donkaye

FWIW, the back spring being a single source of failure, means your gear will neither come up or go down in normal or backup mode if the spring fails. I have replace mine every 1,000 hours until there were no more back springs made for the Plessy Gear Actuator. The last spring for the Plessy cost $1,500 for the spring alone. I watched Tom Rouch take the actuator apart and replace the spring. It took him 3 hours. I WOULD ONLY HAVE AN EXPERIENCE PERSON DO THE REPLACEMENT. Since there were going to be no more back springs available, Tom made up a new gear actuator for me with springs that ARE available. The cost of the actuator was much less than a new one priced at $18,000. Typical rebuilt ones cost around $10,000. Mine was much less than that. Bottom line for me is that unlike Mike Bush's replace as needed philosophy, in this case I would stick to the recommended 1,000 hour replacement time. I'd hate to see an expensive airplane need $50,000 in repairs from a gear up landing when a $500 back spring could have saved it.

So I changed a couple of things today on the display. I felt the semi-transparent mask made the display seem smaller than it was, so I changed it to clear, and it does seem larger. I also changed the color of the Baro to green to distinguish it from the white altitude tape. I also took pictures of the terrain shading as I flew over the East Bay foothills to San Jose. The obstacles on the ESI 500 are block icons. The big antenna on top of the mountain shows up as Red. You can compare the G500 with the ESI 500. In this regard the ESI 500 displays better than its more expensive counter part. I hit a bump just as I snapped the picture, so it is a little out of focus. I also took picture of most of the panel. I'm really pleased at how the ESI installation turned out. Once again, I can thank Peter Casares of J and R Electronics in Livermore. He did it all.

Of course you are right regarding the certified Nav. I was referring to a Nav indicator, a second one of which I didn't have prior to the ESI 500. The GPS is not really in my field of view for secondary Nav. The ESI 500 is. Regarding cost, yes, it is a few $ more, but the Nav function is only about an additional $600. The SVT is more but was worth it to me. The support from L3 is excellent. Our questions were immediately answered. One other thing is really nice about the SVT. The terrain awareness color shading warning is much, much better than that the G500. As I came into San Jose yesterday over the foothills, the shading went to yellow with red in the distance, while nothing showed on the G500.

My ESI 500 installation was completed yesterday. Here are a couple of videos made on the way home. One is level flight and the other is on approach to Livermore. I have the SVT and NAV enabled.

That could be said for every switch on the G500. The options I'll have of any of 4 Nav inputs outweighs the unlikely failure of the switch. Even if it did fail, at least 2 inputs would be tied to the ESI 500 and it would be pretty easy to figure out which ones they were. On top of that, with the much more expensive ESI 2000 that is in there now I have no Nav inputs. I was able to sell the ESI 2000 for just a little less than I paid for it, so the swap is mostly labor, which is a 2 day affair.

One surprise that I hadn't counted on was that it only accepts one ILS/VOR input and One GPS input, therefore, I needed a rather elaborate switch to switch between the 750 and 650, since 4 wires are required for each Nav unit.

Then you'll want to see my latest upgrade that is supposed to be completed on Monday. I'm replacing my backup ESI 2000 with the ESI 500. Although a slightly smaller screen, it has Navigation (ILS/VOR/GPS/LPV) and SVT. With the G500 I had no certified backup Navigation. Now I will.

Yes. Turn on the Radio Master. Pull the GTN 750 circuit breaker. Hold the Home Button down and push in the circuit breaker. The unit will turn on the Configuration Page. Go to Charts and tap disable.

I've flown numerous approaches right after getting the update and had no issues---except, and this is only a software update for the GTN series, when flying VTF with the new system, all waypoints showed as expected on the GTN, but did not transfer over to the G500. It still shows only the Final Approach Fix and no preceding fixes. :-( Also, PTC doesn't work for me, but does for others. Garmin says send the GMA 35 back for repair. Another :-(

So far no one has reported on using the new software. I plan to have my units updated tomorrow if the weather permits. I'm used to debugging Garmin products. In talking with my avionics tech he says that if power to the unit is ever lost during any Garmin product update, the unit is bricked and must be sent back to Garmin, so the updates should be done using an external power supply. My ESI 500 has arrived, but it will be a couple of weeks before Peter has time to do the installation. I'll post pictures when it is completed. Now I'm thinking of exchanging out my GMA 35 for the GMA 35C, assuming pin for pin compatibility, which I think it has.

