88drvr

I used David Savoie and will "third" the recommendation. Also used Falcon and with various discounts, was shocked how cheap it is to insure a plane compared to my old sailboat. Good luck

202 is the best I saw yesterday at 9k in level flight.

I have had pretty deep involvement with another originization that has a similiar government lobbying effort. I can say this for sure, success is not always measured by new legislation, it is stopping crappy legislation from passing or ever even garnering support. Like it or not, you have to have a strong voice in Washington and there is a strength in numbers. Sitting on the sidelines and not not having a unified voice/message are not ingredients for success. One only has to look at other areas of politics right now to see examples. I can promise you this, if there was not an AOPA (or a group with similiar numbers) we would all be saying "how did that legislation get passed?"

I don't have an opinion one way or another, but here is the quote on MMO that I think the thread starter is referencing... (Become an advocate to have Marvel’s Mystery Oil gain FAA approval. When mixed with fuel, it burns almost like fuel thus no detonation problems associated and when mixed with fuel at a ratio of usually 4 oz. per ten gallons of fuel added, it lubricates the rubber parts within your fuel system to help keep them soft and supple because when your rubber parts inside the fuel system become cracked from the otherwise dry fuel, the system begins to fail and can even kill your engine, and of course fuel systems are expensive to overhaul. Further the Marvel’s will keep your valve guides lubricated; a weak point of the Lycoming engine especially. Additionally, MMO will soak, loosen, and remove carbon buildup inside your cylinders. Some people even put it in their oil 1⁄2-1 quart at oil change because when the engine is shut down, the oil falls off of the ferrous metal parts and they become exposed to the beginnings of corrosion. MMO will coat those parts and stay coated when even lessens the wear from cold starts before the oil can circulate. Did you know that about 80% of engine wear comes not from flying the engine, but from starting it? If you know your airplane well, you will feel a slight elevation in vibration. That is because the MMO is removing the carbon which in turn goes out the exhaust valves making them shake just a bit, but once the carbon is gone, that engine will never have run as smoothly and if you were to miss putting some in when you refuel, again if you know your bird well, you will feel the difference. MMO is owned by the Turtle Wax Corporation last I checked and they should be rallied to get MMO approved for use in aircraft. Heck, ask any Harley driver if he uses MMO, Most will say heck yes! MMO works best in air cooled engines, but I also use it in my ferocious ’97 hotrod Lincoln MK VIII fun car. I also use it in my riding mower’s engine as those like to carbon up easily that this prevents that from forming. I had the head off recently and there was no carbon inside and the piston looked brand new.)

With this I would agree. A good read on this subject is "Get rich with dividends" by Marc Lechtenfeld. (Anything but a get rich quick book and past performance is no guarantee of future results) Basically a refresher course in compound interest (dividends) and the effect it has on an ever increasing principle balance. May help some understand why borrowing may be the best "choice." Great.. Now I have contributed to moving this thread further off course

For what it is worth, I don't thing the thread starter was inquiring about the pros and cons of cash vs financing and certainly didn't give enough details for me to make a judgment about his ability to afford an aircraft. I know with my dividend yields alone, that it would makes no financial sense to liquidate those stocks when somebody else's money can be had for much less.

If you are financing over 50k, I know US aircraft finance will do 20 years with as little as 10 percent down based on your credit and the book value of the aircraft. Depending on how much you put down, I would guess rates anywhere between 4.5 to 6 percent.

I was thinking the same thing with regard to true airspeed. A quick and dirty conversion from indicated to true is 2% per thousand feet. In this case 143 ias would be 150 tas. I wonder if you meant "true" as actual ground speed?

I agree, but for me it is not a question of being able to "afford" an overhaul if and when it breaks. It is trying to make sure that the purchase price reflects any additional "risk" that an overhaul might be required sooner rather than later. None of us want to pay a premium on a "low time engine" when it may have no reasonable shot of making it to tbo because of inactivity.

Good stuff. Thanks for the replys everyone.

Hi guys, Question for the group. I have quite a bit of J from years past and loved the airplane. I eventually got a job with the airlines and have had very little general aviation time recently. (because I was living in Florida throwing money at boats ) Now that I am in Ga, I am looking at getting back into an older J or possibly an F. One common pitfall I see the group warning about is an aircraft that's has been "sitting" and issues with the camshaft. I don't ever remember this being a concern in the "J" search 20 years ago, but of course we didn't have user groups on the web either to warn of such. So when doing a pre buy, you certainly want to get the cam inspected for rust, but it still seems there is concern here even if it isn't detected. How few hours flown is too few and in what time frame? (I known it can't be a specific answer) If the aircraft had sat, but now is flying regularly, does that generally mean it would concern you less? I know that just like with boats, there is always going to be surprises and $$, but avoiding an immediate overhaul is a biggie. Thanks in advance.