kortopates

I think you nailed it. Mooney installed all the AP at the bottom, so those of us used to that after decades of use probably would find it odd to have to reach up. But if that is what you’re used to, familiarity is key. With the new GFC AP’s there is much more interaction with heading and alt bugs than ever before making easy access even more important. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

very true. should have been more specific. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally don’t see any relevance in the question of how long between radio calls is too long. The only relevant point here is why did the pilot failed to respond when ATC was trying to contact him? Had he switched frequencies believing he was out of range? Was he trying to re-establish communication? Apparently not. In fact the quoted pilot remarks sounds like the he thought ATC communications were optional. Thus far I can’t imagine the pilot was legally instrument current to be flying IFR. I am sure there is more to the story we have yet to hear and i’d bet there is more going on than missed radio calls. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Remember at least the first year of 231’s came with IAS and POH in mph, not knots. So their advertising would be in mph as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re still PIC as sole manipulator of the controls regardless of VMC or IMC. But of course the CFI is also PIC. Of course you want a Mooney experienced CFI in your model since they should save you time and money and provide better instruction. I’ve checked out many part 121 and 135 turbine pilots and just because they have 10,000+ hours doesn’t mean they’ll be competent to instruct in your Mooney without adequate Mooney experience. In fact many many will already be having a single engine emergency as soon as they hop into your cockpit … kidding of course The insurance issue is really for the CFI. You are covered regardless as long as the CFI meets the Open Pilot Clause. But many of us consider this inadequate since if anything goes sideways, the CFI can expect after your company makes you whole they will subrogate there losses against the CFI - cause we’re not covered by the open pilot clause - just you and any other named insured. That’s why many of us will insist on being an additional insured for providing instruction with a subrogation waiver. Younger time building CFI’s used to instruction at a school or club where they are on the insurance policy, don’t even realize the financial risk they’re taking when they jump into a private owners cockpit - but then again they don’t have much assets at risk either. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And it will work for you in your G1000 when you upgrade it to the NXi … someday:) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel for you, that's pretty much why I upgraded to the GFC-500 but for a slight but noticeable porposing with the King KFC-150 AP. If you've down all you can to make sure the trim system is fully lubricated from cockpit to tail, I'd be scheduling a flight to Kansas to get them to resolve the issue; especially given how bad it is. They're not that far from Il at Mooney speeds!

I don't think the center radio stack with the GTN 750 + 650 + GFC-500 will fit if you add the PS Eng audio panel on top, but it all fits fine with the Garmin integrated audio panel and it has a similar feature set including Intellivoice. I did already have my Mooney annunciator moved to the right from a previous upgrade and not sure if that is still really necessary with the GTN stack. Some people are placing the AP at the top of the stack, but with all the knob twisting I do on it for the Hdg and Alt bugs I am glad I have it on the bottom. But that is more a personal preference thing.

The simple solution that eliminates programming data cards is the FS510 card that also gives you bi-directional flight plan transfer and logs your flight data to the Garmin Pilot logbook. Also needs Garmin Pilot for the database concierge functionality. Once you have it set up it’s really helpful. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand getting upset if they can’t get it too work. But I wouldn’t expect a technician to provide root cause. That’s an engineering function - not a technical support function. Technicians are trained at following their troubleshooting checklist, checking configuration requirements etc. Perhaps you may not have meant root cause literally, but still their function is only to get it to work. I also worked on large DoD systems. I assume this is in connection to your data card failing earlier? They certainly are a weak point of the GNS navigators and $$. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quite true and there is plenty of blame to go around. In truth I should have more empathy for these issues. Technology can be a bitch; especially when it crosses multiple OS's and hardware, but seems when some folks have issues they just want to blame their favorite vendor for them.

Really? I thought the solution was to reload drivers and s/w on his PC after re-booting. That's sounds like the PC to me. I have almost zero problems, but the data is downloaded to my iPad Garmin Pilot and from there WiFi transferred to the GTN which then disburses it to my other GTN, G500 Txi and GI-275 and I don't have all these problems, nor do I have to handle any cards. In fact for me, Garmin's technology makes it trivial for me compared to the old days of having to carry my PC to the airport and needing to pull out the cards and re-program them every few weeks twice for a pair of GNS's.. Its especially painful when one of those old proprietary GNS card stopped working as they often did from just pulling and re-inserting them into the navigator. Boy an I glad for the modern technology improvements; especially since the number of databases has more than tripled yet my workload and time to do it has become greatly reduced..

Thanks for explaining some of the thought process behind the panel selection. Curious why you went with two G3x screens rather than say upgrade the G500 to the TXI version? For example, do you fly routinely with two pilots? Also would like to learn more about the battery backup on the G3x’s, like Tom asked plus is there anything that allows you to monitor the charge status of the backup battery like you can on the G5 for example? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like that approach as well for the obvious reasons. But I still have little confidence in this since its a lot of work for someone to make rugged shippable boxes for some of the delicate bigger tools - like travel boards. Seem like it would need someone willing to put the time and investment in to make it work as a small part time business and get a reasonable fee out of it..