No fire? I wonder if there was any fuel in the plane?

Where did you get the cup holders?

While I got my Private and Commercial many years earlier, I got my instrument rating in 1992 in preparation for possibly buying a Bravo, after seeing one on the cover of Flying Magazine. One month after getting the rating I found the perfect Bravo and bought it. I flew it for 50 hours before feeling comfortable enough to ease my way into flying it IMC. There were no Mooney specific Instructors that I knew of around my area at the time. I got my CFI and CFII in 1994 and never looked back. Approximately 5,700 instructing hours and 10,000 since IR hours later I can make some observations. I have taught the IR to several new to Mooney pilots. The ones who did well were for the most part young; 32 years down to 26. One particularly sharp guy was a computer programmer and did the rating in 8 days. We flew 3 times a day for 2.5 hours each. Another girl, age 29, did it in her G1000 equipped Ovation with just a little Mooney time. Older people from my experience poop out before 5 hours per day. So age does make a difference. All of the Mooneys can be flown slowly, so it's easy to get caught up with the airplane if you get behind---if you know that you are behind the airplane. The problem is that those who are behind it don't realize that they are. In one instance I have checked out a person who had just gotten his Private in a C150. We did the checkout and the Instrument Rating at the same time. He was 31 at the time and as sharp as they come. In another instance I had a student who came to me with 100 hours of instrument time and no rating. He was 67. I spent another 100 hours with him before he took the practical test. It was in his Piper 180. Even though I suggested while training that he probably shouldn't continue he said he didn't care how long it took, he was going to get that rating. And he did. I think with the new glass panels, the IR is much, much easier to get. The scan is simpler and the SA is a piece of cake. This is unlike the pre GPS era in which I got my rating. So I would say it depends on the person and their age as to whether and how easy it would be to get the rating in their recently purchased Mooney. Certainly they could give it a try with an experienced Mooney Specific CFI. If they were having trouble with the complexity, then they could switch back to a simpler airplane. My bet is that they would complete the rating in their Mooney. In the Bravo the IR rating should be integrated with the basic checkout. Of particular importance is understanding the pitch/power relationship, which is applicable to flying any airplane. Yes, my landing video has helped many Mooney pilots from the feed back that I have gotten. I did it with my Bravo, but the techniques work in any airplane. You can get it by going to my website here: http://www.donkaye.com/donkaye.com/Perfect_Your_Landings.html

The Flight Stream 210 is so inexpensive that I think you would save money overall if you install both at the same time.

If taught correctly, because airplanes can be slowed down and therefore can closely mimic a trainer airplane, it is possible that a new student pilot could learn to fly in a Mooney. However, I don't think most instructors teach correctly, from my point of view. Although I think learning in a trainer would be easier, I have transitioned newly minted private pilots to a Mooney fairly easily when they were all willing to take input from me. My ire does go up if the first thing someone says to me when I begin instruction is, "Well my instructor said..."' Then depending on the situation I ask that they take me back to the field and I terminate their instruction with me--no charge for the session. What I usually say in those situations (they are rare) is, "I see where you are. I see where you need to go, and I'm not the one who will be able to get you there." Sorry, but I just don't have time in my life to retrain those personality types. Last week I flew with the instructor of the person who bought the Ovation 3 without having his Private yet. He was very nice, but I can see it will take me about 10 hours, or more, to get him checked out in the plane. As a test, I asked him at the end of our 1½ instructional flight if he felt comfortable teaching in the plane, and thankfully he said no--which was my opinion also. I try not to be complacent when flying any airplane, but after flying Mooneys and going back to give instruction in the Pipers and Cessnas, I feel like I'm teaching in a little toy airplane. So, while learning in your dream Mooney airplane is possible given an experienced Mooney instructor, for the most part it is probably better to get your Private in a trainer.

