Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/14/2022 in all areas

  1. My Mooney is faster than the airlines. With the endless delays and flight cancellations the airlines are having in 2022, my on-time arrival and door to door travel time is undoubtedly faster than the airlines! In a 201! So far, I've made every Mooney flight on time +/-15 minutes, no mechanical delays, and only 1 flight deferred due to weather (ended up driving and then return to Mooney to continue). Meanwhile, every airline flight but one I've taken in the last year has been delayed. I've been lucky enough not to get cancelled, but I know a lot of people who have been. Many times the delays were longer than the flights themselves. By the time you factor in the delay, it's actually faster to go by Mooney. In the last year I've been to Houston, Chicago, Florida twice, Michigan, Texas again, plus a lot of local stuff in my Mooney. I'm not going to kid myself. Normally, it's convenience/fun that make me choose the Mooney over taking airline. But, at this point it's actually faster. And more reliable. Less likely to get cancelled. Wow.
    7 points
  2. Congratulations and welcome to having a Mooney. Let me just point out that you don't want to do that. Or rather, you don't want to just sit in a Mooney for 10 hours xcountry and check that off as 10 hours of transition training. It's totally great to use that flight as additional practice, but you really do want to get at least 5-10 hours of dedicated transition training performing maneuvers and landings with a Mooney-familiar instructor.
    5 points
  3. Anyone who has had a real encounter with icing, has no desire to relive the experience. Even asking the question seemed somewhat crazy to me, but then I realized not everyone has had the experience. Those who have not are probably pretty sure, as I was, that there was some embellishment, and/or exaggeration. My experience took all of about 3-5 seconds to go from completely clean to accumulating 3”+ on the wings, enough to completely block the windshield, and cut my rate of climb by two thirds. I saw rain drops on the windshield, looked at the wings, looked back at the windshield which was completely covered in ice, looked back at the wings to see the 3”+. It took me longer to type this than it did to actually happen. I can honestly say it was the scariest experience of my life, and the thought of “lingering” in conditions that could reproduce that experience is just unfathomable. I would NEVER intentionally take a single engine piston, with or without FIKI knowingly into icing conditions. But to each their own….
    5 points
  4. This thread seems so odd to me. I don’t remember the last time I used a POH to set power. My airplane was delivered with a placard against continuous operation below 2350 and above 1950. I’ve never felt that I was missing out by not being able to operate at 1951, 2349 or some area in between. I would never choke my engine back just because the day that I happen to be flying wasn’t meeting the particular numbers at a particular altitude in the table of a 50 year old book. Seems silly to get worked up about not having a 50 year old of piece of paper with your planes serial number on it to set a power with a 50 year old MP gauge. Both items are of dubious precision, and the power flow exhaust negates the original imprecise figures.
    3 points
  5. Well let's look at the TBM. No evidence of a wx briefing. AIRMET for icing. PIREP of severe icing. He encounters the icing over non mountainous indeed flat terrain and he decides to climb. Look at the terrain he crashed into? See any frozen precipitation? Consider what the enroute METARS was telling him. In a propeller driven airplane, a climb to exit icing is usually a prelude to a bad outcome. Unless you know for a fact a 1000 or 2000 foot change will get you on top and you will stay on top, bad idea. Consider this, an HS125 has a smaller TKS tank than a Mooney, yet the size is considered adequate by the FAA. Why? (Hint, it is called excess thrust) Almost every possible bad decision was made.
    3 points
  6. You are significantly reducing your FIKI airplane's utility to say you would never fly in known icing conditions. For instance I don't get within 200 miles of SLD and I eschew solid moderate conditions. Equally so, I avoid a hint of moderate icing conditions in high or rising terrain where my ability to drop down is limited. However, I will fly and penetrate known light conditions over good terrain providing myself an out if I have equipment failure. Like most things in aviation it is a threat to be managed, just like the threat of flying a single engine airplane or a Part 23 twin. Yes there are conditions that can overwhelm an airplane, the worst I had was an MD-88 out of Hartford. Even the heated windshields could not keep up, let alone the bleed air on the airfoils at MCT. So I respect what ice can do very quickly. Since AA4184 icing forecasts have improved 100% particularly in graphical forecasts. Still it is why in a propeller airplane, where thrust can be so quickly affected you need to be able to exit quickly and the quickest exit is down so plan on it.
