donkaye

Even my MVP 50 installation was only 40 hours.

Yes, Absolute motion, but NOT Relative motion, a big, big difference.

That is the one function Garmin left out of the GTX 345.

I was shocked and saddened when I opened up and read the latest issue of the MAPA Log and saw that Cleon Biter “Flew West” last month after a battle with cancer. I’ve known him since I first started teaching for the Mooney Pilot Proficiency Program as a new Mooney instructor over 20 years ago. He was one of the best pilots I have ever flown with. He was one of the first Master Flight Instructors. As a meteorologist, he really knew and understood Weather, and every time I taught for the PPP and would sit in and listen to his weather presentations I learned something new. After one PPP in Jefferson City a number of years ago, he took Wayne Fisher, another great instructor, and me back to Kansas City where we got our flight back to our home cities. He flew with perfection. While in the FBO I asked him to review how he did a preflight weather briefing. We headed to the computer and he took the time to detail how he did it. Since he was in Colorado, I recommended many students in his area to get their transition and other training from him. I always got positive feedback from them. The flying community and especially the Mooney flying community lost a great teacher. He will be greatly missed…

Not likely, since the mixture control on the Bravo is Vernier.

That's true. The 430W/530W don't have the computational horsepower to support TargetTrend. The 796, GTNs, and iPad do.

Looking at the Compatibility diagram for the GTX 345 on the Garmin Website doesn't show the 696 as being compatible. The 796 is. I get TargetTrend on my 796. However, with bluetooth you should be able to get traffic on the iPad with TargetTrend. You see Mode C Targets via TIS-B, which is part of the ADS-B System.

Sorry, you need a separate display.

Frank, there is something wrong with either your engine of your instrumentation. 29/2400 should give you 18-18.5 gal/hr the first hour and 17.5-18 gal/hr thereafter with all CHTs significantly below 400°F.

I noticed an approximate 50°F decrease in CHTs on all cylinders compared to that shown on my previous JPI 700 after I installed my MVP 50. I talked to EI about that and they assure me their probes are accurate. I have my MVP 50 set up to give me highest CHT and EGT at a glance, although I can look at all of them individually if I want to. That maximum CHT doesn't go anywhere near 400°C if the engine is set up properly. I did have some problems over a year ago that required me to have Top Gun investigate. First I ran a GAMI lean test and found that my fuel distribution was not within .5 gallons max distribution. I sent the data to GAMI and they replaced the required fuel injectors. My distribution is now below .5 gallons. I had some issues with "leaking" spark plugs due to the way the GAMI installation differs from the original injectors. I also replaced all spark plugs. All the above fixed my problems and CHTs are all below 370° at 75% power. The maximum power I ever run when flying into a large headwind is 31/2400. I never set the TIT above 1625° and CHTs are all considerably below 400°F, a temperature above which your engine should never be operated.

In my opinion the MVP-50 is the best engine monitor out there, but if you have a C Model Mooney it is a bit overkill. The cost, even at a discount is close to ⅓ the total cost of your plane.

It is true, they an be compared, but in my opinion they are NOT comparable.

I don't have a G1000 airplane. My panel consists of products I choose, not the OEM. I have a G500 and associated Garmin products.

Neither. I have the MVP 50 EI Engine Monitor, and use their probe.

No. Sounds good to me.

PITCH + POWER + CONFIGURATION = PERFORMANCE As such, I originally leaned to peak at 29/2400, richened 100°, and use that number for all future leaning at 75% power. Physics is physics. In no event, however, do I lean to any number greater than 1625°. I compare that number to the FF to make sure the setting is reasonable. After an hour in flight, the TIT goes down and I relean the engine. It's been that way for both engines I've had. Some say the 1 gph difference is because the fuel warms up after an hour, but that doesn't make sense to me, so I'm not sure why the fuel required is less after an hour. Physics is physics, so there must be a reason, but I don't know what it its.

Yes. I already did that.

I lean by TIT and FF. On the way back from Wilmar last November my TIT probe went out, so I leaned by FF only. 29/2400 = 18.5 gph the first hour changing to 18 from then on at same TIT. If TIT is working that should give about 1600 TIT. At 31/2400 (81% power) 19 gph 100° ROP. Numbers quoted above by PaulM waaaay to lean if operating ROP.

Sounds like you're being sarcastic, but when added to the 6 lb gain from removal of the 3 strobe power supplies, you get a 30 lb increase, which puts the useful load at over 1,000 lb in my airplane. Better performance, better climb rate...all good things when it comes to airplanes.

Useful load pickup = 22.8 pounds.

I wasn't referring to FARs. I was referring to what is prudent. Many years ago a Bravo with TKS was sold with a prebuy at Top Gun in Stockton. Tom recommended that the new purchaser, who had come out of a Cessna 414, get some transition training with me. The pilot declined and took off and flew to Truckee where he did a bounced landing so bad that the wheels came up through the wing. A new wing was required, and the pilot immediately sold the plane. I have many more stories...

Not true if you haven't gotten a High Performance Endorsement previously.

That's pretty much where it always is.

My Mooney Musings I've flown and taught in almost all the Mooney models extensively (over 8,600 hours of my 10,600 hour total). Once you've extensively flown the speed of the turbos you just don't want any less. I know all about LOP and just prefer to fly fast ROP. I don't particularly care about fuel flow, but I do care about fuel prices, so will plan my flights for minimum cost of fuel. I prefer to fly the mid teens for smoothness of the flight. I don't like masks, but don't mind the conserving nasal canulas at all. Under 10K, especially in Arizona and Wyoming leads to a bumpy ride in the summertime due to thermal turbulence. I prefer glass, just not the limitations Mooney has placed on the G1000, so I don't think I would ever buy a G1000 airplane. The Acclaim's extra speed isn't worth the extra money paid for the airplane, although if someone wants to buy one, I'll teach them how to fly it properly. If you fly an airplane the way it should be flown with grace and smoothness, you won't notice the difference in flight in control responsiveness between all models of Mooneys. The long bodies are heavier and give a smoother ride in turbulence. It does take some time to master their landings after flying the short body Mooneys. The turbo long bodies are more expensive to own so expect to always be fixing something on them, In fact expect to always be fixing something on ANY airplane you buy. Fuel burn on the long bodies are much greater than the short bodies. If you care about fuel burns, don't buy a long body. There is much more space in the long bodies, and useful loads can be increased if you remove the back seats. I usually fly with no back seats and have weight and balances for both configurations. There hasn't been one Mooney from the A Model to the TN that I have flown or taught in that I would rather have than my own. There is also no other single engine piston airplane that I would own other than a Mooney. Mooney Instructor and Bravo Owner for 24 years and counting.