donkaye

Yes. The VNAV will go to ARM, and the VNAV deviation carrot will continue on down. When ATC gives you a descent, you can then hit VS, adjust the wheel for a large VS and possibly recapture VNAV. If you do recapture the VNAV slope, the VS light will extinguish and VNAV will continue.

Thanks, Skip. I put in the "CDI source to GPS" because I couldn't remember if the CDI autoswitched when flying the missed after an ILS approach. Of course it wouldn't be necessary when flying GPS approaches. When given the option, and assuming the minimums are the same, I'll always fly the GPS approach over an ILS now. Since Marc's posts both here and in another thread, I have experimented extensively with approaches using the GTN in conjunction with the GFC 500. Some of my conclusions: I don't like "autoswitch" when running an ILS approach. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. When it gives up the ghost when flying a HILPT, It establishes a 45° intercept angle and blows through the Final. I have much better control when I am established on final in GPS mode and then switch myself. This is especially true when flying a VNAV descent in the HLPT, and it switches before the descent is completed. Let me say that "Transition to Approach" will be a nice addition when it is approved for the GFC 500. I absolutely LOVE the ability to switch approaches and airports when on a missed approach. This has allowed me solo to ping pong off of 4 very close airports (KSNS, KOAR, KMRY, KWVI) doing multiple different approaches to each airport, while having the time to pick up either ATIS or AWOS, change frequencies, write down new clearances to different airports, monitor the flight, and communicate with ATC without going into overload. I have to add that a big reason for being able to do all this reasonably effortlessly is by making heavy use of the Aera 760 on the yoke for frequencies, runways, and approach charts, all things can can be done much faster on the 760 than on the GTN.

Maybe I'm missing something, but at the MAP I may want to fly the published missed approach even it I wanted to go missed before it. I've actually never looked at a menu Item "Activate the missed Approach". In any even I wouldn't want to activate it prior to the MAP due to potential terrain issues.

I didn't know about that. I'm glad mine wasn't hooked up that way.

If it is, I think it should be changed. I'd want to control the missed approach function. The scenarios below apply to my airplane. Follow the AFMS in yours. Scenario 1: Go missed before the missed approach point: Push TOGO, Power Up, On positive rate Gear Up, CDI source to GPS, Push HDG, Preselect altitude, Announce. Actions passing the MAP depend on ATC. If flying the published missed, tap Activate missed Approach on the GTN and hit NAV. If given alternate missed approach instructions, tap Activate missed Approach to enable the GTN to advance, but follow ATCs instructions in HDG mode and do not tap NAV. Scenario 2. Go published missed at the MAP: Push TOGO, Power Up, On positive rate Gear Up, CDI source to GPS, tap Activate missed Approach to enable the GTN to advance, tap NAV, Announce. If given alternate missed approach instructions by ATC, Push TOGO, Power Up, On positive rate Gear Up, CDI source to GPS, tap Activate missed Approach, tap HDG and follow ATCs instructions. Scenario 3. Go missed, but return for another approach to any airport: Push TOGO, Power Up, On positive rate Gear Up, CDI source to GPS, tap Activate missed Approach to enable the GTN, tap NAV. On the flight plan page, tap the current approach, tap APT and select a new airport or keep the same one, select the approach you want. When given a new clearance Activate the approach or follow ATCs instructions to the new airport. One of the big benefits of the GTNs is the ability to load a new approach to any airport while still flying the original the missed approach.

Exactly. For example, Mark said they had about a dozen no back springs on order and just can't get them. They finally refunded to the customers the money that they had advanced for them.

Mark runs Top Gun in Stockton, California, one of the major Mooney Service Centers in the Country. I've had my airplane serviced there since I bought it nearly 32 years ago. Cash for parts purchases by Mooney didn't seem to be the issue, since they offered to prepay for the parts they needed and were denied by Mooney. Mark seemed to think it was going to take pressure on Mooney by Owners to try to change their policy. Nobody seems to know why Mooney has taken this position on outsourced parts. Apparently, if a part can be fabricated at Mooney, they will make it, though.