    2 points
  7. I value those opinions, but in some parts of the country that translates into using your airplane 4 months/year. A closer look at specific conditions in those areas may allow safe operations - even operations you’d feel comfortable with. Heres my example: Spokane, Wa has a 500’ - 1000’ overcast most of the winter (December to April). If there’s no storm system, it’s generally clear above ~3,000’. However, it’s forecast/known icing in that layer. You can get pireps on the tops, type of ice and severity. I don’t fly in or out of that in my F. However, I’m happy to use a Cirrus with fiki for client training and even to shoot approaches. Again, I don’t advocate cruise in ice or purposely flying into severe or sld etc. But fiki can significantly increase your dispatch with safe margins.
    2 points
  8. I did have ATC calling out traffic (me) to an airliner "above" and they replied they weren't used to looking up for traffic. I've been told to slow down for traffic more times than to keep the speed up!
    2 points
  9. It is hard for any GA plane to beat a M20C with the O-360 for low maintenance costs and efficiency. If you find one with the Johnson Bar it is even better for maintenance costs. It is great for just wandering around on local flights and fast/efficient enough for longer cross countries. Even if it is 80% local flying I would argue for a C over a Cherokee, 172, or any of the others. The J would be nice, but even on my long 500+ mi trips the J would only save me 15-20 minutes. And it comes down to what you want to fly as well. I have a hangar neighbor with a beautiful A-36 that rarely travels more than 80-100 miles away. He flies 2-3 times a week and loves the plane.
    2 points
  10. Because you can! The only justification you need.
    2 points
  11. Years ago, my wife was told she could no longer travel by private aircraft for work, ride the airlines. For the next business trip, for a morning departure from Charlotte to Washington, I dropped her and bags in front of the terminal. 30 Minutes across town to the house, I packed my normal week of stuff, filed a flight plan and headed to the little airport near home. Once there, I chatted with the regular Sunday crowd, pre-flighted the Bo, taxied to the self serve pump and filled up. Flew to Gaithersburg, MD, it to about 30 minutes to get a ride to the Metro station. Coming out of the station in Washington, right in front of the hotel, my cell phone rang, it was my wife. She had checked in and just got in the room. Be right there.
    2 points
  12. His pattern speeds on both circuits were consistent with a normal approach. What causality are you attributing to the fact that a normal approach and gear up landing was preceded by a normal approach and gear down landing? Would he have been saved had he done a full stop and taxied back for takeoff after the first one? If you don’t like T&Gs, don’t do T&Gs, but this is not a persuasive argument against them for those of us that do.
    2 points
  13. Missions change with time and experience. When I bought my Mooney six years ago, I never dreamed I would be flying to the places I go to today.
    2 points
  14. Urs, again, at altitude my C with this prop, 201 windshield and guppy mouth closure, runs 145-148 knots true, depending upon conditions--with recent OATs around 74°F (23°C) at 8000 msl, at the low end of this speed range. My Owners Manual calls for about 162 mph = 141 knots. So I am actually 4 knots FASTER than book. I don't know what rumor-monger's horrendous advice you are listening to instead of those of us with this prop on M20-C airplanes, but it's getting old having our real-world experience ignored and the worst of the worst fake numbers thrown back up as gospel truth. You do what you need to do. This is the last advice I have for you. It's your plane, your time and your money, and no one here on MS can make you read with even one eye what we wrote from our real world experience. Go ahead, plan to fly Cherokee speeds with Bonanza fuel burns, and only fly Piper Cub legs lest the Earth rise up to smite your pig of an airplane. I plan my flights, with this same prop but no stupid Power Flow exhaust, using the Performance Tables in the back of my Owners Manual, as printed by Mooney in 1970. And I consistently meet or beat it. So far, I’ve flown 4:45 twice, around 10,000 msl at WOT- /2500 and refueled just over 41 gallons. Recently I also went a similar time at 8000 on 2-3 gallons more, in and out of cloud tops and rain. But you ignore this, plan on no more than 130 knots (the dumbest performance expectation I've ever heard of for any Mooney ever), at 11-12 gallons per hour (because you don't know how to lean the mixture?), and for God's sake land every 300 miles or so (because you really like walking around unfamiliar airports and paying fees for unnecessary landings). It's bedtime, I was up at 0400 this morning for work. I just don't understand how you can ask for advice here then ignore everyone who offers it while listening to someone local who is filling your head with lies, distortions and garbage.
    2 points
  15. This is the main reason why I installed a Loran last year. VOR’s are going away, time to upgrade.
    2 points
  16. AFAIK, they actually must do the oil change as part of the annual, it's one of the few things required by regulation If my shop carried Victory it would be significantly cheaper than Aeroshell. If you buy Victory online, you end up paying for shipping one way or another
    1 point
  17. I was 120 hrs in a C172 , to the Mooney, Now almost 300 hours, Still learning but it is worth it. And I recommend Dons video on landing as well!! Thomas
    1 point
  18. I hope so. So new to this that it’s difficult to see what the future will hold but excited nonetheless! I know my 2 boys (13&18yrs old) are busy making all kinds of plans for us.
    1 point
  19. I would highly agree with what @201er mentioned. I brought my J from near Tampa to northern Va when I got it. the flight in cruise is not as instructional as you really need to check that box. so yes you would technically have the hrs, but you would not be doing yourself any favors by going off solo at that point. For me It was around hr 16-18 before I told my transition CFI I felt comfortable with him hopping out of the plane for me to get the additional 10 hr solo before passengers.
    1 point
  20. I feel the same about my J and I don't have near the avionics as you do. The J is a hard plane to beat if 80-90% of you mission doesn't call for the turbo. I got my IFR in my J (steam and a 430 non Waas) and I regularly look at the K's and always land back on my J cost per hr is better for my mission. Long xc flying and I don't really care about getting into the mid teens. I can cruise true around 150kts and burn 8.3 gph as for the high DA, I live in Co now and this is a regular thing in the summers, just don't take off at full gross and get off early in the morning and you're likely going to be fine. If you HAVE to be at max gross I would be asking other questions such as why you have to carry so much ?
    1 point
  21. The truth is that everything happens faster---if you let it. It doesn't have to be. The dynamic range of the Ovation is very large. The stall speed is 59 knots at gross weight fully configured for landing; less at lighter weights. I've trained people in it right out of the C152. You can fly it as slow as a C172 until you get comfortable with it.
    1 point
  22. No such thing unless you pull it out so far the engine quits.
    1 point
  23. Ref just knocking around local in a Mooney. I think they are great for that, mine flies very well at 120 kts indicated. People in my neighborhood regularly fly every Sun to breakfast, I can take either the J model Mooney or my C-140, I often take the Mooney because it’s as cheap to do so and more comfortable. Passed a neighbor in his 0-200 powered legend cub, he was burning 7.3 GPH and making 90 kts, I went by at a little over 120 kts 22 squared, 50C LOP and burning 6.5 GPH. I know 50C is too lean, but she’s smooth there and seems to like it. 30 kts faster and .8 gallon less fuel flow than a Cub The Cub burns at least 1/3 more fuel over the same distance as the Mooney. My C-140 with its C-85 does better of course, but it’s not cheaper fuel burn wise than the Mooney, except it can burn car gas. The fact that you can burn less fuel than a Cub in a Mooney is rather astonishing. Of course the Bo guys run WOT at 165 kts and hit their heads on the roof from turbulence, slow down to 120 kts and the bumps are lots softer. I can run 165 kts too, at 19 GPH, but why for a breakfast run? Economy of operation is the J model’s Forte.
    1 point
  24. See, there is the problem I failed to see. US GA pilots are cowboys that just take to the skies and hope for the best. I'm pretty sure my plane will run for another hour on my machismo alone. 20 years of XC flying without using POH power tables have made me complicit. How else could one plan a flight? I'd likely die flying overseas...if they even let such a scofflaw in the cockpit.
    1 point
  25. Living with my plane, I certainly agree since I can start and end my trips from my house. If I had to drive an appreciable distance to and from the airport, it would narrow the gap between airline and Mooney. For trips beyond about 400 miles, the airlines (non-stops) begin to have shorter door to door travel times. My Mooney has had almost a 100% dispatch reliability. However, with fuel prices going up, travelling non-rev makes sen$e on long trips. Cutting the airport parking, TSA and boarding process out of the travel experience is priceless.
    1 point
  26. Engine operation appears to verify that it is a real problem rather than an instrumentation issue. The boost pump is plumbed after the fuel selector and gascolator so it's not clear why the pressure would stabilize with the boost pump on if the problem were air entering at either of those locations. Fuel or oil leaking from the fuel pump drain line indicates a failure of one of the two diaphragms, but the pump should continue to function normally if the other diaphragm is intact. The engine-driven pump is actually operated by an internal spring -- the engine drive compresses the spring, but the spring provides the pumping force. A weak or broken spring will cause reduced output. I would suspect the engine-driven pump. Skip
    1 point
  27. 11.8 is a dead battery. A reading of 12V is approximately 25% charged. You’re looking for 12.5V minimum.
    1 point
  28. Somehow i dont think thats true. somehow i absolutely think this is true Now if we can get a mooney to mach .75 ill be one happy pilot
    1 point
  29. Definitely - even before recent delays.... Three years ago I made my third trip in four years to Bozeman Montana, from Potsdam NY. 1 of those trips was by the airlines. The Mooney was faster significantly faster by many hours, each direction. Door to door. But even tarmac to tarmac, due to the airlines need to make lots of connections and wait in between. That was the booked times. In fact on the return trip in the airlines, that trip was delayed 18 hours so it took well over a day.... WAY faster but besides that, so peaceful to drive 1.5 mi to my hangar and my little airplane and off I go in a quiet environment with the world gliding by.
    1 point
  30. Just curious... Can you're friend eliminate TACANs from his lookup search? JEN & MLC are no longer shown on the chart as a VOR but as a TACAN. So if for some strange reason TACANs can be unchecked in the 480, maybe that's why your friend cannot bring them up. They are obviously still in the DB as a Waypoint and shown on the both the Low & High Enroute charts as TACANs. JEN is actually still shown as a DME on the Sectional, there's just no info on it.
    1 point
  31. Some really smart people around here will help you, but I would avoid exonerating any component because it was replaced, or repaired, or cleaned recently.
    1 point
  32. Did you try switching tanks to see if the problem changed?
    1 point
  33. Ok, thank you, that is very good to hear. I have not been looking at rumours but at the actual numbers from our test flight, which was done with 2300 RPM as we did not get the information about the 2350 RPM limit in time. Cruise: (All DA and TAS) 75% TAS at 5000 ft between 138 kt with FF 10.6 GPH. According to the book it should be 146 kt at this FF 65% TAS at 5000 ft we got 127 kt. FF 9.2 GPH. According to the book, it should be 136 kt at this fuel flow. 75% TAS at 10'000 ft we got 140 kt. FF 10.6 GPH According to the book, it should be 153 kt. 65% TAS at 10'000 ft we got 135 kt, FF POH9.2 GPH. According to the book, it should be 141 kt. This gives a consistent 6 to 8 kt less than book speed. And while it never reached fully book speed also before, the differences were less pronounced, max 1-2 kt at 75% and pretty much spot on at 65%. We also did a test with WOT 2500 RPM at 6000 ft and got 148 kt at around 12 GPH. The airplane is equipped with a Shadin Miniflo fuel computer linked to the GNS430W. No problem there. We also have an Aspen PFD so we can read off TAS direct and a Davtron instrument which reads DA direct. That is quite comfortable for what we need to do. This morning, maintenance bench tested the RPM gauge and found it accurate. A run up at DA 2000 ft resulted in 2550 RPM and 25" HG. We are all clear that this is not enough, so we are talking to the prop shop how to proceed. I am not ignoring anything, just the opposite, I collect all the values you guys give here with huge interest. And your report of being actually 4 kt above POH speeds tells me, that something really has to be checked with my airplane. It has the power flow exhaust, which in my experience has been largely responsible for us making book values with the 2 blade prop, so now getting values which I can't explain bothers me. I spent quite some time last night to produce a preliminary power table taking into account the new situation and now we will testfly the airplane against that table at 2400 RPM and 2500 RPM to see what happens. Well, incidently, I have been flying this plane since 2009. The process I am going through right now is not new to me, other than up to today, I always had POH values to fall back on, to at least give me some base line to work from. During this time we found out quite a few snags which cost us performance or we thought it did, such as a faulty K-Factor in the Shadin which gave us a wrong fuel flow, such as an RPM