kortopates

Very cool, and my prediction is that it will sell a lot of GTN XI upgrades! Before this significant upgrade going from the GTN to a GTN XI was more about improved resolution but this is pitting the XI upgrade in a whole new light. Although it only integrates directly with the Garmin AP's (with a Garmin PFD) , even without it, it's just a few more button pushes as best as I can tell.

Personally I just wish they had support for a CWS yoke switch like the BK AP's - a quick change of pitch with the CWS button was extremely useful.

I think I understand you now and understand you want the plane configured and set up cross controlled quite ways up before the flare, or maybe you extend the brakes and get the power where you want and add cross controls closer to the runway so you can take the crab out and center the nose. I am not passing judgement on any of it. We teach our private students to put in the cross controls at a couple hundred feet - but the higher the starting alt, the stronger winds are and more cross controlled the plane needs to be to elimiante drift. In fact with a strong cross wind one can easily run out of drift correction which is why keeping the crab till near the flare allows controlling the drift with stronger cross winds. There is truth too in more power adding stability with more thrust or prop wash over the rudder - you can see this by pulling the power back to idle a bit before the flare with a good x-wind and seeing the nose weather vane right away - even though its a relatively small power change. But if you have the runway, adding a bit more power with a bit more airspeed with about 1/2 flaps is another way to handle larger x-winds. A constant wind magnitude though is much easier to deal with as compared to a gusty x-wind - I can reach my x-wind limit much earlier with a very gusty wind as opposed to constant x-wind.

I understand more power for speed brakes. But this would make more sense on the visual portion of the approach before the flare, but why does it matter inbound from the FAF? The plane doesn't feel the x-wind tracking on approach from FAF till breaking out or at minimums cause the nose is crabbed into the wind by whatever amount is necessary. Only after you commence the visual portion and at somepoint before or at the flare will you eliminate the crab and to land. If I understand you, one could extend brakes with power once the landing was assured - assuming that's your preferred x-wind landing technique. (I do know pilots that prefer to use speed brakes on normal landings) Mooney's were certified without speed brakes so its my understanding the factory did no testing. Testing was done by Precise for their STC limitations covered in their AFMS - which does allow landing with them and all the way up to Vne.

Thanks for clarifying. You’re right i wasn’t thinking about speed brakes used from the final approach fix. But why would it help to maintain centerline i.e. laterally centered on the approach? All that is needed is to maintain the DTK by crabbing into the wind. Then when the visual segment is begun to land you can take the crab out and land as you prefer. For me that would be dropping appropriate wing into the wind and simultaneously kicking enough rudder to maintain centerline at normal approach speed. But depending on the cross wind keeping a bit of power into the flare. Pulling the power to idle before the flare will allow the nose to weather vane into the wind from the loss of prop thrust over the fuselage. And if i don’t have the required visibility I am ready to go missed since the airframe was clean all the way down. With cross winds and cold air you won’t want to deploy speed brakes and find them sticking on the miss. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they were some of your best landings with Speed brakes then you’re caring excess speed into the flare. The added drag of the brakes helps dampen the float you’d have with excess speed but right on target speed will give a firm landing. Same on the cross wind. Being cross controlled already adds a lot of drag, adding speed brakes is really going to increase your descent rate. But the cross controlled landing is very manageable with just a little more power to reduce the descent pitched for the same airspeed. A really strong x-wind you can increase airspeed enough to maintain the centerline and roll it on - but only if you have plenty of runway. Another PPP instructor here. Going back to the normal landing, make sure you’re adjusting Vref for you weight to 1.3 X Vso - you may be consistently using max gross Vref causing float from being several hundred pounds lighter and then speed brakes would be helping absorb all that float you would get without them. every time i mistakenly land with the speed brakes out i am rudely giving my bird a firm landing because i didn’t realize/forgot to retract them and pulled the power prematurely for having them out. My absolute worst landings! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

