded from flygarmin.com, too. When I've talked to Garmin Support about this, even they recommend just updating the cards separately. Bottom line, you might as well do all cards separately rather than use the FS 510.

Aren't you near Don Maxwell?. They are also doing a lot of Avionics now. Having said that, the FS 510 is basically plug and play. You need to pair the Bluetooth and enable Database Sync, if you have multiple units that have Databases.

I have about 15 hours in that plane. I helped Dave Norinsky bring it back from KGGG when he bought it in 2013. It was a long day with 10.5 flight hours to Petaluma, California. Dave traded a J Model for it. I haven't flown with Dave since 2014 so I don't know anything else about it or why he is selling it. TT on the airframe doesn't mean much. I know he had a hangar in Petaluma. OTOH it's got the original engine that was converted the Bravo 933 hours ago. When I converted my first engine to the Bravo I flew it to 2295 hours before I swapped it out for a Reman. I think the reason for the low price is in anticipation for a new engine in the not too distant future.

Sounds good too me.

Unlike Bob, I don't much care about fuel burn in climb or difference in total flight time going higher or lower. I do care about passenger comfort, and my experience in GA going cross country many, many times, in general going higher means less turbulence and a better overall trip. Especially with turbocharging it also means a more efficient flight because as you go higher your IAS goes down and you come down the drag curve. This becomes substantial as you get into the upper teens. Of course the other added benefit is your TAS goes up approximately 2% per thousand feet, so at, for example 17,000 feet, your TAS is 34% faster than at sea level.

Ever go across Wyoming in the afternoon in a J? Best to have a helmet on. The Tehachapis in the afternoon? Turbocharging has benefits besides the weather; increased TAS and turbulence mitigation to name a couple.

I didn't say CG. I said envelope. If you want to land with an hour of fuel, then you can go someplace ½ hour away. Not very practical. I personally am not comfortable landing with less than 12 gallons in the Rocket. You used Roy Epperson's great program. I have it, too. I calculate that your empty weight is 2,162. That seems pretty low for a Rocket. The Rocket I used in my calculations weighed in at 2,239. Your empty weight CG position it apparently a couple of inches back from the one I am using. Anyway, because of the "Top Hat" envelope, with 70 gallons (for a reasonable flight) of fuel and 3 people, with the Rocket I am using for the calculations, the CG is significantly out of the envelope in the forward direction. It's even worse with with 2 people and 70 gallons. Putting one of the people in the back still has it out for the 1st hour of flight. With your empty weight CG back a bit you can probably make the 2 people in the front work. Bottom line, though, the Rocket with its heavy engine in the front makes it at most a 2 person cross country airplane. Additionally, you really have to be careful taxiing or you are in danger of a prop strike because the prop clearance is down around 7". I know of a few people who have had prop strikes just taxiing. Unfortunately, many people fly the Rocket out of the envelope.

It does not, as the files below show. The Rocket is a good airplane, it climbs faster than the Bravo, but if you fly it legally, you really can't stay within the envelope with 3 people. Rocket Weight and Balance.pdf wb Version 3.8 231.pdf