gauge which overread by 50 RPM, such as a wrong conversion factor between mph and kt which got introduced into a flight planner and affected thousands of users, few ever noticed and even less noticed it's gone by now. Some even claimed they did reach the wrong KTAS figures but that is down to bragging rights I think. What I can say is that if it is flown with some sort of precision, on AP and power set according to thee book, the airplane, like most, pretty much delivers a very constant performance. For economic reasons we always flew the airplane at 65% and sometimes 55% if we had to play range vs speed and it delivered with no less precision than the A320/330 and MD11's I used to dispatch. BUT, the main thing is, garbage in, garbage out. We have great flight plan systems like Foreflight and similar, which have accurate in flight winds e.t.c. but often profiles which were done with less than desirable accuracy. Add to that, each airplane has its particular performance deviation from the book, some better, many worse. I call this a performance factor and we had those in the Airbusses and MDC's as well. Individual fleets could vary up to 1-2 %, which in a 100 ton airplane is quite a lot. I've done some adapted tables for friends who fly Mooneys and other airplanes, if you really put the work in and get flight data back, those things are not worse than today's airliners with all their FADEC's and fancy displays. You'd be surprised how many folks don't even know the real meaning of TAS vs IAS, can't work out a Fuel Flow even if it is displayed right in front of them and are simply uninterested in the nice features such as fuel computers e.t.c. we all have. Well, part of my fun I have is to be able to really plan my flights properly and to be able to fly them in such a way that pre-planning results work out in a reasonable fashion. I find that this way I can go much more towards the performance limits of this wonderful airplane than people who simply go fuelling every two to 3 hours no matter what. I recall vividly how we got a friend of mine out of a very short runway where one of his pilots had landed with a tech problem after they had thought to use a helo to get it out, but in the end the POH was right and it cleared the far end comfortably, after waiting for a day for conditions to be just right. For me, a cross country flight is successful if it arrives within a couple of minutes of EET and +- 1 USG of either fuel remaining or used on the operational flight plan. Flying in an environment where most airports are PPR and many (including my homebase) give out tight slot times of +-15 mins you have to hit or divert, you can't afford not to know your performance. Well, with enough effort, you can make an actual POH which works, has the correct stuff inside and can even be approved by the competent authority. I've pretty much done this for my plane with the performance part, (well I thought I did, back to square one now) and procedures, I might do it for the actual systems and equipment too. The stuff is out there, it just takes someone to organize it and put it into writing.
    1 point
  34. For whatever it's worth, as someone who owns both - this is more like a two-hour practical difference. In the Cherokee with 48 gallons usable, I'm stopping for gas before getting to NM. Stopping for gas is taxi and fueling time, but also just more travel fatigue. So inevitably it's an FBO bathroom visit and probably lunch, followed by another hour in the plane. The Mooney does it in one shot easy, and I'm relatively refreshed on landing. It's a 5-6 hour trip versus a 3-hour trip, all in. That was ultimately why I bought the Mooney, and it does everything it was advertised to do (I'll note in passing that the Piper is no more than a 110-knot cruiser, and the Mooney is a solid 155. So I'd put the straight-line time at more like 3 hours versus 4+) I have a friend who goes to the ATM in Vegas and withdraws what he calls "fun tickets." I think of the cost of flying similarly. There's absolutely no way to justify any of this as transportation. It's an enjoyable way to spend free time and free money, and I won't begrudge someone tooling around the traffic pattern in a Meridian if they won't begrudge me a bunch of local flights in a Mooney - with the occasional cross country thrown in for fun
    1 point
  35. I think you miss understood or their was a miscommunication. What Mike and Savvy recommends is that all the nuts on the studs and 2 thru bolts all be replaced, but not to replace the thru bolts (not unless there is a issue requiring replacement). Then virtually all torques on the engine are specified as Wet - therefore the need to put some engine oil on the nuts/threads before torqueing. That's not an opinion but a requirement or they won't get properly torqued. The other critical step is that the 2 thru bolts need to be torqued on both sides. This will require quite a bit of disassembly on the opposite side of the new cylinder to get access to the thru bolt nuts on the opposite side. And Scott is absolutely right above, the pertinent guidance for this is all in TCM M-0 manual which should be followed. (unfortunately its not available for free on the internet)
    1 point
  36. I have the same prop on our 1965 C. I cruise at about 140 knots and average 10 gph. If I were you I wouldn’t worry so much. But if you really want to worry, get yourself a fuel totalizer and carry on.
