All Activity

They actually had 2, initially they had 5. Three were sold off as soon as Jerry Chen left, another was never unboxed. I tried to purchase that one for Mooney Pros, install it at a Clearwater flight school, but couldn’t get Albert Li to recognize the economic sense of not storing it any longer. I eventually lost interest in this pursuit. I’ll ask don what he sank into the one he has, as my 32k didn’t move the boxes this way

The problem of disproportional civil forfeiture has been a significant issue for a long time. Civil rights advocates point out that since these are civil cases, there’s no right to appointed counsel, so most go undefended. Basically a cheap way for states to raise revenue. (The Feds do it too but most of the ones I’ve seen personally have been big drug cases where drug proceeds funded the forfeited homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.) In 2019, SCOTUS said the Excessive Fines clause applied to civil forfeiture, and that the forfeiture can’t be “grossly disproportionate.” In that case, Timbs v Indiana, a guy had sold a few hundred dollars of heroin The state brought forfeiture proceedings against his car(*) in addition to criminal proceedings. Couple of things made it a good case for review. The car was not purchased with drug proceeds. The maximum criminal fine for the offense was $10,000. The car was a $42,000 Range Rover. And the trial court already found it to be excessive Many states have modified their forfeiture procedures. Some, including Alaska, have not, coming up with ways they claim theirs is not excessive. (Simplistically, the harm addressed by the statute rather than harm caused by this defendant.) One of the goals of seeking SCOTUS review is to get some guidelines on what are the elements to look at in deciding whether a forfeiture is disproportionate, which wasn’t done in the Indiana case. No predictions on how this SCOTUS will handle it or whether they will handle it at all, although I will mention the Indiana case was a unanimous decision. (*) yes, “against his car.” Technically, forfeiture proceedings are what the law refers to as “in rem” - “against the thing,” not the person who owns or has a legal interest in it.

You forgot the asking price.

At which load is that? At 1g load you can bank to 90° and your stall speed is still only the one you have on your IAS indicator. The trick is not to load the wing in the turn, you have to let the plane drop when you bank to 45° for the turn back. However as I’ve argued this will leave you low with usually the one option left that you’re at best gambling you will make. A position that leads to the death of so many.

This resurgence of this thread is full of emotional instability and doing things one shouldn’t be because of a fundamental misunderstanding of a basic motor. if you read this in a quiet room you can ALMOST hear the physical abuse that happens in that household. A+ read. Seek help.

I would try to explain it to you but I’m sure you wouldn’t get it so I won’t. for the others, attempt is still a crime. if someone plans to rob a bank, they have a plan and start acting on that plan, but get pulled over on the way holding a gun, that’s still attempted robbery. The fact that you got caught before completing the act does NOT make the attempted act go away. googling and trying to come up with AI responses don’t usually help in these things.

You keep repeating the same thing. the product you bought was a license to use the fuel. nobody has taken that from you. Circle talk Mike strikes again with his inability to comprehend an argument. Nothing has changed from the previous argument that was made. It’s literally the same example. and legally, it’s still the same reasoning with plenty of case law to back it up- a construction permit as posted earlier is the best example. you can get a construction permit to put a shed on your land. If your land doesn’t support the shed, you don’t get the cost of the permit back. but again, I REALLY don’t expect you to understand that and I fully expect a moronic circle response.

They have found someone with a PMA that will work with them on hard to get or impossible to get parts. I have a link to the entire thread at the bottom if it works. We received some more approvals from the FAA!!! Newly approved: SSV35-810122-1 Bushing, Landing Gear replaces Textron p/n: 35-810122-1 Textron Price: $126.65/ea Our Price: $76.95/ea Parts are at the platers and due in a week or two. SSV35-815250 Bushing, Landing Gear replaces Textron p/n: 35-815250 Textron Price: $128.15/ea (they don't have any in stock, by the way) Our Price: $61.95/ea We have six pieces in stock (sold a bunch before announcement) SSV96-364012-5 Landing Light Clamp** replaces Textron p/n: 96-364012-5 Textron Price: $332.05 (they don't have any stock) Our Price: $529.95/ea Our parts are due in two to three weeks. https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=240338&view=unread#unread

Is your C equipped with a PC system? If so, Is it working? Adding an Accutrak II to a working PC system is relatively straightforward. My C model had a working PC system when I bought it. I added Accutrak II (NAV mode), Accuflite II (HDG mode) and PC-AH (altitude hold). The Accuflite and PC-AH parts are damn near unobtanium. I've got spare parts for the Accutrak II left over. Others might have more parts. If you don't have an installed PC system, then doing any of this would probably not make sense.