I had owned my plane for about 15 years before I found out that the bottom of the neck was 44.5 gallons and not the top of the neck. It never really spelled it out in the POH. I questioned Bill Wheat at one Homecoming how with the same wing the later model long Bodies had either 100 or 102 gallons. He admitted at that time the difference is what top off meant. The earlier long bodies were certified at 89 gallons, although some of the later ones could get the STC for the higher gallonage. For some reason mine was not one of them. I still don't understand the difference between the ones with 102 gallons and those with 100 gallons. It is, after all, the same wing. I do understand the difference between the ones with the V in the neck that allow the top off to occur more quickly. The bottom line, though, is that my airplane will hold 100 gallons, albeit that it takes a little longer to fill to the top. Recently I did a Bravo training in an airplane that had been upgraded with an MVP 50. With the MVP 50 you can preset several levels. This was to be used for airplanes with aux tanks. However, this airplane had the two levels set to 100 and 89. I thought "That was interesting!" The floats max out at 44.5 per side, but the full flow transducer has no such limits. So the fuel could be topped off and set to 100 gallons and the tanks would read 44.5 each until the 11 gallons were burned off both sides, then the calibrated tanks reading would closely match the fuel flow balance reading. I found that more than interesting.....

No realistic comparison. I've flown and taught in all of them extensively. The fact that I have chosen Bravo ownership for the past 23 years says what I think of the Bravo. The 252 is efficient but small and underpowered (spelled too slow) for my tastes. The Rocket is small, but does have great climb performance due to its power to weight ratio. Due to the heavy weight of the engine it is susceptible to prop strikes even while taxiing. The 28K certification is just a problem in my opinion. It is just not a good environment for the human body unpressurized and could present some definite issues for useful consciousness after an oxygen system failure. It's got a terrible CG envelope providing for only 2 people at maximum gross weight. Legally it's pretty difficult to get 3 people in at a reduction in gross weight and forget about 4 people. Couple that with the fact that they are giving away Bravos at ridiculously low prices, the Bravo is the best airplane for the price.

You're right, Mike. I modified my posting.

Thanks, Mike. Between that and the Video made by Phil Boyer I get the just of the Aspen AOA. For those having an Aspen it is a good way to go.

I calibrated mine flaps down at 1.3 Vso and flaps up at the top of the white arc based on reading the Rogers Report. So the Blue Donut is accurate at 1.3 Vso, my approach speed, because that is where it was calibrated.

I was referring to the AOA indicator in the PFD.

I have flown with the Aspen AOA, but since I don't have the manual on it would be interested in anyone telling me how to fly a stabilized approach with it. What is the indication for 1.3 Vso. I personally think that you need a magnifying glass to be able to read it on the PFD. It's large enough on the MFD, but has no indication how to fly Vx, Vy, Vglide, 1.3 Iso, 1.2Vso. Would someone enlighten to as how to do that? I have the Alpha Systems AOA and love it. It easily gives direct indications of the above mentioned speeds and is easily readable. I use it on all landings, as there are no calculations involved as to weight, CG position, Density Altitude.

As many of you know the Plessey Gear Actuator is no longer made. The back-spring is also no longer available. I just removed mine and replaced it with a rebuilt one assembled by Top Gun. Mark from Top Gun says they have parts for only one more rebuild. A new Eaton gear actuator is about $15,000. My gear actuator has 571 hours on it since back-spring replacement, so there is still useful life remaining. I also have a spring from the last replacement. If anyone is interested in these for any reason, make an offer off forum.

I've just finished flying an Ovation 3 ¾ of the way across the country, so I have a good feel for 310 HP. Flying turbocharged airplanes one never jams the throttle full in, but rather advances it smoothly. This goes for all airplanes including those with large horsepower. When low and slow it is important to stay in ground effect until a few knots below Vx. Induced drag is reduced 48% while in ground effect (you must remain within a 10% wingspan from the ground to get this benefit)! Add full power smoothly while simultaneously adding enough right rudder to compensate for the added torque, P factor, and slipstream effect. Start trimming down. The plane will barely want to nose up. At 50 feet raise the gear. The pitch attitude will not change. Start raising the flaps and the pitch attitude will change, but is easily managed since you had been trimming down in preparation for doing just that. At Vy raise the balance of the flaps and you're done.

In my opinion the difficulty most new students have is thinking that they have to fly the airplane all the time. Here's a thought--why not let the airplane fly the airplane? That means that trimming the airplane is of utmost importance. A trimmed airplane means the pilot has more time to get ahead of the airplane rather than fighting it for control. It also means that a light touch rather than being heavy handed will allow for much smoother maneuvering and a much happier flight instructor, and soon, much happier passengers.