This is not what you want to hear, but for consistency of dispatch your choice of J would be out of the question for me on the route. I like feeling good when I arrive at my destination and able to function 100% the rest of the day. To me that requires O2 above about 7,000 feet for more than 2 hours of flight time. Also, as you know, forget about flying in California from December to May on a consistent basis above 6,000 feet in clouds due to icing in an NA airplane with no deicing. Needing the plane for commute to work demands a more capable airplane than the J Model. I just can't see how it would be considered reliable transportation very often during that time of year. For me the best Mooney for that job would be either the 252 or the Bravo. Only the Bravo is certified for FIKI, and that is what you need for consistent commute transportation. If you look hard, you can probably find one with a mid time engine for around 165,000. It is the most undervalued, unappreciated great buy in the Mooney arena today. French Valley (F70) in Southern California and either Byron (C83) or Tracy (KTCY) would be the best places to buy fuel for your airports. The Bravo burns about 18 gal/hr and your trip generally takes about 90 gallons round trip assuming no great headwinds. The fastest I have made the trip in my Bravo KSJC to KCRQ is 1.7 hours with a good tailwind and the longest 3.2 hours with a 60 knot headwind. Average time is 2 hours each way. I would generally fly 15,000 to 17,000 feet down and 16,000 back. When my Father lived in Carlsbad I did that trip often. I don't have TKS, so I had to plan more carefully in the wintertime. With TKS it would normally be a no brainer and you could do most of your trips without SWA. With the J you'd be sweating almost every trip in the wintertime and flying over the Tehachapis below 12,000 feet anytime would just be too uncomfortable for me even going up V459. BTW my first airplane purchase was my airplane, 28 years ago. After flying and teaching in almost every Model Mooney over the past 26 year, I would make the same decision today.

I thought I would miss it, but I don't.

I did an instrument training with a person who had the KSN 770 in his plane. He did so well on his Checkride that on the debrief the Examiner asked him if he was going to be a Professional Pilot and that he didn't have anything to Critique about him. He was perfect. I went over all the BK videos so that I had a handle on the unit before the training, but I didn't have much to say because Sam knew the unit so well. By the end of the training I thought the 770 was a very good GPS. Too bad BK didn't take it farther. For additional questions about how to use it contact Sam Judd at sam.a.judd@gmail.com. He is the student and he probably knows the unit better than anyone on the planet except the designers.

As the saying goes. "It all depends". At my home airport, KSJC, a Class C airport, ATC almost always says, "Keep your speed up". In such instances I'll make a constant slope (the glide slope), variable airspeed approach. With the Bravo that means 160 knots (for a reason) to 5 nm. At that point the speed brakes go out with the slope remaining constant. 160 knots is chosen because the speed brakes will quickly knock off 20 knots at that speed. At 140 knots the gear comes down. Within a few seconds the plane is at 110 knots and slowing. Approach flaps go in, slope remains constant. If I don't break out at 200', I'm set up for the missed approach. If I do break out, I will go to full flaps while maintaining the slope and touch down on the marker as the speed bleeds off at 75 knots. For a more traditional approach, once on final, I'll set up for 105 knots. At glide slope intercept the gear comes down. Since I'm often on autopilot, I won't add any flaps until I break out, then will add full flaps while maintaining the slope and slowing to 75 knots. If I don't break out (hasn't happened in real life, but has during practice in actual), I'm set up for the missed. Regarding a check ride; ask around to find out what the Examiner wants, then practice doing it his way. Afterwards, if your way disagrees with his method, do it the way it works best for the plane in which you probably have more time than the Examiner.

BeechTalk people recommend first calling Bob Weber and seeing what advice he may offer. He apparently has over 40 years experience with autopilots. His web address is: https://webairconsulting.com/services/ Basically almost anything that has to do with the KFC 150, figure 5K at least, if you take it to an Avionics shop specializing in Autopilots.

There definitely is a difference in panel height. The newer panels were lowered 2 inches if I remember correctly. I have the older panel and, although on the ground it is more difficult to see over the panel, in the air I don't notice a difference. The older panel fits the newer stuff like the G500TXi and all the switches more easily I think.

A year ago June Don Maxwell had a convention called MooneyMax in Longview. At that time I was approached by an individual attending the convention who asked if I would fly with him for some landing practice. I think he had just gotten the airplane a few months earlier. (It may have earlier than that). We flew for about an hour and a half. He was a very good pilot and I was able to supply him with some tips. As I recall we talked about Mooney as a Company and he had a lot of ideas. I've heard a lot of people who had a lot of ideas about Mooney. Nothing ever came of them. And so it was that I received the above notice. I went back to my logbook to see who it was that I had flown with that June day. It was Jonathan Pollack. Some people are more than talk. They do... I look forward to see what great things you can do with Mooney, Jonny.