    1 point
  37. Several years ago we had a Biblical rain, ended up with 11+ inches of water in the hangar. 2 airplanes so a dozen wheel halves, everyone of the had pits in the same place (not from the flood) some worse some not to bad. When I asked the IA about them he said if everyone replaced their wheels for pitting outboard the bearing it would take Cleveland years to fill all the orders….Ended up Bead blasting, primer and epoxy paint
    1 point
  38. Tail stall. Lawn dart.
    1 point
  39. Some fantastic advice already in this thread, I'm going to be a heretic and throw my $0.02 into the mix: I truly believe in buying the airplane that fits your mission. Why? Because you're going to use it more and enjoy it more if it does. If you buy a Cessna 150 but plan on doing 1500nm XCs every month with 2 people, you're going to quickly hate your plane after making the 4th fuel stop in 9 hours. If you buy a turbo twin Baron but only fly within 70nm of your home base, you're going to quickly rethink flying as you see the fuel bills and mx bills stack up. Buy your 2nd airplane first. If you think your mission will change, you want to get Instrument Rated, maybe do more XC flying, then think about what that will look like. If you're convinced it won't 10 years down the road, then stick with your current mission. You did a great job defining your mission: 80% local flying in the DFW area with the occasional short XC (ABI from DFW is 1-2hrs pending plane), and maybe 1 longer XC a year (NM isn't even that far). A Mooney does not fit that mission. It's too much airplane for that. You'll just be throwing away money in acquisition, maintenance, and operating cost. If 70-80% of your mission were medium XC trips, then I'd say a Mooney is a great fit. It's not a local buzzing around airplane. I'd recommend taking a look at Piper Cherokee 180s, Grumman Cheetahs (Tigers are great too but unobtanium), Cessna 172s, etc. These are planes that fit your mission profile better, they're not super fast but very economical to fly around locally. The time difference between flying a 120kt Cherokee 180 and a 145kt Mooney M20 from DFW to ABI will be maybe 7-10 minutes. They will have lower maintenance cost, lower insurance cost, anybody can work on them, and they can still do the occasional longer XC flight.
    1 point
  40. The #1 thing to understand is what Chris says above and how unpredictable includes the highly variability of icing conditions you can encounter. Icing is not at all uninformedly distributed since the water content in clouds can be highly variable. As Chris described, even Pireps a few minutes ago may not be indicative of the conditions you'll encounter due to the highly variable nature. The insidious aspect of icing is that you have no idea whether you could be only a few minutes away from not being able to maintain altitude from getting an instantaneous coating of thick ice and heading down. Way too many dead pilots that waited too long before attempting an exit strategy only to find themselves in worse conditions and loosing control. Although its been mentioned options are turn around, climb or descend; you really only have the options your pre-flight planning planned for to include and that your equipment allows. For example climbing is not generally a realistic option in NA aircraft, nor is turning around after the pilot "lingered" in it for too long, leaving only down that may not have an airport to reach before finding terrain. Some excellent ground training on icing is available here: https://aircrafticing.grc.nasa.gov/
    1 point
  41. If you don’t have new baffle seals it’s hard to keep cylinder head temps below the high 300’s/low 400’s. My temps went down a minimum of 15-20 degrees when I changed them out. (I recommend GEE BEE @GEE-BEE AEROPRODUCTS) The old seals may look ok but they get “lazy” and fold over and blow back allowing the air to escape to the fire wall rather than being forced down over the cooling fins on the cylinders. Good baffle seals are important on any engine but especially on this engine.
