Z W

I just replaced my iPad/Foreflight setup with a Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 android tablet and Garmin Pilot. I never got a Stratus, and have not purchased the GDL 39 for Garmin Pilot to add ADS-B and synthetic vision. I have no complaints. It's different, but I had it figured out in about an afternoon. Equally capable. It's missing a few minor features I liked - there is no "Imagery" tab to look at prognostic charts and winds aloft. Also, it does not have the "altitude finder" that gives you head and tail wind numbers at each altitude. You have to plug in each altitude and compare your estimated time in route to get the best height. It has some other features I like better. The TAF/Winds Aloft displays, I find are better. It is very easy to reference approach charts for your current flight plan, which is nice. I've been an Android convert for a long time and had only kept the iPad for Foreflight. Now that Garmin Pilot exists, there is no reason not to switch over. It's about $175 per year with geo-referenced approach plates. The tablet is cheap ($250.00 with a 2-year data plan contract), well built, and very powerful. Battery life is great. The on-board GPS seems to work better than my iPad's. Nobody has to "approve" my apps, and I can finally uninstall iTunes. The iPad is nice if that's your thing, but the other options today are pretty good.

TBM 850 for me. If money were no object...

As a general rule of thumb, keeping your power settings the same, you will gain 2 KTAS per thousand feet you climb in a turbo'd plane. So, take the # of feet in thousands you are thinking of climbing, x 2, and you know how much airspeed you will gain going up. Compare that to the forecast winds aloft to decide if it's worth climbing higher. Example: My plane does 170 KTAS at 10k feet. It does about 186 KTAS at FL180. That's a gain of 16 KTAS. If the winds at FL180 are more than 16 KTAS worse, I don't go up. Also, because of the time spent climbing and descending, and the need to put me and all the passengers on oxygen, it has to be significantly better up high before I will go up. I won't climb 8k feet and use up my O2 for a 5 knot gain in groundspeed. As a practical matter, above 10k, it seems like the winds almost always gain strength faster than I gain KTAS. I almost never climb into a strengthening headwind, and only go up for a tailwind. But I really love those tailwind days...

It took 4 pages to get to the "frivolous lawsuits are destroying the world" post. I'm actually proud of the group for that, as a lawyer. Jkhirsch, please talk to a qualified aviation lawyer before you make any more statements to the FAA, if you have not already. Some advised you to do that, several pages ago, but I can't tell if you did. You can PM me for my phone number and I will talk to you, no charge. You are swimming in dangerous waters here, and posting far more information online in a public forum than any lawyer would tell you is wise. I'm all for freedom of information and transparency of government, but this is a story that should be posted after you're done with the FAA's enforcement action, not before or during.

Mooneys make a fine first plane. They will keep you from developing bad habits, like landing 10 knots too fast. My mechanic has said that because everything is so tight and compact (i.e. efficient) on the Mooney, it does take some extra shop hours compared to some other planes, because they're harder to work on. I think this difference is negligible. Fuel wise, they are the most economical choice out there, which saves far more money than any extra maintenance costs. Short bodies (M20C, M20E) are OK on grass strips. They are much lighter on the nose. I have not taken my mid-body K model offroading yet, with its heavy nose and inner gear doors that sit 2 inches off the ground. I might someday, but honestly, I find it's pretty easy to get everywhere in the country from a 3k+ paved runway. Even outdoor activities like camping are pretty easy, although you may need a rental car. And any plane that's good for bush work is so slow, I couldn't hardly stand to fly it to the unimproved strip.

Crab and kick. Half flaps. Carry about 5 extra knots for the half flaps and gust factor. Maybe 10 extra knots if it's really bumpy, runway length permitting. I kick the nose over about 20 ft AGL. Hold the center line between the mains with the ailerons, point the nose down it with the rudder.

My 90lb black lab jumps onto the wing, climbs into the back seat, and slobbers on the back windows for a while, until he falls asleep. Acts just like he is riding in the jeep. No ear protection necessary. I did tie his leash to the rear seatbelt on the first flight. Wasn't sure how he would do. He seemed to be laughing at me. Your experience may vary, he is a pretty good dog.

Statistically, the risks of flying GA are higher. Fortunately, many of the risk factors of GA flying are within the pilot's control. If you eliminate fuel exhaustion, inadvertent IMC, flight into known (knowable?) icing conditions, and pre-flight errors, the statistics would probably be better. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have performed that study for us to show our wives. You pick your odds in life, and take your chances. Justify it how you want. You're leaving this world feet-first anyways. I just approach flying with extra caution and discipline and enjoy the ride.

Buy an Arrow or a 177RG. From Skynewbie, 1/18 on Beechtalk: Quote: Indeed if I don't end up with a Bonanza, I'm considering a Piper Arrow or Cardinal 177RG which comes closer to performance at less cost for MX and fuel.