A few more thoughts: While getting my 25 hour (recommended by Lycoming) $350 oil change today, I was talking to Mark who said getting parts not made by Mooney, but required to go through Mooney, are becoming nearly impossible to get. This is because he says Mooney will not buy externally sourced parts any more. They even offered to prepay for the parts and Mooney said no. Nobody understands their reasoning. Mooney is still making parts, but that is all. Expect parts to become nearly impossible to get for our airplanes in the future --- and the future is now. Regarding Annuals; the Mooney Maintenance Manual for my airplane says it should take 31 hours to do a proper inspection, and that only includes the inspection and not the repairs. My inspection alone last year was over $4,100. Go to a none Mooney Specific shop? Cheap for a few years, and then "Pow!!! There was a plane in the shop whose owner had done just that and it had over 120 discrepancies. Neither Mark nor the Owner were happy campers. The repair estimate was jaw dropping. Not withstanding my comments above, I can't imagine NOT owning an airplane. And the only piston one I would want is a Mooney. I've have mine going on 32 years and the adventures I have had with it have been amazing. If you want to sleep well at night, my recommendation has been to have no more than 10% of your net worth in your "toys" including airplanes. With that allocation you should be able to handle any unexpected expense that might arise, and believe me they will arise. It may seem comforting to do a pretty analysis as was done above, but expect it to be blown out of the water in actual practice. Regarding flying for business, AOPA came out with a new Webinar that would be useful to the OP and everyone else. Here it is: https://bit.ly/alc-1093

See my website for my Battery Minder setup with battery switch box for initial conditioning of each battery. www.donkaye.com

My plane without TKS or air-conditioning has an empty weight of 2383. With a maximum gross takeoff weight of 3368 that means the useful load is 985 pounds. There is a maximum landing weight limitation of 3200 pounds.

I can and have flown a 10 hour day in the Bravo. Mooney somehow got the seat angle perfect for long term sitting. I did a 2.5 hour engine break-in in a C182 a couple of years ago and couldn't wait to get out of the airplane. The seat angle was just not good for long term sitting for me.

An elegant spreadsheet was developed a number of years ago by one of my students who was an engineer, and I have adapted it to every airplane in which I teach including the C310 Twin. You can easily play "what if" scenarios with it. It does require you have access to Excel. For the Bravo all you have to do is enter the empty weight and CG from the Weight and Balance section of the POH. Here's a screenshot. I've had my Bravo for 31 years. It's a 4 person airplane with 50 gallons of fuel and 50 lb total of baggage. It's a 3 person airplane with 60 gallons of fuel. It's a 2 person airplane with full fuel and full baggage. You can increase the useful load by close to 30 lb by removing the back seats (takes about 10 minutes). The above assumes no TKS. You'll have to email me for the file because Excel files can't be attached here. Email: donkaye@earthlink.net

I made a mistake. By now I should have learned, you can't flight instruct on the internet. There are too many variables that influence a particular flight. I knew I shouldn't have answered your last posting, but fell for it anyway. No more. You didn't get how I do it at all. Reduce the throttle to 20" at 17,000 feet 50 miles out? No way. I don't reduce the power at all. Just lower the nose to 500 ft/min, pick up speed that I lost in the climb, and wait to do any other configuration changes until the appropriate time on final. Coming into San Jose in instrument conditions once on final I fly 160 to 170 until 5 miles from touchdown, then use what I have at my disposal to slow the plane to 75 knots on touchdown. Take off 1" per minute and ATC will have you flying in circles until all the jets behind you come in. Fly your airplane the way you want to. I'm on my 3rd engine and with 31 years of experience with the Bravos, I'll be teaching my students the best way they should be flown and all the other models from that experience.