we had a minus 10+ out of 10 paint abandoned old Mooney A model with wood wing. So bad that most of the top wood skins were gone - eaten or rotted away - exposing the wing bays. Its doubtful any salvage valued remained. Story i heard was similar to above in that the family was making the tie down payments till they found out there wasn’t anything left of it. Sadly there are way to many of these across the country! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sounds like fun! i was thinking low and slow - till i saw the panel pic. that’s a turbo charged radial - i assume not that far from Mooney speeds! Looking forward to seeing lots of picts! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speed brakes are forbidden on approaches for me. I have to have really screwed up terribly bad if i need to pop them out on an approach. i have used them on occasion when it’s been the controller’s fault coming down from the upper teens and he couldn’t get me down despite my pestering for lower. But i’d be using the “unable” response if i couldn’t get down and slowed down to start a stabilized approach. Even in the enroute descent it’s got to be above freezing and VMC before i’ll pop them - other wise i’ll take some vectors so i can continue to fly the approach by my numbers - the way I always do. that’s not to say i can’t keep my speed up to the FAF at a busy airport - i have numbers for that too. Just got to stay well ahead of the plane! The big problem with adding speed brakes to your approach tool kit is the day will come when you want use them in below freezing IMC. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But then if they do tell, they will have to shoot you! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i met Henry many years ago at Vintage fly in back in the day when Phil was organizing them. I recall he was based at Long Beach then. Everything Rich says above was spot on - sadly. Let’s just say Henry was making the news decades ago. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it's still under warranty, you’re either stuck with what you have already or would be limited the Lycoming EIS - which is still okay if you have a 14V system. Otherwise i’d stay clear of the Lycoming EIS for now till they provide a solution for the 24V systems as Surefly has done. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd wait a few more months for the newer version to ship with integrated power regulator. It'll work fine now though as long as the service bulletin is installed with it with power regulator and capacitor - this issue is only for the 24V systems. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are examples here of much nicer IFR panels in a C here on Mooneyspace. Many have seen Oscars videos flying in CENAM sporting Triple Aspens and double GTNs panel in his electric gear C. Pesonally I can't applaud enough the owners here who really improve their steads duing their limited ownership years. Its great for fleet as a whole. People getting into aviation today via club rentals expect to see modern avionics in there panels too - those are the most popular rentals here. At the club I teach out of, the majority of the C172's have a pair of G5's with GTN650 and many now have a GFC-500 AP too. Do you think they'd want to upgrade to a faster M20C with original gyros panel and PC system?

When the air temp isn't hot as it is this time of year, climbing at 1/2 cowl flaps is standard practice for me as well and CHTs aren't even near 380F. This time of year the engines needs a lot more cooling in cruise and I am probably 1/4 to 1/3 cowl flaps closed in climb.. Its hot out there! But make sure the nose is lowered to at least 110 KIAS. Airpseed is the real cooling factor.

I took my student pilot J model to land at Fallbrook for his Short Field final exam. Yep, he bought a J to get his Private in! Fallbrook is intimidating not just because it's short and narrow (2160 x 60) but because its on top of a hill like Catalina with abrupt drop offs at both ends, forcing good short field technique. A steeper than normal descent, without power the last 50-100', at Vso*1.2 for the weight*, leading to a faster than normal flare done later in ground effect absorbs more energy resulting in a shorter rollout. * additional allowances reqired for gusts and/or cross winds I have to be the contrarian on landing the M20S/R being any more difficult. The lack of cowl flaps have no effect in trimming the aircraft for speed control. Personally, I think the long body's are easiest of all to land as they have more stability than the short body's. Just be carefull to not over rotate and cause a tail strike! Don't we all wish the O had superior baffling, but cooling for the #5 on all of the TCM powered Longbody's (NA and Turbo) is one of the bigger baffling issues across the entire fleet.

In that case, AC 43.13-1b Chapter 11 provides the guidance in the absence of manufacturer specific guidance. I am sure your fine with that, but woud measure resistance between your point for the boost pump ground and at another known good ground at the firewall or battery just to be sure it tests good.

Did you consult your IPC for proper hardware? That specifies what to use.

I believe if your a MAPA member, you merely go to their website and login. You'll find them in the members only content section. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with your instructor and teach rasing them based on airspeed - as soon as your airsppeed is sufficient such that you will not experience any nose drop. That airpseed varies with the airframe model but 80 kts in the mid-body's is what I teach to raise them. A second reason why I really dislike keeping them out beyond that airspeed is that once you do raise them the airspeed will accelerate in the climb and quickly allow your to get your airspeed up above Vy by a min of 10-20 kts where you're keeping the cylinders cooler with the faster airspeed and still have a great climb rate. I could go on about your reduced options if you loose the engine below the altitude you normally raise the flaps but when you think it out there is no good reason to keep them out like that.