The problem with shopping vintage machines is that their model year and engine times do not make them "comps." I sold our C model about a year ago. These are the main features I found you have to compare with any vintage plane: 1. Engine time SMOH (overhaul = $30-40k) 2. WAAS GPS (10-15k to add) 3. Standard 6-pack panel layout (3-5k to add, with lots of down time) 4. 4-cylinder engine monitor (2-5k to add) 5. Autopilot with altitude hold (10-15k to add) 6. Paint and interior condition (10-25k to fix) 7. Age of last tank reseal (10k job) You can debate which of these should be on the list, and maybe some items that are not on the list, but you can clearly see, they all add up to far more than the list price of any E model. You probably won't find one with all of those features. My advice would be to prioritize them, and buy the one within your budget that contains as much of what you want as possible. By the way - I wouldn't rule out an exceptionally well-equipped C model if I were you. They are often a better bargain, and just about as capable as the E. Happy shopping.

1982 M20K with 262 conversion (252 Engine) Useful Load: 875 lbs Fuel Capacity: 105 gallons Full Fuel Payload: 266 lbs (works for me and more luggage than I normally pack) Max Range: 1,598 NM, no wind, no reserve, at high speed cruise (175 KTAS, 11.5 GPH, 20 LOP, 9.1 hours); Better if I slow it down and/or fly higher than 10,000 ft. Climbs at 1000 FPM to at least FL180 at max gross. Almost never are the 105 gallon tanks full. I've topped them off probably 2 or 3 times. But I think, on the right day, I could fly from California to Hawaii without a ferry tank. And if I ever get to do an Alaska trip, it will be a piece of cake, from a fuel planning perspective .

Nice looking plane. It's missing WAAS on the GPS, a 4-cylinder engine monitor, and a fuel flow gauge, I think (can't see one in the pics) but it looks to be priced accordingly. I don't remember seeing any J's in flying condition at 60k a year ago, much less with a low time engine.

Nickmatic - I have noticed a more serious problem you have. You bought a 252/Encore and I don't see any pictures of it in your gallery. Pics or it didn't happen, my friend. Welcome to the Mooney family.

There are two different situations you will see referred to as "shock cooling" on the internet and in literature: One, the sudden cooling of the engine overstresses the metal in your cylinders and other engine parts, and the overstress causes damage and decreased engine life. There are lots of theories on both sides of this, and little to no empirical data on either side. Two, during a prolonged descent without power in very cold air, your engine will cool below it's proper operating temperature. The concern then is that if you jam the levers forward for a go-around, your engine will not make 100% power. Also related to this, is that without enough MP (about 15" as you state) the prop drives the engine, versus the other way around. There is consensus from everyone that this does bad things to your cylinders and rings. I've never seen any empirical evidence, myself, of type #1. So I'm not currently much of a believer. Nobody can ever tell me how many degrees per minute is "safe" and at what point it becomes "shock cooling," either. For type #2, I have seen that if you open the cowl flaps, chop the throttle, and point the nose down, my engine will quickly go below its green operating range. I don't think I need to be a Mooney test pilot to determine that's not the condition you want your engine in on short final. So I avoid that. So when somebody starts talking to you about "shock cooling" you might clarify what they are referring to, and ask for their sources. As a general rule, watch your engine monitor and keep the CHT's between 250 and 380 at all times (maybe as high as 400 during the occasional prolonged climb), and you'll have a happy engine. With my 252 engine, I do not open the cowl flaps in the pattern. I leave them closed to keep the temps up. Cowl flaps open is part of my go-around procedure. So, a little different than Charlie's Bravo.

When planning descents from cruise, I watch the required descent rate to hit my target. It displays on my 496 by default. Any Garmin product can be programmed to display it, I think. My 430W will do it, with alerts. Or you can do the math the old fashioned way. When it says I need 400 FPM descent to hit the airport, I start reducing my power to 20" of MP by gradually rolling the throttle out. That way, when it hits 500 FPM, I'm slowed down enough to point the nose down and descend. I can then do a 500 FPM descent rate, not pop anybody's eardrums, and stay out of the yellow arc. Usually, ATC will clear me for lower right around the 500 FPM calculation mark. If I don't get cleared by then, I ask for lower. My engine stays nice and warm, and no need to pop the speed brakes, unless something goes wrong (ATC holds you higher, or you want to reduce your airspeed for turbulence). The brakes are always there if you find yourself too fast, and make a great tool, but I find with planning I rarely need them any more. Hope that helps you get it figured out.

I do slowly back out the throttle before starting my descent, in that I spin out the vernier kind of slowly to avoid making big sudden power changes. I do that partly to go easy on the engine, and partly to avoid scaring passengers. They don't really like sudden changes in the sound of the engine. I used to do 1" per minute as the POH recommends, but I noticed that as long as you keep the cowl flaps closed, the engine does not "shock cool" in any sense of the term. I can verify that with my 6-cylinder engine monitor. As long as you leave the engine properly leaned, the temps stay up in the green operating range, which is where you want them for a go-around. I find 2500 RPM and 20" of MP, with the cowl flaps closed, is a great power setting for sustained descents of 500 to 1000 FPM. According to Wikipedia, your TSIO-360-SB (Encore) engine should have a maximum RPM of 2600, and a maximum MP of 39". This is different from your stock TSIO-360-MB (252) engine, which is 2700 RPM and 36" MP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_IO-360#TSIO-360 And I think you asked your question in the right place. There are very few people flying your airframe and engine in the world. A high percentage of them are here. If you can find a CFI with a lot of M20K time, great. I never could.