    1 point
  42. The factory has these on order, but they have not arrived yet. $130/ea. @Dale - I have two from my previous Ovation that are used (no damage or “ugly” wear or cracking to the inside or outside…just some slight fogging that happened to them both over time that I wasn’t happy with), and I decided to replace them before I sold that airplane. They are indeed serviceable, but might just need to be re-sealed somehow to prevent the fogging. If interested, just pay me for shipping, and you can have them no charge. PM me if interested. Steve
    1 point
  43. I was given JEN (Glenrose VOR) in an amended clearance around the DFW Bravo earlier this year. It still shows as a waypoint on the IFR charts, and it is still in the Garmin database…at least it was at that time.
    1 point
  44. I have a K and I like the fact that I can (if necessary or preffered) go up high over a bunch of traffic and a bunch of weather. But a J will perform right with a K up to 6,000 to 8,000 feet, and will do anything you need in your mission. I personally, do not think the maintenance or complexity of a turbo over a non-turbo is very signifance, is a deal breaker. If you are near the top of your budget, get a J. If not, a K is nice.
    1 point
  45. I was using imprecise language. I don’t recall whether Ole (owner of Aeromotors) called it an overhaul or rebuilt. Given the number of modifications he makes to the stock Dukes pump, I would guess rebuilt to be amore accurate description but I’m not sure what the tag says. Ole was kind enough to take some time to explain the weaknesses of the original Dukes pump and the modifications they’ve developed to mitigate said weaknesses. He could’ve easily sold me a Weldon pump, but said that I’d spend a lot more to get the same level of reliability. It’s been a little over three years since the installation and the pump is still performing stronger than it ever did before he laid hands on it. I outlined my conversation with him in the thread below:
    1 point
  46. The color 830 unit is a great modern analyzer. But I'd reconsider if your not upgrading to the 830 because the labor is pretty much the same to install primary monitor like the 900 versus a secondary one like the 830. Plus the secondary monitors can't replace your factory instruments like RPM, MAP, Oil Pres, Fuel Pres, CHT ... so i'll be forced to continue to pay the expense of maintaining your old factory instruments that can get expensive at times. Lastly, because the 830 is secondary, you'll only have accurate CHTs on 3 out of 4 cylinders since you can't remove the factory CHT probe, you'll have to install a gasket probe either on a plug or at the base of the factory probe. Similar for oil temp too, it'll get installed at the warmer front rather the official primary location in back. What the 830 is awesome for is some one upgrading from a 700 series, since the upgrade can be had for about $1200, but if starting from scratch, you'd be better off going straight to a primary unit like the 900 and be free of your factory gauges. I am personally not a fan of the small CG-30P; they are too tiny of a display IMO to readily scan in flight but they are probably the perfect compromise for the small vintage panel that is so real estate challenged.
    1 point
  47. 1 point
  48. Doesn't do us any good if we're not selling! Just means we gotta insure for higher value and spend even more.
    1 point
  49. We are at the beginning of a recession in my opinion, all I can think of to do myself is cut expenses and ride it out. I’m Retired so I can’t increase income. Airplanes are Luxury items, and if your having to cut expenses Luxury items are the first to not be purchased, so yes I believe aircraft values will tank and those that borrowed money to buy one will be upside down. I expect huge devaluation. Fuel cost I’m afraid will continue to increase until it gets so high people can’t afford it and the decreased demand will cause the price to stabilize. How high is that? I don’t know, frankly I can’t understand how the average person is affording the increased spending that comes from inflation now, I’m afraid they are doing so by increasing debt, which of course can only work temporarily and then you have not only the increased costs due to inflation, but the debt to service. What amazes me is people seem to still be buying big ticket items, and doing so on credit of course. Of course this is all my opinion, but I think it’s going to get worse and for a long time. Watch the Market, we are very soon to be in a Bear market, last one was 08, remember then? This one could be worse because we are continuing the policies that put us here and it’s not getting the attention it should.
    1 point
  50. My problem turned out to be a bad card. Garmin support told me that there are no known issues with FlyGarmin updates. Skip
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.