PMcClure

Agreed....

Thank you for your response, really appreciated. I don't mind the ads on this site, other than they seem sometimes repetitive. At least they don't cover up the page or force me to download some virus to close out of. Thank you for running the site, I hope your are adequately compensated for doing it. So straight up - would you rather have my $10 or the chance to collect advertisement $$?

-a- For the 1st time, I don't agree with you. I really like Mooniac58's message. He should make money for his time and effort and I don't mind getting ads targeting at me based on my profile and internet usage nor do I fault the guy paying a little to avoid that. Advertising is part of what makes the internet and free enterprise work as much as club dues or donations are. And I don't like the church analogy either. If I am only giving the donation to remove a mark of shame, then I have really missed the point, right? If you have to embarrass me to get me to pay $10 something is wrong with both of us. My question isn't really a financial one. I just spent $10 on lunch. Is this site worth $10? You bet. I hope that the guy running it makes way more than $10. The only reason I would give $10 is so you don't think I am a CB or if it is really needed to keep this site going. In that case, make it a fee not a donation. And, I don't like the supporter label. At the bottom of this page it says: *Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements* It does not say that members who don't donate $10 are cheap SOB's. I am a supporter and I look at ads. You are a supporter and pay $. Hester wore her A well, me maybe not so much.

OK - Beechtalk is free (isn't it?). Facebook is free, etc, etc, etc... Is that what this community is for - exclusive members talking to each other? I don't think so. I would probably pay the $350 if I had a TBM assuming it is a commercial activity for the sponsors and hope I got something for my payment. But I don't have a TBM and MS isn't asking for $350. If it did, I would probably consider it and pay it. But most wouldn't. I know there must be some cost and some time for the admin. I really have no idea why people would spend their money to do these type of things (but am thankful they do). But it was set up with the choice of ads or contribution. Just talking out loud here. If I am out of line, I'll send in my $10 but sleep well either way.

So I am still trying to decide if I should feel bad or not about not having supporter under my name. I am here a lot, contribute and take away a lot of good information. I don't consider my self a cheap skate or free loader by any means. I also have no idea what it takes to support this site or if it is even a commercial endeavor. We were give the choice to donate or accept ads. I accept the ads. I assume one is not better than the other. Maybe that is a bad assumption. Does $10 cover the costs? Is it a fair value for what I get out of this site (no). $100, $1000? I dunno. Someone help me set my moral compass.

I bought something at an airport store before boarding a flight to Korea from San Francisco. The cashier dropped my card, bent down out of sight to pick-it up and took a extra second or two to come back up. I didn't think anything about it. When I landed 12 hours later, my wife told me she had a call from the CC company to find out where I was at. Seems the card was cloned and $14,000 worth of stuff was charged in three different cities including 3 TV's in Chicago. The credit card company canceled the card and had a new one to me in Korea in 2 days. But still they will flag my card for buying gas in 2 states on the same day or purchasing an air line ticket from a foreign air line. I think they are not as smart as they need to be but make so much money they don't care. The criminals are getting smarter too. Watch out for any transaction you do over email. So easy to attack.

Shame....Shame....Shame. The easy answer I haven't is because I don't have to. Let the insults fly......

The Airlines have the best barf bags. I have a collection from airlines all over the world.

DAMN.

If pride in ownership and condition issues are important to you, not having a hangar isn't really an option. That aside, if I were to make a financial decision, I would have to know the value of your plane. If you are talking an expensive modern bird, I think there is no question to get a hangar. But if you have a 50 years of oxidation and dings then $3000 a year may not be worth the investment. Again, that is only the financial side of things. And regarding covers, I have decided never to put my nice Bruce cover on my plane again near the beach. The sand and salt can get under the cover and cause scratches. I will either Hangar it or rely on sun shields only from now on. PS - anyone know where I can buy some nice sun shields that go inside?

Low rpm?

Without new airplane tax incentives, I wonder how many new planes would actually sale. Looking at resale values of late model Mooney's or Cirrus, neither looks like a good buy new, unless you can depreciate the value over a few years. $1mm for a single piston seems laughable.

That is not what I am seeing in the O values. But I like your thinking!

I used this in my F. My partners were not bought into it so I did it all my self. Took about three days. I used active noise canceling headsets so the amount of sound reduction wasn't really worth the effort. I got a lot I told you so's. But when winter roller around, we all noticed how much less drafty things were and how much warmer the flight was.

I'll see 185 TAS at WOT and 20 ROP. Occasionally 187 TAS in my O2.