Critical altitude of the stock 231 is 14k. I fly in the high teens regularly (once or twice per year in the mountains, too), and almost never am I trying to get 100% power above 14k. I use a cruise climb setting. You can take off from any airport in the Rockies at 100% power in a stock 231 on a hot day. If you really need 100% power above 14k, it would probably be for an icing situation that should have been avoided. That is why I would put little or no value on the critical altutude / service ceiling increase. Nice to have, but... Meh.

Johnson bar gear comes up at 80 MPH. It will be easy and smooth. If you try to raise it at 90 MPH, it will be hard, and you'll get a nice right arm workout. Your performance numbers are about right. You will find that it performs best speed-wise from 7,000 - 10,000 ft with a wide open throttle and leaned as you describe, at 2500 RPM. If you want to slow down a little and stretch your fuel even farther, reduce RPM to 2400 or 2300, or fly at 11,000-12,000 feet. Everybody who has looked into it on this site has determined the IO-360 STC makes no financial sense. The C model is an incredible amount of bang for your buck. Enjoy, and welcome.

The auto wastegate and intercooler help make the engine more "fool proof." I've never flown without them, so this is all information I got off these forums, but if you're careful and make sure you don't overboost or over temp, you don't "need" them. The intercooler does boost your critical altitude, but frankly, very few of us ever go over FL200 for safety reasons. I would put no value on that feature, myself. After several hundred hours in a K model, I wouldn't really think twice about flying one without those features, as long as it had a full 6-cylinder engine monitor. I would think very carefully about buying one. Even if the seller convinced me he didn't overboost or over temp his engine, I would worry about the guy that owned it before him, his buddy that he let borrow it for a weekend trip, the CFI he let ferry it for maintenance, etc. I would not count on a mid-time engine purchase lasting very long, in other words. I also would be very nervous to let another pilot fly my plane without me in the cockpit to watch the MP and temp gauges. If I were new to the K model Mooney, I'm not sure I would have the same attitude about flying one. I've learned a whole lot since I started flying my auto wastegate and intercooled 262. It's all familiar now. Adding in the stress of overboosting the engine by moving the throttle 1/2" too far in would not make for pleasant transition training. But that's just me.

Most financial planners will tell you to insure only that which you cannot afford to lose. The average consumer pays more in premiums than he receives in payouts. So, you should not insure your toaster with a paid warranty. But you definitely should insure your home. If it burns, you have to buy a replacement, and you likely have most of your net worth stored in it. Planes are somewhere between the toaster and the home. Many of us I suspect cannot "afford" to lose our planes. They represent too large a portion of your total net worth. You may someday need to sell the plane and recoup that money to meet basic living expenses. If that description fits you, then hull insurance makes sense. On the other hand, if you've got 2% of your net worth in the plane, you probably don't have to have hull insurance. The other unknown factor here is that the risk of loss is not equal among pilots and planes. You can identify your own risk tolerance; You can't honestly know your risk exposure. Some pilots are just more likely to bend metal than others. You won't know until your day comes. Buying hull insurance allows you to pool that risk with all the other pilots. I've got hull insurance now. I can see a day in the future where I might drop it.

What's wrong with 14 NMPG? In a straight line? At 165 MPH? As others have posted, you can do a little better by flying high and reducing power settings (RPM, throttle, and mixture) as much as you can tolerate. Myself, I hate watching my groundspeed decrease. I like to go fast. You're in the most efficient 4-place piston single, except for maybe a J or K model, depending on some other factors.

Dave Green at Venice, KVNC. www.mooneyservice.com. He is great.

Crider Aircraft Painting at Mena, Arkansas did ours. Great work, great people, on time, on budget. Would highly recommend them.

Kallish, Sounds like maybe you want an E model with a "J" or Lopresti cowling. They exist, but are rare. This is different from the standard "cowl closure" or "guppy mouth" mod that almost every plane has. It was a $15k mod, or so I've heard. You can spot them by the cowl with the two small, round openings on each side on the top, like a modern Mooney has. The plane should outrun a J, with all the mods done, and has much, much better engine cooling than a stock E. I know you said you don't have any need for a WAAS GPS. You didn't ask, but as I mentioned before, your super fast E model is going to run across weather much faster than your cheetah did. If you don't have an instrument rating, or fly IFR, even to bust small cloud layers, you will find yourself very limited in the type of flying you can do. It's hard to take any trip at 145 knots and not cross a weather front. If you start flying, or even training for, IFR, you will wish very much you had a WAAS. At your price range, you can afford one, and it will be much cheaper to buy it installed than to install it later. Just some free advice from the internet. Take it or leave it. Welcome to the Mooney family.

And how could I forget... Twins are safer than singles. Angle of Attack indicators should replace Airspeed Indicators, and Stormscopes.