smccray

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    939
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

smccray last won the day on November 14 2018

smccray had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

419 Excellent

About smccray

  • Rank
    Won't Leave!
  • Birthday 01/24/2000

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Dallas, TX KADS
  • Model
    A36 (Former M20J 205)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Different strokes I suppose :). I toyed with mounting my iPad mini where you have the ipad on the right mounted. I didn't care for that location. I stuck a 796 on the copilot side and an ipad mini on the yoke. I really liked that setup. My old 205 has been gone for 2 years... I do miss that plane.
  2. In a bag backing up the iPad mini. Normal size ipad is big for a cockpit. I have a big iPad pro, and I run Garmin Pilot on it, but I would have a hard time trying to use it in the plane.
  3. My TN A36 runs 180 at 12k ft all day long. I saw 195 TAS at 17.5 on a long flight last summer (4 hrs). Plane runs great and it’s a fantastic setup. I’m not sure the operating recommendations are quite right but that’s okay. I’ve been unable to push that much fuel through my engine without the temps running higher that I’m comfortable. CHTs stay nice and cool at all times I wouldn’t say the Beech is faster on less fuel carrying more. That said, the A36 is a great setup. 1350 lbs of useful load (on paper) including a turbo and air conditioning.
  4. I have a whole King HSI system (all pieces) that came out of a 28v A36. Just sitting on the shelf...working when removed.
  5. Sky Manor is a great airport. Had the pre-buy of my A36 done there. Great restaurant on the field. Heard you say something about using the whole runway- we were really heavy departing at 3:00ish in late May- it was warm. We’re rolling down the runway seeing those trees get bigger and the CFI says, “Oh $hit...” It was no big deal, but the CFI is used to light planes and that definitely wasn’t us. Take off roll was as expected, but the runway is only 2900 ft long and a heavy plane takes a while to get going.
  6. Beginning in 1979 the A36 got an expanded baggage compartment behind the back two seats. The rear baggage is bigger than my old J model. There's also a baggage area between the first two rows of seats. There's plenty of room for a few large duffle bags in this area. Loading is important as the emergency gear extension is in that same area, but there's a lot of room. Nope. The Mooney gets a bad rap for a lack load carrying ability (we both know it does just fine), but you're not going to win an ease of loading comparison against an A36. The A36 doesn't have the same rear CG challenges as the 4 seat bonanzas, and with two back doors its much easier to load anything in the plane. I'm sure we could get creative and come up with a few examples, but I can't think of any loading scenario of people + bags that's not easier to load in an A36. Perhaps if you need to carry ping pong balls without putting them in a bag.... I don't know.. The operating cost is lower in the Mooney (efficiency), and the way baggage is loaded is part of the trade off. That's not a knock on a Mooney- just a trade offs.
  7. They’re both great airplanes .
  8. Random thought (and I know this is out there a bit)- I wonder if Mooney is taking steps to minimize cash outlays now because Pipistrel is close to certifying the Panthera. Radio silence from Pipistrel, but the Panthera will tough competition for the Ovation if the Panthera is ever certified. I'll acknowledge up front that this is unlikely, but it's not outside the realm of possibilities.
  9. +1. Parker's 252 was the first Mooney I ever sat in. Got an intro flight and ended up buying a J after that introduction.
  10. You might try finding a Mooney instructor and get him/her added to the insurance without any transition required. Have that instructor do your transition training. Your agent should be able to help you make that happen.
  11. Agree- if we’re talking about efficiency- but in this case it’s just a matter of speed. The Bravo should be faster not withstanding the difference in efficiency. The Bonanza is heavier, has more drag, and as a result is slower than a Mooney at a given level of horsepower. Fuel flow per NM traveled is a different measure altogether. The TNIO550 is a pretty efficient setup, but at altitude you’re still looking at 11-12 NM per gallon in cruise. No where near as good as a J, but slow down a little and it improves a lot. My bet- the bravo in this flight was pulled back not running as high % horsepower. Slower flight is more efficient... but that doesn’t make much sense in a Bravo...
  12. Agree- I would expect the bravo to be closer to 190 ktas at 13. My A36 will do 180 at that altitude and the bravo should be be faster in every phase of flight. Flight aware reports gps derived ground speed.
  13. My take on it- Garmin doesn't want to facilitate an interface between this lower cost Garmin equipment and third party brands. I believe their goal is to convert aircraft to a closed Garmin platform, not to facilitate integration of their equipment with some type of open standard. If Garmin setup a G5 to run a King autopilot, they sell a G5 and whatever software/hardware needed to drive the equipment. If they don't offer the King interface it pushes the market to the new autopilot. It's a marketplace decision- Price a KI300 and the interface box, and you still have an old King autopilot. It's not that Garmin can't drive a King autopilot, it's that they don't want to. It's not a technical question. I agree Garmin would sell more G5s if it were an option to interface to a King autopilot, but the decision isn't that simple.
  14. The carrying cost of Mooneys (and most high performance piston singles) is very similar. Insurance cost is primarily a function of hull value. Pick your price point not the plane. Differences in plane models will be a factor, but it’s fairly small in the overall cost of owning a plane. Fuel burn per nautical mile is the second biggest factor. Most Mooneys will be in the high teens, some pushing 20 NM/Gal. The faster birds will be very close to the slower planes if you slow down for efficiency. The issue with Mooney aircraft isn’t depreciation, it’s liquidity. The market for Mooneys is thriving, but it’s smaller than other brands. Js appear to be bid up right now, along with all other Mooney aircraft. I don’t know what actual selling prices are, but asking prices are up 20% over the last 5 years. You pay your money and take your chances. If you’re looking at J and older, a well equipped C or E doesn’t appear to be priced at enough of a discount given the relative age of the airframe compared to a J. When early Js get bid up over 120-130k, the same relative value analysis can be run against an early ovation.
  15. J model and newer... I'm a fan of the round window Js that started in '87. With a short holding period liquidity is probably a bigger deal than a particular model. Normal paint, decent panel, good interior. 182 would be a decent option as well, but it will cost as much as a J and burn more fuel. Only benefit is that they're not as unique as Mooneys and they're probably easier to sell.