Regarding Useful load and range. For a typical 4 hour flight with one hour reserve: My F had about 1050 lbs payload and needed less than 40 gallons of fuel to fly 4 hours = 540 miles and +700 lbs useful payload with reserves. The B36 had about 1100 lbs payload and needed 100 gallons to fly 4 hours = 700 miles + 500lb useful with reserves The 20R has 900 lbs payload and needs 85 gallons to fly 4 hours = 740 miles + 400lbs with reserves So basically, you can load 1/2 more person in the Bo and spend 15 gallons more to get them there. Or you could cut your fuel and stop more often. 5 people at 170lbs only left enough fuel for 1 hour plus 1 hour reserve. Some of the older Bo's had more load. But comparing the older F, the Mooney still wins. And I can stretch my R out even further and get 350lbs of payload almost 1000 miles running LOP and max fuel on board

Agree 100%. The F and the R model are both ridiculously inexpensive to maintain, except... and its a big exception... the cost of avionics and the 2 extra cylinders on the 550. Most of my expense on the Bo was for cylinders, turbo's and engine issues and avionics. I don't think they really had a good set-up with that engine installation. To be fair, I didn't have many problems with the airframe on the Bo. Multiple cylinders, A/P issues, avionics, and turbo issues were a killer though. Looking at the maintenance issue, it wasn't jut me either. Similar issues over the life of the plane, including a new cylinder at 9 hours and a replacement A/P in year 1. And it was professional flown for a time as well with the same problems. Once I decided to leave that plane, the real difference in cost was acquisition. Do a comparison on what your budget can buy and you end up getting a much newer and better equipped Mooney. And fly faster!

I guess I just don't get it. I think the guy had a forced landing because he didn't properly plan. The NSTB says relying on fuel gauges was a contributing cause, not that the fuel gauges were inaccurate was a contributing factor (from your blurb). It was because he relied on them instead of using proper planning and decision making. Your nifty units will fail one day too and if someone depends solely on them to determine how long they can fly, they may die. I think I would be more interested if you just say you have a better replacement or OEM unit and avoid the whole discussion about it reducing accidents.

That is cool as #$%!#%#$!

Personally, I suspect all my instruments. To quote someone on this site who seems to know what they were talking about: "In over 40 years of flying, and over 15,000 flight hours including over 6500 at night, I've learned to be flexible, trust nothing, adjust the safety margins as conditions change, and ALWAYS leave yourself an "out" I want to be that guy. I don't rely exclusively on any instrument, even the AI. If I had an Angle of Attack gauge some people tell me I will never stall spin. I think that is a crap argument, too. I don't trust my ASI, my gps or even my door latch with my life. Don't we constantly have to cross check and verify to be a good pilot? My job a as "good pilot" is to make sure I have enough fuel to complete the flight with enough reserve to be safe and legal. The fuel gauge is never a part of that equation. It's only there to make me feel good about my progress. I verify I have 5 hours of fuel and land in 4. Headwinds, fuel gauges, etc... don't really matter to me. And if I have a leak develop in flight, then, well I still have 10 gallons in my other tank. Engine stutters, I stain my britches, switch to the other tank and land immediately. That is my out incase I was stupid or didn't plan for unseen events. Plain and simple - it's the pilots fault if he runs out of fuel. Not the fuel gauge. I'm all for good fuel gauges, give me the best. But even then, I am not going to rely on it. And to add something, in the 7 years I have been flying, I have had an ASI fail, 4 AI's fail, a DG, GPS, A/P, trim, Vacuum pump, etc... All these instruments and devices are crap in my opinion. That is why I don't rely on any of them.

I went from a Mooney (69F) to a Bonanza (98BTC) then back to a Mooney (2002 M20R). I switched to the Bonanza for the additional seats and more modern avionics. I switched back to the Mooney because of the following reasons: 1. Cost of ownership. Maintenance was very very high. The turbo charger was part of the reason but in general, everything cost more on the Bonanza. Fuel burn was also very high for about the same speed. 36 gallons per hour on take off!! Insurance was more than double. 2. Useful load - The Bonanza had to carry more fuel to get where I was going. Effectively took away the extra seats I wanted 3. Cost of acquisition - I looked at moving to a non-turbo A36 but found they were 30% more purchase for the same year and capability of a Mooney. Same issues in maintenance, useful load (considering use of 6 seats). And my mission was more typically 1-2 people instead of 4 -5. 6 was never really an option in the Bo anyway. The Bo's are more comfortable, perhaps as roomy, and perhaps a little more stable and easier to land than the Mooney. And the rear cargo door is very very nice on the Bo. But my Mooney gets me there faster, cheaper and costs less to own and is still a very stable platform and can easily fly and land both. If I really needed 5 seats, or even 4 seats full the Bo still didn't cut it on trips over 2 hours. That is why I decided to switch. Funny thing is, the guy I bought my M20R from, bought a Bo for the extra seats.

Thinking about the time from start to take-off discussion, how much fuel (time) do you think is between the gascolator and the engine?

I am a heavy international traveler and I have found T-mobile is the best deal. International calls are .20 per minute in most countries and unlimited data is included (3G speeds). They used to have unlocked phones for sell at T-mobile stores but I think they ended this option. Also check out Wal-mart Tracfones.

PM sent.