kortopates

Autopilot integration is another area where Garmin really shines! Although I do not have the GFC-500 AP, the GAD-43e added digital VNAV capability to my KFC-150 that i didn’t have and would have allowed replacing the very expensive to maintain older KAS-297 vnav. Yes, I do have to push a couple of buttons to put it into VNAV, but everything is there on the G500 and GNS to help me set it. Far superior that what I had before and far superior than the Aspen EA100 adapter which doesn’t add any functionality than basic GNSS. Eventually someday when I upgrade my AP I will have more to look forward to. Foreflight has significantly greater functionality over GP. However IMO I prefer its more elegant user interface and most of all it’s just as strong flying in China, when I was there, and in Latin America where I am flying now, due to its integration with Jepp. Foreflight certainly works outside of the US and Canada, but not fully like GP does. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely, Garmin trumps all! IFD’s still can’t do all the approaches that Garmin GTN’s can do. I know, in all seriousness these discussions are at least 50% fake news with each us merely expressing our brand preference, loyalty etc. In truth, I am very thankful for as many avionics manufacturers as we have, but IMO there is no question which is superior, especially the more glass you have in your panel the less tolerant you are about integration issues (current and future) with multiple vendors since every vendor provides updates. Then there’s market share concerns too. By far, Garmin dominates the market followed by Aspen. Avidyne must be very small from what I experience. These are merely my personal preferences and concerns, but as a technology guy I haven’t seen a box I didn’t like since Garmin and Apollo introduced their first approach capable IFR boxes - GNS’s and CNX. It’s all been amazing stuff since. And the best part is that it’s becoming more and more accessible to the vintage fleet. I say that because it dismays me to see the typical vintage Mooney equipped far below the rental C172 and PA28’s with the vast majority equipped with GTN-650’s and many with GFC-500’s. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To fully turn off, it should go a little past off so the cable is still pushing a bit at fully off. This won't break the cable - mine has never broken. And from memory, the service manual will echo that. Yeah, I guess mine has always leaked through the ports - if not off. I'll have to look into new port seals. From memory they're just o-rings.

My cable does operates smoothly. I’ve seen where the cables wears on bends and/or the sheath wears thin. But easiest to try a new cable first. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess I am going to have to look into replacing my O2 port seals. I always assumed that is what the off control was for and that the port seals would naturally leak if left on. Good to know! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never leave mine open/on except in flight when in use. The ports are not leak proof when on. Leaving it on while not using it will drain down the tank over a weekend. How many psi/hr I don't know, but don't find it to be an issue in flight when breathing on it since the pressure is being vented to the connected ports. I am still on the same O2 fill from when I left San Diego flew to Guatemala to Yucatan and now in Puebla with 2 people mostly at 16K and still have ~800 lbs - enough to get home. To not loose O2, it's imperative to turn off the regulator when not in use. You shouldn't feel any pressure when you inset your cannulas/mask into a port at the start of a flight. If you do, the line is pressurized (any leaking) from not being entirely closed. I even pull out the devices from the ports to avoid loss in case it's not entirely off. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most low pressure leaks are from the regulator not closing all the way when your knob in the cockpit indicates closed. Start by verifying the regulator arm can't be moved further to closed. Since your cable broke, I'd bet you'll be okay once you properly re-rig the cable. Also 250 lbs seems to large to only be leaking in flight - another reason why I suggest the regulator rigging. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mention=7337]Ron McBride[/mention] Mostly all instructional flights with the occasional VIP demo flight either as a sales demo or a government official. Although Soaring scheduled us to fly with our visiting US Ambassador to China, Max Baucus, I just new he couldn’t accept a ride. We did a fly by that day instead. But I still got to meet him and get photographed with him and Veronica (owner of the Meijing Group) which was one of my favorite memories. WRT to Chinese officials, they weren’t too keen on accepting rides either, but what they all wanted to do was go out to dinner after the meeting and take turns toasting drinks to each and everyone. Fond memories there too! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Soaring has a team of over 6 mechanics to maintain their relatively small fleet of Mooney Acclaims and Ovations. There not at all lacking for support when it comes to personnel. They also have a pretty good spare parts inventory but they can't stock everything and are also dependent on Kerrvile for Mooney airframe parts. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not at all true - the Chinese government didn't put the kibosh on anything. They have been entirely supportive with building local airport infrastructure for Soaring. Their FAA equivalent is as slow as ours - but not unsupportive. It took some time but Soaring now has several Mooneys registered in China. As@KSMooniac said, their long term plan was dependent on introducing a US Mooney branded trainer to the Chinese people. Can't build on nothing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We continued our winter safari departing Flores Guatemala back to Mexico via Cozumel. Mexico only allows two ports of entry, excluding from the US border, which are Tapachula on the west and Cozumel on the east. We went into Cozumel so it would be easy to make additional stops in the Yucatan and Palenque. But the only real concern on this flight was realizing despite that we were going by a couple good alternate airports along the way we only had permission to land at our destination. Although if we needed too we would have declared and landed wherever, yet likely with considerable delay and added expense. We had pretty nice wx departing Flores and once again climbed on top of three different layers for a smooth ride north east to Cozumel in VMC. As we arrived and began our descent we saw we would find the forecasted 40% chance of rain in the TAF and stiffer than forecasted winds. But luckily we just went through the rain on the approach mostly over the water east of the field. The field was dry. But we encountered a very stiff direct cross wind gusting to 20 kts. Note in the picture on final, we're centered and tracking right down final, but see how crabbed we are into the wind! (At this point winds were over 30). In fairness, I should point out that I did not have to land on this runway with a direct cross wind, I could have circled to a more favorable runway - they have 4 afterall. But I always enjoy getting some good cross-wind landing practice in when opportunity presents. Being an international flight we were greeted by over a dozen officials before we finished shutting down. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure there are uses of ADF in many places. But none of them are truly required anymore. Take your KHBV NDB approach example, yet we find there is a GPS LPV approach to the same runway. Why would anyone fly an NDB approach anymore when we have much better options? I don’t even know of any instrument students that have even been trained in NDB approaches in last couple decades - not when a GNS430 is common on most trainers including C150s. But obviously there are still many Mooney’s without an IFR GPS and I’ve trained in many that way. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But unless any of those fields are ONLY served by an ADF approach then they have lost their utility IMO since there are better options. Like Anthony said, that "required" ADF for the middle marker identification is just a (FAF) Gps waypoint with any IFR GPS. The irony of the lack of utility of ADF is that it's only "real" utility is that you need the ADF operational in the plane just to be "legal" to fly the ADF approach with an IFR GPS; since legally the raw ADF signal needs to be monitored while flying it with your GPS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We continued our winter safari from Oaxaxa south east to Flores Guatemala to visit the ruins of Tikal - site that has been on our list before but never made it on previous trips south into CenAm. Just a few months ago the aero club got gas but I still flew in with enough gas to get out. Glad I did, since I couldn't pass up taking on about 20 gallons - but at $7.24/ gal. We've been paying a little or a little more than $4/gal throughout Mex. Thankfully another boring leg of VMC cruise on top of clouds, most of the entire way. Completef by an ILS approach descending through several layers with the lowest at 1500' making for an easy approach. We were the loan GA aircraft on the ramp. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless you fly in Alaska, why would you want to keep an ADF? Is there even a remaining field in the Continental US only served by ADF approach - I doubt it, but interested to know. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk