whiskytango

@Norf9 I have owned a TR182 and two 231K models. My thoughts about these aircraft: Both are good aircraft. I used the TR182 when I was routinely filling all 4 seats with passengers and their stuff. Useful load was typically not an issue. It was a good IFR platform, but is definitely slower than the 231 and had higher fuel consumption. The TR182 engine has a fixed wastegate on the turbo, so it required more input from the pilot compared with normally aspirated. I consider the TR182 actually more difficult to land consistently well compared with the 231. I had problems with the hydraulic-mechanical landing gear system that left the gear stuck in the up or down position several times. The 231K is a fast and efficient aircraft which is just a lot more fun to fly, compared with the TR182. I mostly fly by myself or with my wife, and useful load is fine. It is also a great IFR platform. The 231K engine also requires more attention compared with normally aspirated, but having the Merlyn Upper Deck Controller and Intercooler helps. With proper attention to airspeed the 231 is easy to land. FWIW, when I had the TR182, I couldn't wait until I could sell it and get another Mooney!

Having a searchable version of your logs is an excellent idea. I wonder if there is a super heavy duty OCR program out there that would read scanned handwritten text (cursive and block) as well as printed text and give you a plain text file you could clean up with an editor. That would make life easier for the owner, the A&P and a future buyer.

I discovered that power for my JPI was not wired through a breaker, but had an in-line fuse that was buried in a wiring bundle above the control column. You might want to check for a blown fuse somewhere.

A few years ago a buddy of mine did hit a deer on the runway at night. No one was hurt (other than the deer, who was cleanly sliced in two by the landing gear) but it was a Very Big Deal since he was flying a Cirrus. The Cirrus factory had to have engineers design a repair for the composite structure, then run detailed stress analysis etc to ensure that the repair would not alter V-speed and +/- g ratings of the airframe. The repair design, testing and actual airframe repairs were very time consuming.

Does anyone have any information that correlates gear up landings with simultaneous non-functional gear warning horns (actually a beeper in my 231)? I can understand situations that produce distractions (someone cuts you off in the pattern, ATC tells you to go around, etc.) that could result in a potential gear up landing, but the gear warning horn should give you one last chance to realize the gear isn't down.

+1 on caution using a heat gun. A significant risk is heating electrical insulation to the point that it softens. Any electrical conductors that are in contact with other conductors, or metal in the airframe could eventually ground out. If the resulting fault current isn't enough to trip the breaker you could have localized high-resistance heating, leading to a fire.

I agree with @Amelia that going IFR makes life a lot easier if you are flying in the DC SFRA or even near the SFRA. Why bother with filing a SFRA flight plan, flying to a Gate and then hoping that ATC will let you in (plus ATC will tell you to stay out of Class B if you are on a SFRA flight plan). Also, going IFR keeps you out of pop-up TFRs. A few years ago I heard some poor guy getting the "Possible Pilot Deviation" greeting from ATC, when Prince Charles decided to visit Charleston SC on short notice, and a pop-up TFR was created that didn't exist when I got my briefing that morning.

I alway think of the final scene in the movie Tora Tora Tora, when, after the Pearl Harbor attack, Admiral Yamamoto says "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant". Although there is no proof that he actually said it or wrote it, truer words were never spoken!

For this to work the thieves would have to match the existing flight plans and personal waypoints stored in the databases of the boxes they take on Raid 2. I would know right away that someone had switched boxes if I go to create a new flight plan and see that my existing flight plans were missing or the database contained a bunch of flight plans that I never created. Of course the time interval between Raid 1 and Raid 2 may be enough time for the bad guys to sell the Raid 2 boxes, even if I, as the Raid 2 victim, discover and report the theft the next time I go flying.

@Jeev mentioned that he is waiting up to 9 weeks to get approved Aerocruze 100 kits for Cessnas and Pipers. That suggests to me that either (a) BK has such a huge demand for the AeroCruze 100 that they cannot keep up with demand, even with expanded production, (b) BK has not been able to successfully ramp up production since buying TT, or (c) The COVID-19 situation has adversely affected production. Who knows? BK claims that the FAA has all the necessary paperwork for the Mooney STC, and it's the FAA's fault that the STC has not been issued (funny how Big G never has these problems. Did BK annoy some folks at FAA at some point in the past, and now they go to the end of the line?). Very frustrating.