I would have to see your data to be sure. But this normal since with the higher temps, oil temp goes up and oil temp directly affects your Max WOT MAP. FF in turn just follows your MAP. Your controller is set to achieve redline MAP right at normal oil temp of 175F, and do to the nature of hydraulic controllers working with oil pressure, you'll see overboost when the oil temp hasn't yet warmed up too full operating temp and underboost when the oil temp is over normal operating temp. Since FF is just following your MAP, if there is some underboost in the MAP (lower MAP) FF will also be lower. This is normal but you may not have your controller set exactly to give redline right at an oil temp of 175F either. Also, just like Winter vs Summer differences, you should notice that on the first take off of the day, before oil temp is fully warmed up that MAP and FF are highest at takeoff and then a subsequent takeoff this time of year, with oil temp > greater than 175F will show a bit lower MAP and thus lower FF. Its entirely normal.

Agreed, before I got my first Turbo Mooney I climbed extensively in OR, UT, ID, NM and WY (besides more local CA) using a rental Arrow. All of these trips were much longer than a weekend though and most included camping gear as well as climbing gear. Of course not enough performance to fly IFR with the high MEAs so all legs were VFR. But the Arrow is pretty much a dog compared to the Mooney E/F with the same engine. But since they were longer trips I had the flexibility to only fly when the conditions were prettty much perfect; confining flights to the morning hours. A weekend trip changes everthing; especually with a job. Flexibility to fly when conditions are best is no longer practical with the pressure to make the very limited weekend schedule work out. You're either flying up Friday afternoon/evening after wortk or very early Sat morning. Then plan to return after skiing or climbing sunday afternoon; typically after the winter winds have picked up or summer monsoonal TRS have been building and before things have settled down by around sunset or later. Without the performance of Turbo or big bore engine you also don't have the diversion capabilities around weather because of the mountainous terrain. Far more often you have to be willing to delay. Don't get me wrong, its still doable within these constraints of course and I had many fantastic adventures yet with plenty of delays too. I never make it to CO except to Grand Junction to climb at Moab (at the time rental cars weren't available at CNY). But plenty of slow climbs out of summer time high DA airports looking for thermals to help get up to cooler air helped focus my desire for a Turbo when I became an owner. First a 231 and then I finally had what I really wanted when I stepped up to a 252 which is now a coverted Encore. I didn't really even know what I missing either all those years till I learned how easy it was to fly out and above the summer time bumps in the Turbo and see all the TAS I gained flying in the higher teens and then the added ease at flying around Wx once high that made a whole lot of flights possible. But I also have a friend that owns a C172 and a condo at Mammoth that on a perfect weekend flys it up there (usually spring or fall) - but its got to be just about perfect to make in and out in the C172 without lots of excitement doing it.

I originally bought my Mooney for the same destinations and more - for rock climbing and skiing trips - but these are much better done in a Turbo. If you continue to pursue these kinds of trips a Turbo is in your future. Just getting to MMH IFR requires a MVA altitude of 16.5K. As a season pass holder with an airpoirt car up there I've done it many times; at all times of the year. There are a lot of perhaps new factors to consider besides just density altitude, such as mountain turbulence which very much reduces climb rates including especially avoidng the very turbulent rotors that may be invisible when winds over the ridge lines are strong. There actually is a good use for your IFR on these trips but not perhaps the way you may have originally thought. From your base at SMO, trips to MMH and TRK it can be very beneficial to fly a composite flight plan of both IFR and VFR so that your departing and returning tothe LA basin IFR and flying the Owens Valley portion with Joshua Approach VFR. There are other flight planning options up the central valley and over Mammoth Pass. But with your J, landing at Bishop and having access to a car their would greatly enhance the frequency of making the trip successfully throughout the winter. I personally love MMH, although its still wetter snow being in CA, it's typically still offers the finest skiing we can get before going to UT or WY and you can't beat the skiing off the top. PM me if you would like some personal help.

Garmin Pilot supports international flying quite well but I haven't used it Europe, just North & Central America and Asia. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the high number should be considered the absolute minimum, preferably 0.5 to 1.0 GPH above the high number is preferred. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk