Jamie

I found out my (admitedly ancient) GEM 600 is on the master switch. Once or twice I've had to turn the master off/on to reset the GEM because a gremlin got in there and made it (excuse me if I lose you as I transition to tech speak) go all wonky: Flickering, not responding to button pushes, not showing engine data. I guess it's either getting old or wasn't designed for it. OTOH, the master bus is probably a rough place for a piece of digital equipment to be. I'd be curious to see an oscilliscope trace of the master bus while starting.

From that post: From the description he was attempting what's advocated here... a full stop landing. It's becoming clear to me that T&Gs aren't dangerous. What's dangerous is messing with the flaps while rolling. Too many people apparently practice touch and gos as a "landing" followed immediately by a "take off", with the by-the-book reconfigurations occuring rapidly in between. This is wrong. A T&G is a special procedure. And, before anyone else jumps in and calls this something other than a "real landing", I'll note that the whole point of a T&G is to allow a pilot to practice the aspects of a take off and landing (to me, mostly the landing part) that ARE in common with a "real landing". If you have an retractable gear aircraft in which you can't take off in a landing flap configuration, you probably shouldn't do T&Gs. It's funny a skyhawk is mentioned above... I don't know if you can take off with 40deg of flaps. Maybe? Never tried. You pretty much have to get those barn doors up, at least part way. But since the gear is welded down, you're not going to retract by mistake. On mine? Meh. Open the throttle and climb out. If you can screw that up, you were destined to fail anyway. You guys do what you want. I know I will.

lol. Real landings. My practice helps me put the airplane where I want it, when I want it. The only risky aspect of this seems to be the "omg you might retract the gear instead of the flaps" aspect, and while I don't consider that a big deal, I can eliminate it by using only take off flaps (if required). What about the other aspect of this? What about those times when you CANT make a full stop? Me? No prob. Do it all the time. Someone who always practices by the book, full stop, taxi back? Hmmmm. Maybe. But they're now in uncharted territory and making it up as they (try to) go. I just go around.

What value do I get from touch and gos.... Good question. For me, it's all about the flying part, not the procedure part. I like getting the pattern perfect, and making a nice stablized approach to land exactly where I wanted to. This doesn't happen as often as I'd like. But I'm close, and I'm getting better. You keep saying T&Gs are not like "normal" landings, so they're worthless. I disagree. They're exactly like normal landings. I read your procedure above. The only places we differ are things we'd still do differently on a full stop. I do not close cowl flaps. I do not pull the RPMs back. I should be leaning, and will start practicing that (thanks ), but other than that, I don't see any difference. One modification I am going to try is setting "take off" flaps on final and then not touching anything until cleaning up after starting climb out. Of course now you've jinxed it. I'll gear up the very next time I go out.

My problem might be that I've never used anything else. I was googling the original poster's suggestion when I found this: http://www.skygeek.com/zep-f336-window-view-spray-and-wipe-cleaner-1-quart-f336qt.html Looks like the same manufacturer also makes an aviation specific cleaner that isn't that much more expensive. Worth a try.

Flaps don't have to be used, and if they are, they don't have to be retracted before climbing out again. I can, and have, taken off with full flaps. Cowl flaps are always open while doing touch and goes. Why would you close them? I never go fast enough in the pattern to run with them closed. Same with prop. It's always max while doing T&Gs. It's in anyway after a normal landing. Same with mixture. I'm at 800ft field elevation. Actually, that's probably something I need to start doing... I haven't been leaning properly once on downwind. OTOH, I'm only on downwind for a minute or two, so... Rudder? I don't check aileron or elevator either... "Rudder - as required". The military clearly disagrees with you. I often see T-38s and C130s doing touch and go's at HSV. I take my scanner and eat lunch at the hangar (which faces 36R). They're usually practicing approaches, but they don't stop and taxi back. I use flaps. I'm saying that if that's all that it takes to eliminate a large risk while engaging in this particular activity, they're optional. And you can go around with landing trim. As far I can tell, very little if anything MUST change to transition from "I'm landing" to "I'm taking off". It's been suggested that the major risk during touch and go's is pulling the gear up instead of the flaps. If that's true (and I can certaily see it in planes where the gear and flap switchs are right next to each other), then all I'm saying is there are things you can do to decrease the risk. In a mooney, given how (not?) effective the flaps are, you could set "take off" flaps on base / final, and not touch ANYTHING (except throttle) again until cleaning up on the climb out. I wasn't worried about the risk before, but I think I'll try that next time out. If raising the gear instead of the flaps is the main problem, it can be eliminated entirely.

Prist leaves a film? How long did it take for you to notice it? I haven't seen it... yet, but I've only been using it since Feb.

I don't know the specifics of your situation, but I have an engine monitor that uses a bayonet probe (I'm repeating what I was told... I don't know exactly what is in there), that apparently allows the factory CHT gauge to still work. What does this mean for me? Oh, only that I have a gauge I never, ever look at (factory CHT), and a #3 cylinder that always reads colder than the rest. How this improves safety, I have no idea.

Ok... that's a first. I can't recall ever looking -up- at a parked airplane. (First photo, looking at planes up on the hill). Where is that?

Ok, so I'll land without flaps (very doable) and then I won't have to fiddle with anything other than the throttle. I'm not saying I won't ever screw it up, but I'm usually at my freshest when I go out to practice T&Ls. It's at the end of a trip when I have to pee and am tired after flying all day and just want to get down put the plane away and go home that it seems like I get weird instructions from ATC that cause me to interrupt my routine. I'm WAY more worried about distractions interfering with GUMPS causing a gear up landing than I am an hour of dedicated practice. (And while I wouldn't hesitate to do T&Gs on 5000+ runways, I've got 10000+ where I'm based, so it's not like you have to get in a hurry preparing to take off again. Doing this on 3000+ runways IS probably not worth the risk.)

Touch and goes may provide an opportunity to screw up, but I disagree they "aren't worth the risk". I land, I roll a bit, I push the throttle in, and I'm taking off. A 'J' will take off with full flaps if you forget to bring them up a notch. What about this is unsafe? The landing? Normal landing. The taxi? I have to roll out anyway. The take off? The only thing that -could- be different is the flap setting and runway remaining. I honestly want to know... please identify the risk. I don't see it.

I wasn't going to buy Plexu$. But I did buy Prist, and I'm happy with it. But I have no idea how anyone would get years out of a single can. Yes, I'm hangared. Tell that to the pollen. Or the bugs, or.. Every single flight, before and after, I wipe the windows down. At that rate, a can doesn't last long.

I like doing touch and goes. If you have plenty of runway, I don't see the problem. If I had to make full stops and taxi back each time, I'd be less proficient per hour of practice. How does that help?

lol. Check this out: http://www.buy-ei.com/Pages/Comparisons/Comp_Overview.html

Thinking about this some.... While it's possible, I'm not sure if aircraft would have to worry much. The GPS antenna is usually on the top of the plane, which ought to make spoofing a LOT more difficult (the attacker would have to be airborne). Also, and probably most importantly, the planes that would be likely targets are up in the flight levels where they're on radar, right? "United 342.... where are you going?"

Is inertial nav common outside the military? With the advances in accelerometers and such, maybe garmin could add an INAV unit to their gps and alert if the diff is too big.

For the first four, assume something cool for: Antique tail dragger Biz Jet Helicopter Amphib But if I were a .com billionare, I'd give Scaled Composites $50 million and tell them to make me the happiest pilot on Earth.

There are lots of avionics and other upgrades I'd buy at "homebuilt" prices that simply will not be purchased at "certified" prices. I can't afford it. It's not that I'll buy fewer... I won't by ANY. You'd think manufacturers would be all over this. Drop prices to a "yeah, sure... why not" level for more pilots and they'll make more money overall, right?

This. I live in a town where I could easily buy a house for the money I spent on the plane. It's been almost six months and I'm just now getting used to the idea that I own one.

Congrats! The only thing I want to know is mechanical failure or human? (And only because I'm trying to get a sense for retractable gear reliability.)

You don't need anything that fancy. Google sketchup, blender, etc. work fine, and you can have someone else print it for you... sculpteo.com, shapeways.com, etc. True the parts aren't perfectly smooth, but a friend at work just bought a home 3D printer, and the high resolution mode is very impressive. A little bit of sanding and it'd be ready to go. Laser scanning is probably overkill for this part. Just eyeball it and check the dimensions against a laser printed paper outline, or use calipers / micrometer if you must. The are other ways to produce this part, obviously, but if you have the interest, a 3D printer would work great.

Florida in February is very nice (used to live there). It's not a bad idea, depending on whether or not Sunstate is any good. If you do it, please report back.

Looks like a perfect application for a 3D printer.

I wouldn't think you'd have to worry about abusing your own airplane. Instrument training shouldn't be like learning to fly... there -shouldn't- be anything that would hurt the airplane (like, say, learning to land). After a recent thread on here where I asked what people thought about the concept of accelerated training, and after doing a good bit of research, I've settled on PIC for when this finally happens. I'm spending the time between now and then studying on my own and learning to fly my airplane. There are obviously pluses and minues to both approaches. Doing an IR at home means you are home. Which means potential distractions from job / family / etc. Doing one away from home sort of eliminates most distractions, but presents others... for example, Disney World. I also really like the idea of training in the airplane I'm going to be flying IFR. I don't know how important this is (not IR yet), but at the very least it can't hurt. Can you take your plane down to Sunstate and train in it instead of theirs? OTOH, how confident are you that your plane will make it through 20+ hours of flying and not have a problem? No perfect solution, and $$$. I wish I'd gotten my IR 20 years ago when it was probably half the cost it is now.

Meh. This sort analogy was actually used on a nova or something recently. One of the super giant stars had a circumference large enough it'd take a 747 something like 1000 years to fly around it. Big. Funny you didn't mention the real problem.... it's not even slightly pressurized.