smccray

That’s a strong endorsement of the product. Having s custom circuit board made also shows they’re committed. I’ve heard this refrain for years. I sympathize as business is tough, and pilots are cheap (me included). I’m a fan of my Halos- we have 2. Candidly, I’m surprised it didn’t happen sooner. There’s clearly demand for the product and the Halos are regularly out of stock. Clearly I’m not the only person who saw the opportunity I suspect the price point is still too low to be anything other than a hobby business or a job, but time will tell.

I never found one. I had a 201 which worked close enough for my needs. I always kept the paper 205 in the plane but didn’t go to the trouble of scanning it myself.

+1 I have TIT on my 10" pfd as well. The down side is that it doesn't display the value, only the TIT on a gauge. It appears that the leaning functionality is only based on EGTs and not on TIT values. The good news is that a) it's software which will hopefully be improved, and b) the actual value of TIT is available on an iPad via Garmin pilot connected with a FS510.

lol- just received the new W&B via email. Gained 20 lbs vs. 50 lbs calculated, and CG move back 2" vs 1" via calculation. Useful load is 1,357 LBS, or 913 lbs with full main tanks (74 gallons of fuel).

If I were in your shoes I would weigh that airplane. A CG that far forward in a V Tail is a surprise unless there's something specific to that plane (e.g. TN system). My new bird is being weighed right now. I don't like the prospect of loosing useful load, but the useful load is already lost- it's the paperwork. My useful load didn't make any sense, but we'll see what the scales say. Reports are that Beech aircraft are very sensitive to the rear CG limits. I don't have any first hand knowledge, but it's cheap insurance.

I don't have any independent information but I've always taken the drag coefficients from this site: http://www.mooneyland.com/why-mooney/ Parasite Drag Coefficients & Flat Plat Area Aircraft CDP Flat Plate Area (sq. ft.) Mooney 201 0.017 2.81 Beech Bonanza 0.019 3.47 Piper Arrow 0.027 4.64 Cessna 182 0.031 5.27 Beech Sierra 0.034 5.02 Piper Warrior 0.034 5.83 Cessna 172 0.036 6.25 Cessna 152 0.038 6.14 Beech Skipper 0.049 6.36 Piper Tomahawk 0.054 6.64 The article references a V35, the S is the same body but a little older and lighter. Nevertheless, the drag coefficients of the two planes are very close. I suspect the Mooney is a little more efficient, but in real world flying with antennas, dirt, etc. on the airframes I have always said that they're pretty close in the real world. It's certainly possible that there are planes that different from the numbers here, but they're both incredible airplanes. It's also notable that the 201 is using a 4 cylinder lycoming vs. the 6 cylinder continental. I believe that contributes to the lower overall cost per mile traveled for the 201. The 201 is also cheaper to buy, and likely cheaper to maintain over the ownership term.

Looks like an 830. You can make those adjustments yourself if you choose as it's not primary.

TBD

I just put a PMA450B in my plane. With the exception of the storm scope, every other box is brand G.

Agree- that comment deserves a lot more explanation. I don't own more than one airplane, but I'm not following that warning Parker.

[cough] And he's a former Falcon broker...

Which TN system does it have? If it’s a tornado alley- hopefully it’s at least a whirlwind II. If it’s the old flitecraft system or a Western Skyways turbo they sell at a significant discount to Tornado Alley. Tip tanks? Onboard oxygen? Air conditioning? If it’s a 4000 lb gross weight airplane (or if it’s eligible with a small cost of paperwork) I bet it’s a 1400+ useful load airplane. If anything needs to be fixed I just did a gut job on my panel- have parts including a complete KFC200.

When it comes to Aviation there is a very short list of subjects where I know more than you do Byron- extremely short. You’re incorrect on this one. I know his fees, and I know the value he provides for that fee. I’m not saying Neal and Jimmy can get together on this deal, but saying it won’t work to have 2 brokers in a deal, because there are two brokers involved in a deal, Is wrong. If Neal is working with a client looking for a TN A36 there’s a 90% chance Neal will call on it anyway- and I don’t expect he’ll ask the listing broker for a cut of the action. He could have easily picked up a few on both sides of my purchase, but he didn’t. He plays it straight. Guess who gets my business when I sell?