This is not correct. The OSHA PEL (Permissible Exposure Level) is 50 PPM for an 8 hour exposure. The 8-hour PEL for CO in maritime operations is also 50 ppm. Maritime workers, however, must be removed from the exposure if the CO concentration in the atmosphere exceeds 100 ppm. The peak CO level for employees engaged in Ro-Ro operations (roll-on roll-off operations during cargo loading and unloading) is 200 ppm. An 8 hour continual exposure to 200 ppm could be lethal.

"It takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/_NHq3Yze6s0 when live TV was really live. Kudos to John Cameron Swaze for keeping his cool!

This is confusing. The "PUBLISHED INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE VISUAL SEGMENT" begins at the MAP, which is 2.2 NM from the airport. The minimums for this airport at 2 miles for Category A and B aircraft flying the LNAV approach. Does this mean that the first 0.2 miles of the visual segment may still be in the clag?

Don - Really sorry to hear this. I wish there was a way to get insurers to say if there is a specific type of potential loss that drives the decision to deny coverage to older pilots. Let's say that it is gear-up landings. If that were the case, you could get hull coverage that doesn't include GU landings or comes with a very high deductible for that type of loss only. I just find it hard to believe that you were an acceptable risk last year but now you are uninsurable, with no intervening loss, FAA certificate action or other event to explain this change.

Avweb posted a video yesterday of a round-table discussion of aircraft insurance executives. This is definately a "hard market" for anyone who is looking to renew or get new coverage, and for those of us in the 70+ age group, it is not looking good.

Congratulations! In addition to the pilots you have trained directly, you have helped many more with your videos that show the proper technique for landing a Mooney!

@Parker_Woodruff Are the carriers refusing to write coverage for Hull, Liability or both for 70+ year old pilots of SERG aircraft?

One of the nice things about flying with the Captain and FO onboard is that they have "skin in the game". They, like the rest of us on the plane, would like to go home at the end of the flight, and their actions in the cockpit make it happen. On the other hand, a remote pilot sitting in an office at FL 000 will definitely be going home, no matter what he does or doesn't do. Can't say the same about the folks in the big RC airliner.

@AerostarDriver the latest explanation I was given by the Avionics shop was that the CNX80 will do coupled Baro-VNAV approaches with the GFC500 but not WAAS VNAV approaches, which means that there are required RAIM checks, manual altimeter setting input, and may be some temperature limitations. I can live with that.

I agree with @carusoam. It is best to buy "pre-owned" iPhones. I was tasked with getting our church services online during COVID. I bought a couple of iPhone 7 phones for about $170 each through EBay, and got an App called Switcher Studio to link the phones, plus my iPad and MacBook Pro, for recording and live-streaming the services. The used phones have all worked well and have decent battery capacity.

From the Wikipedia article: "The XP-82 was to be powered by two Packard-built Rolls-Royce V-1650 Merlin engines. Initially, the left engine was a V-1650-23 with an additional gear in the propeller reduction box to allow the left propeller to turn opposite to the right propeller, which was driven by the more conventional V-1650-25. In this arrangement both propellers would turn upward as they approached the center wing, which in theory would have allowed better single-engine control. This proved not to be the case when the aircraft refused to become airborne during its first flight attempt." Imagine having a combined 2,400 HP and the plane won't get off the ground. This is why experimental test pilots earn their pay every day!

+1 on everything @kortopates said regarding stabilized approaches. The school where I got my IFR rating was adamant that I learn the MAP and RPM that would provide a stabilized flaps-up approach while in IMC conditions. The rationale was that unless I fly for a living, and make multiple low IMC approaches every day, I need to reduce workload wherever possible in IMC to minimize the chances of a botched missed approach. A stabilized 500 FPM no-flaps approach can be made at an airspeed that will allow you to add flaps after you break out, and then land at proper airspeed to avoid floating.

The annual is being done now and my A&P/IA has all of my paperwork. I will let you know when I get the plane back.

I have a 231 with the -LB engine, Merlyn UDC, Intercooler and GAMIs. The one thing that I wish I had is a vernier throttle. Even with the Merlyn, very small movements of the conventional throttle will produce significant changes in MAP.

I would start to think about what changes when you are in the air: 1. Gear is in retracted position 2. Engine thrust, drag and aerodynamic loading causes minor deflections in the airframe that are not present when it is static on the ground 3. Thermal expansion / contraction These are just a few that come to mind. Could it be a pinched wire / scuffed insulation? Marginally loose connection? Intermittent problems can be challenging.