I have the Aerocruze 100 in my D model and it is working fine. I did have to adjust one parameter to calm down the pitch oscillating slightly in ALT Hold. I will say you will need to be very sure your airplane flies hands off (NOW before you install it) straight and level and doesn't fall off on one side or the other. It has to be in near perfect trim before you install the A/P otherwise it will wander back and forth across the course as the out of trim condition pulls it one way and the A/P tries to bring it back . Many Mooneys are not in good trim laterally! Many many of them, but it can be done. That is the only issue I have found. Pay real close attention to the wiring diagrams (especially the caution on reversing the pitch feed wires to the pitch servo) and all should go well. It takes some use to get to know the "buttonology" of the control head. No worse than learning a Garmin EFIS.

One didn't need to have MORE than $10,000 to have it confiscated. One case in Florida was for IIRC $8500 taken from a guy IN THE JETWAY boarding the airplane by a FL task force. He eventually won an got it all back AND Florida stopped that entire program of stopping passengers in the jetway. Also IIRC there is a lawsuit somewhere against the TSA to stop their notifications to the police about seeing bundles of money in carryon bags. If you all remember (many won't) the only way TSA got approved by Congress was to agree that they would never have badges and thy would never organize in a union. Both of which have gone by the wayside.

Depends on A LOT Teaching black and white is DUMB I had a full engine failure, if I followed the rote monkey advice and landed ahead I would have been in a ICU and my plane destroyed, instead I was fine and the paint wasn’t scratched It depends Get good training, know you and your planes limits, explore and expand on them if possible, stay dynamic and ahead of the plane

Sounds like the kings men want to steal a plane Id nullify the crap out of that

The stuff I flew didn’t have that much, but tripple slotted with slats does change a wing lol

The simplest gfc500 is going to be pitch and bank (no trim or yaw) but you will still need at least a g5 to run it (and a controller). That or the aerocruze are basically your only options.

I use united at KWVI. Ask for Terry

unfortunately you do not know what needs to be done to your plane to be fully compatible with G100UL. Braly won'd disclose the log books from his Cirrus. Every plane that uses G100UL is a guinea plug. It's not just lines and paint.

On an M20F your choice is really limited to a Garmin GFC500. (https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/604257/#additional) Maybe . . . an Aerocruze 100 (https://www.duncanaviation.aero/news/duncan-aviation-has-stc-to-install-bendixking-aerocruze-100-autopilot-in-mooney-m20s)

I am astounded by the lack of common sense logical abilities of the Alaska SC: 1) "did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause because it was not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense". Are you FN kidding me??? Even IF he had actually transported the six-pack...THAT now qualifies a "the gravity of the offense"??? Absolutely absurd! 2) "and the harm caused by the offense". Since the six-pack NEVER made it to the dry village, just what was the gravity of harm caused here??? Have our courts really descended to conviction based upon what MIGHT have happened? Apparently, they have 3) "the court concluded that the forfeiture was not excessive given the nature and extent of the crime". Someone needs to explain to me what, EXACTLY, is the "extent of the crime" when he NEVER made the flight out of Fairbanks? Again, it appears our courts can convict us without actus reus...you can be fined, jailed, and have your property confiscated WITHOUT even actually committing ANY guilty act. INTENT is now all that is required...not long before you'll be convicted for what the government believes you are THINKING. Seriously, I cannot fathom this ruling. I'm certainly no a lawyer, but I did spend one year in law school and I NEVER fathomed that real law could be so divergent from requiring BOTH actus reus and mens rea in order to convict someone of a crime like this (simple traffic infractions do away with mens rea, but you do actually have to break a traffic law!) @midlifeflyer Any comments as a real lawyer on this ruling?

I don't recommend saying that out loud with passengers. Just sayin'

Roger. Thanks everybody.

Is a demonstrated full power detonation margin a requirement for approval of a fuel for use in a given engine/aircraft? In other words, is it even possible that reducing power would be an option available to us? I don’t know anything about how this approval process works, either by STC or ASTM. Someone much smarter than me please weigh in. Could a fuel be approved and available for use in a given engine if that fuel/engine combination wasn’t able to demonstrate some nominal full power detonation margin?

Hi Flyer, I agree 100% and It will be so sweet flying this thing cross country at triple the average speed I made towing it home !!! Cheers, Stuart

Hi Nick, I had no desire to cut the wing and tried to find a party willing to do the repairs but none were willing to do so.I had to remove the entire airplane and cutting was the only way to get it all gone. Basically, this airplane has everything I wanted, and the price was right. The experience was positive for me overall. It would have cost me 25k had I paid another party to do this. Now I am fully versed in the process and can hopefully help others needing to transport the same way. Stuart

That is an excellent question. If yes, then the question becomes are you willing to live with a reduced margin of safety on CHT that prevents your engine from self destructing?