Adding either speed brakes or reducing the prop rpm (remember 300 rpm is approximately 10% power) when it's not necessary is inefficient. I want to go as fast as I can for as long as I can and reduce the speed in such a manner that the least amount of drag is added over time during the slow down. So my slow down method is, at the appropriate time from my experience of when to do it, I'll bring the MP back first to 25" then to 20" while watching the maximum cooling cylinder, then reduce the prop rpm from 2400 slowly to 2000, then bring the MP down to 15". At that point I'll be below 140 and put the gear down. Below 110 I'll add approach flaps to get me down to 90, add full flaps when turning base, slow to 80; turn final and slow to whatever approach speed is appropriate of the landing weight. I believe this method uses the least amount of fuel and provides the least amount of drag over time for a smooth transition to a landing. Drag is drag. A prop isn't any more efficient than the speed brakes. It's just how and when you use them.

Well, as the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

That's a lot of unnecessary work. Both Lycoming and Continental both permit a 50°/min cooling rate on a cylinder. At cruise a cylinder will conservatively run at 350° at cruise and 250° at idle. So in a worst case scenario (of course you wouldn't go below 15"MP in descent) that would take 2 minutes. So what instructor recommended 1"/minute?

Also, not a very efficient way to do it, and landing with speed brakes, well, I just wouldn't. Better to use the prop first as a speed brake in such a descent.

Bad technique land with approach flaps, but you can get away with it on the C Model.

Sorry, but that's not the recommended way to land unless there is a strong crosswind. Consistently do that and you'll not be prepared to land on a 2,350' runway or be afraid to even go there.

It's probably appropriate that the AeroCruz discussion has digressed because it will never compete with the Garmin autopilots. Regarding Turbotax, I don't do the guided return, but instead flip to the forms and enter all that is applicable to me. I have all the above, but do have an accountant do the Corporate tax return. I then review the flow from data entry to 1040. The complexity of some of the flow is amazing to me. I personally would never have been able to figure it out. This year due to the significant tax increase, I have set up an appointment with my corporate accountant to review on a macro basis my personal return to see if I missed something. I expect him to find nothing, but it's worth the time and money to confirm what I think I already know--it's time to move to Florida.

Marc, when you decide to retire from being an ER Doctor, you should go into sales. You are a lot more tactful than I am.

First off, you are the younger generation compared to me. If your Aera mount was the Garmin mount, I would agree that it's not very good. It blocks part of the panel and vibrates too much. The Ram mount attached below the yoke doesn't do any of that. I've had students be perfectly happy with the iPad mini on the yoke. I just don't think it provides all of the types of information in the best way possible from a pilot's point of view, and may have a reliability issue, For the benefit of others, because I'm never going to convince you, on a number of cross country flights with students I've seen their iPads fail due to heat and it was minutes before it got cool enough to work again. Not good if you were depending on it on an approach in IFR conditions.

Was it a computational error the accountant found or an unknown to you deduction?

Thanks, Sue. Sometimes the responses to my posts are so frustrating, I wonder why I stick around. I've specialized in teaching extensively over the past 30 years (CFI and CFII in 2/1994) in every model Mooney except the D and G of which there were so few. I've done the work over 22 years to earn the designation "Master Flight Instructor" 11 times (needs to be renewed ever 2 years). With a degree in Electrical Engineer and working quite a few years as a display engineer, I spent several months extensively researching the market before I did my upgrade. I've read all the manuals a number of times on not only my equipment, but those of many of my students. My experience says that many people spend over $100,000 on their upgrade and never read a manual. I guess that keeps me in business. I've flown most of the equipment available today (still like mine the best). So I cringe at some of the feedback I get. I think some people out there just don't know what they don't know. So I go back to saying it's very frustrating trying to move immovable people to another position.

That's the one to get with the "Medium" extension. While it can be mounted from the top of the yoke, it is best mounted from the bottom. It will be obvious, but each configuration requires the Garmin cradle to be bolted on differently.