Does the GFC 700 with the NXi have ESP and LVL? I couldn't find it in the manual. Is so, then they have equal capability. I'm not sure if the servos on the NXi are brushless. If so, then equal capability. If not, then heavier on the NXi and possibility more of a maintenance problem down the road due to its slip clutch complexity that is not required on the GSA 28 brushless servo of the GFC 500.

When I said "dims", maybe better words would be "washed out". I've seen it in a number of G1000 airplanes. Its like the iPad in the sun. Possibly the G500s will do the same over time. I've helped ferry several airplane purchased from Premier and they seemed like a good company at the time. Salesman are salesman. Richard Simile worked for them for may years. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they didn't know the Acclaim was about to come out. It was (is) a hard nut to swallow financially when it comes to upgrading the older G1000s to WAAS.

As of the 28th of August, I've had my M20M for 28 years. I'm now on engine 3. The first one made TBO plus 300 hours and the second one would have had it not been for a shop incident that required an engine tear down. So I went with a new one a few hundred hours short of TBO. The 3rd one is the smoothest of them all. On the first 2 the turbocharger on each needed to be overhauled mid time along with the wastegate and controllers. Both engines needed exhaust stack work around mid time, too. Cross country I use 75% power of 29"/2400 rpm. 65% power is 26"/2400 rpm. In my nearly 6,400 hours of teaching, I've taught in all models of Mooneys except the B and D so I know Mooneys. From my experience, if they are slow to sell, in good condition, and priced low, then there are a lot of people out there who are flat out misinformed about the Bravo. The Bravo is today's bargain. True, it's a little slower than the Acclaim, but at ⅓ the cost there is no comparison as to value. Also, I've had a lot of G1000 experience and personally don't like it much--even the NXi version. After a few years the screens dim and can't be seen well off angle from the right seat even with the brightest setting. I also don't like the old G1000 menu system and buttons compared to the new icons system and touch screens with knob option. Also, if anything new comes out, the G1000 isn't very upgradeable. The Acclaim did have the GFC 700, but the GFC 500 now outperforms it. Contrast that with what I did and what the original poster was contemplating, upgrading the panel after he bought a bargain priced Bravo. In my opinion that is the way to go. I have an avionics panel that surpasses the newest Acclaim, and the only thing I would even consider having other than the Bravo would be a turbine airplane, and even then I don't think I could get the avionics package that I have on my airplane now and at a fraction of the price of that in the new turbine aircraft. Flown properly after having gained experience, the Bravo is as easy to land as a Cessna 150. It's performance with the 270 HP engine is only surpassed by the Acclaim and certainly not worth the increased price for the minimal increased performance. I've gone out of Leadville at 13,500 DA in the afternoon at gross weight and was off the ground in a little over 1,300 feet. While I don't understand why the OP wants to go out of the Acclaim into the Bravo before purchase of a twin, it couldn't be a better decision from my point of view.

It goes without saying that the rudder trim on the ground should be neutralized until trimming full right trim on entering the runway. When I'm cleared for takeoff, I trim full right rudder, enter the runway, look over my shoulder to make sure the baggage door it closed, and turn on the strobes and pulse lights just like the "big" guys. I imagine it looks both Professional and "cool" from the Tower and anyone looking when the lights go on.

So, I just checked my records and it was the "right limit switch on the rudder trim actuator". It was done in 2006. The switch part number was 487-925. It cost $13.65 at the time and the labor was 1 hour at $75/hour. Total cost was $88.65. Times have changed.

Yes. Needed the actuator replaced.

If that were available, I could go back to flight instructing.

Mike Jesch would be the one to go to. While he doesn't own a Mooney, he has trained a number of people in them. He is an American Airlines 787 pilot and a really good guy. Tell him I recommended you call him. I would come down and do it myself, but with Covid, I'm not taking on any new students at this time. I'm doing engine break-ins and ferrying for the time being. 714-588-9346 or mcjesch@gmail.com