Ah, thanks, I didn't know G3X could support a remote Com, but I see Garmin offers a GTR-20 remote Com for the G3x but says for LSA and Experimental - but maybe that's okay.

Agreed, and only 1 nav/com for IFR? Not my idea of fun in busy airspace. At least there is the Monitor function. And at least they just recently fixed the cross-fill issue between the GNC-375 and GTN's - but still no database between sync between them.

To my knowledge, everyone involved has survived gear up water landings in Mooney’s. Some have even made a long swim to shore. If you sit on the horizontal elevator in the water, it will help to keep it afloat as long as possible. But wear your life vest in the cockpit with any automatic inflator disabled. Also suggest carrying a water proof PLB. You can rent 4-person raft for Bahamas trips in south FL. As for where to put it down, remember altitude is your friend in giving you the most options and time. But if going for a beach, I would opt for just offshore if the beach wasn’t deserted - not doing so has resulted in fatalities of innocents. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Weren’t they built by the lowest bidder? I am betting toggles Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

did you mean not anxious to go back to NA? I would personally hate to go back to NA engine. I know [mention=15998]Schllc[/mention] has turbo experience but a great many don’t understand all the pros. It’s not just about how far you go. For me it has greatly improved my dispatch ability. Many a time i would have cancelled if i had to stay low in IMC or bad turbulence but the turbo doubled my options allowing me to climb above into VMC and typically smooth air. I also appreciate the continuous climb power at near 1K FPM. The NA folks often cite they have a service ceiling plenty high enough to upper teens or even within Class A, but it’s not really practical for them because of extended climb times and then only with several hundred mile trips. But with Turbo climbing high can help with most flights over an hour. And it does on most every xctry trip. If it’s a traveling plane i wouldn’t want to be without. The cons - mostly sucking O2 which understandably is not for everyone. Plus a bit higher operating cost. Which for improved dispatch ability is more than a fair trade for those of us that benefit from it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EI makes some great products, but hope you're aware this combination results in two separate data files for your flight data. i.e. each unit creates its own data files which makes it nearly impossible to see the the whole picture without combining the two data sets manually. I have one client that has figured out how to do that via Excel but I sue wouldn't want to go to all that trouble on regular basis. Because of this issue though I would much prefer a single unit solution.

The more complicated aspects of VNAV come in with different kinds of approaches which have similar concerns for VNAV that we originally had for when do we enable the approach mode and/or switch to LOC from GPS mode. As a result LOC approaches are the most complicated to master while any form of pure GPS approach guidance is pretty trivial once you understand the constraints. So for example, if we're doing any GPS approach (LPV, LNAV, LP with or without +V), we can follow the flight plan constraints before the FAF using VNAV. Its as simple as starting with a using VNAV to get down to the IAF and follow the constraints to FAF by setting the altitude to the FAF constraint altitude. Then once we've started the VNAV descent we can next Arm Approach mode on the GFC AP and the now the the AP will seamlessly transition from VNAV down to FAF and then GP down to the missed (if there is any form of vertical guidance). But on the LOC approaches with lots of step downs and no GP is where VNAV really shines but is also the most complicated use case since it involves switching to LOC mode from GPS and when we do, we'll loose VNAV guidance since its GPS. Before VNAV and doing a full LOC approach (not VTF) I would switch to LOC mode as soon as I was turning onto the final approach course to navigate past several step down before the FAF - exactly as called out in AC 90-108. The Garmin GTNs and earlier GNS's will also automatically switch to LOC mode from GPS when you have turned on automatic switching in Setup, once turned inbound onto the final course completing a procedure turn/course reversal - also per AC 90-108. So to really take advantage of VNAV capabilities on such approaches you have to disable automatic switching so you can keep it in GPS mode as you descend through the multiple step downs prior to the FAF and then manually switch to LOC mode on your way to the FAF. Although counter to AC 90-108 its legal to use GPS prior to the FAF as along as we're using LOC crossing the FAF; just don't wait till the last second so you can verify all is as expected. As an example, consider the KSEE LOC-D approach using the GPS VNAV to descend to and past BARET IAF (with or without PT) all the way to just prior to FAF SAMOS and then go to LOC mode and now switch to a largely manual VS mode to descend past the FAF to minimums.

Rich's tanks are very different than yours. If I remember right, since you don't show model, yours is a K which has the anti-siphon valve. The anti-siphon valve makes it very difficult to add fuel below the bottom of the anti-siphon. Not impossible but its like burping the wings to over fill them. But is by definition over-filling them since "full" at the base of the anti-siphon valve.

Very true, and this is was a change in Mooney POH's over the years that began with draining the gascolator first thing with the other cockpit checks but changes over the years to drain the gascolator last - for good reason.

Critical altitude is the max altitude the engine can produce 100% rated power. Its a density altitude. The service ceiling is the max altitude at which the aircraft at max gross weight can still climb at 100 FPM. The certified ceiling is the max FAA authorized altitude the aircraft can be operated (also that it was tested to operate during certification).

Intercooler don't raise the critical altitude. They can allow you to climb without CDT becoming a limiting factor.