Where Neil is a buyers rep the buyer pays Neal's fee. He does business straight up- nothing hidden. He found my plane off market and brought it to me- he didn't try to buy the plane wholesale then mark it up to me.

Call Neal Schwartz- he frequently is working with buyers looking for TN aircraft. Market on them has been very strong lately. 9I4 - six two five- 5776

Bravo is in the air again this morning after 2 flights more flights yesterday.

This post stuck with me a couple years ago: https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1081720#p1081720 Written in response to a similar question on Beechtalk about flying a 4 year old at 14-15k feet for 30 min. to an hour. You won't damage her permanently. Would you worry about driving up to Pike's Peak with her? She might get a little goofy, might have a headache, but not gonna hurt her. And note that FAR's require pax be PROVIDED oxygen not that they use it. Regards, [removed] Board Certified Pediatric Anesthesiologist

Paging @Parker_Woodruff

I hope it's compatible with the pencil. If I'm honest I'll probably buy one either way, but I'm interested in the pencil as well.

Agree. The challenge is making a business out of Trio and TruTrack autopilots. Either have to generate a return on profit margin or on volume. The nature of the business is such that volumes are somewhat limited- low end aircraft that would like to have an autopilot, but not a full featured autopilot, and at the same time where the owner has both the ability and willingness to buy the system. Profit margin is limited as the system must sell at a discount to the GFC500. A business with a narrow market and significant pricing pressure is a significant challenge.

I agree completely with @Bob - S50 Different airplanes. A Mooney is a traveling airplane and it deserves a capable autopilot. A GFC500 and the Dynon (autopilot) represents an autopilot that's part of an integrated system that is highly capable. The Trio and Trutrack autopilots are stand alone systems that make sense in smaller aircraft. I'm not saying the autopilots are less capable, I'm saying they don't integrate into an avionics platform. I have no doubt it's a fine system, but it's a lightweight autopilot. The problem for Trio and Trutrack is their competitive position. Toy airplanes (think J3 cub) don't need an autopilot. High end single engine pistons (think SR22) have fully integrated systems. Retrofit avionics are trending towards more integrated systems. High end airplanes deserve high end systems. Nothing wrong with the low end autopilots, but it doesn't make much sense for a traveling airplane to have a low end autopilot. A VFR airplane could use an autopilot, but that's also an plane that doesn't really need an autopilot.

Testing the Electronic Stability Protection?

With a naturally aspirated plane, the Advanced Pilot Seminars literature basically says that the engine efficiency isn’t that different going to LOP above 8k MSL I suspect most of the range increase would come from traveling at a slower speed (reduced parasitic drag) rather than greater efficiency of the engine operations. Either way the net result would be the same. If pulling the prop back to a slower RPM is an option, that might be a better way to increase efficiency rather than traveling LOP. That said, I suspect the difference between those two strategies may be so small that it’s a mental exercise not a real world strategy. I recall an article from years ago saying that max range in an NA airplane would come from climbing high enough that indicated airspeed is close to best glide with the engine operating WOT at peak EGT. I do wonder how the slow climb the last few thousand feet would play into that math, but I suspect there a few people around here smarter than me who could make that determination.

My goal was 3 hours Dallas to Denver for family of 4 with bags. The A36 was as close as I could get without stepping up to something pressurized with a lot higher operating cost. My bird has an aftermarket turbo system which makes it a little faster. It's not about block times, it's about how far I can go in 3 hours. My wife and 2 daughters, time will be the limit, not a slight difference in block times which I agree isn't huge. The other big deal for me with higher horsepower is availability of Air Conditioning. I'll use that 9 months a year down here in TX- and the factory system works adequately for me in August. Fuel burn is painful coming from the land of Mooney. 35 GPH off the runway, 16 GPH in cruise. Speed and comfort isn't free unfortunately. No one does economical speed better than Mooney. We'll see if Pipistrel gets the Pantera certified... I'm aware of that as well. 4 seat Bonanza is a reasonable comparison to the long body Mooney. I'm somewhat limited in my knowledge, but talking to a few owners, the full useful load tends to be a challenge to use due to rear CG. The A36 has more flexibility due to the changes in the airframe design, but adding the turbo system adds a bunch of weight to the engine compartment. 2 adults up front with minimal bags leads to the plane being out of CG forward. It's not as simple as CG in a Mooney.

I'm expecting it :).