Tommy

Agree. The differences can be measured in seconds and millilitres. Not to mention the conclusion was drawn by someone with no engineering / flight testing background using data extracted from one plane, couple of descents, and imprecise measurements. What's next Mike @201er ? The best power setting and FF for taxiing?

If you need to save a couple bucks a flight you shouldn't be flying - certainly not with your parents' money...

If there is ever an Ignobel prize for useless flying techniques, this surely is a contender. Asking what's the most fuel efficient way of descent is akin to asking how to best taxi in order to save fuel. Descent is a short duration low-power event that any "savings" - as calculated by yourself and others - is minimal. 0.5gallon and 1 or 2 minute? *yawn* All at the cost of complicating something simple. Much rather spend the descent on things like getting the profile right, reviewing critical airport information, AWIS/ATIS, CTAF, looking out traffic, and briefing the pax etc. Things that actually matters.

Cooler and cleaner engine / oil. Greater range. Less wear and tear associated with landing. Not to mention you avoid the most dangerous phases of the flight. The saving is likely more than just the fuel. So yes it sure is an expensive golden shower. Ask Putin

Anyone has got the part number or has one lying around ? Thanks!

A picture is worth a thousand words Just saying!

And just to facilitate our discourse, maybe you can enlighten me what's your expertise on the subject of ATC privatisation?

Ok, so I "deliberately twisting your words" and "ignoring the context" (not entirely sure how I could misconstrue words like "GA Alphabet are all crying wolf" Exactly under what context should I read them?) but it sure beats your little tirade of ad hominem and not really answering my questions. 1) please supply one good reason why big airlines want to take over and spend millions / billions on providing ATC service for free? 2) Do you know more about ATC Privatisation than Captain Sullenberg? I must commend you on your effort of doing the extra readings. I, on the other hand, choose to take the intellectual short cut and exhibit some personal humility to believe tha 150 groups of pilots and operators know a lot more than I do. And why do I even care? Well, Jeff, it will pain me to see you selling your beloved Ovation simply because you can't afford to fly with exorbent ATC bills...

150 + groups with hundreds of thousands seasoned pilots including Capt Sullenberger. So you know something that these people don't?

Not only there is absolutely ZERO evidence to say the current technology including NextGen is deficient in any way, to then go from that and say privatisation is the answer to this imaginary problem is non sequitur. If anything, past experience showed us privatizing a monopoly always carries a disastrous consequence for the consumers.

Sure, give me one good reason why big airlines want to take over and spend millions on providing ATC service for free?

By the way, that's the classic Fallic maneuvre - a Cuban-8 followed by an aptly named "Humpty-Bump" For those who saw something else, get your mind off the gutter, I say!

Meanwhile in Italy, millions pay hundreds to see this...

I agree that it's owners' and oeprators' resonbility when it comes to airworthiness but I believe that when I take a plane to a shop for an annual, I expect the shop doing the AD search not me. For one, I have little or no training / experience in searching for ADs. Worse still, some owners may choose to neglect certain inconvenient ADs. Yes I know that, in the ideal world, all operators and owners should be diligently taking proactive steps to learn how to look up ADs and spend at least 3 or 4 hours before any annual to compile the list. IMHO, putting the onus on the owners to do AD searches is akin to asking your patients to come up with the diagnosis themselves. And can you imagine the public outcry if the car industry does the same?

Did you involve yourself in the PPI?

Hate to break it to you, but that's also a boilerplate reply not a personalised direct response. And you must be kidding yourself thinking that she is deliberating or at least contemplating on this issue. The whole reply sounded like a raving support for the bill, tiptoeing the same old partyline bs. "What’s clear is that America’s air traffic control system is in need of modernization to accommodate growing air traffic demand."

Question is, do you trust the owner to get it right? I just hope FAA can design their website well so that all you have to do is put in the year / model and it gives you the list of relevant AD just like that...

Let me get my head around it. So with single G5 + legacy AP adapter + keeping your old ADI, you will not loose anything as far as AP functionality is concerned (say KFC 200) but to gain a back up AI? (Disregard the fact that you still have to keep your vaccum system).

My sentiment, exactly.

This is the part that irks most owners. You sent the plane to the shop and something that was previously working fine happened to break right after the job was done. You were very convinced that it had to be something silly that the shop did but they didn't tell you. Your suspicion then grew when they asked $1200 to replace the part instead of troubleshooting the problem systemically, taking advantage of your desire to fly away for thanks giving... "Yes, we can take a look at it and maybe it's something simple to fix but it will take some time and it might still end up with the pump being defective. In that scenario, you won't have the plane until Friday week." "And, no, we won't refund you anything if the new pump didn't fix the problem either." Cynical, I know but it doesn't help when this problem was identified 5 days and they didn't do anything until you pressed them.

I don't know much about the Johnson bar and how it operates. But one thing I do know is never to take off when a critical component of your plane is not functioning as it should. Why take the risk? Put it on the jack and swing it. Your life is worth a lot more than a 3-hour bill from your mechanic. "My A&P/IA is out of town until next week, so if do fly, I guess I'll be flying it as a M-20-d below 120 mph" The NTSB report will read like a classic "Swiss cheese" story...

Hopefully but the competition is pretty stiff at 500k+ category.

Incidentally, Plane&Pilot also ran a cover story on Ovation Ultra. Both gave raving reviews which makes sense when the comparison is made against the competition. But often the biggest competition comes from the model's predecessor. What exactly does the new Ultra offer - speed and efficiency-wise - that will entice current Ovation owners?

Not buying this thing but asked by a friend who wants to start a syndicate and this is the Mooney they are eyeing on. All of them are pilots none is a mechanic. Pretty much my points as well. Assuming the airframe is in great condition, the engine health will very much depend on the initial reason for the TOP and how much it has run afterwards (And how it's behaving). The avionics are dated and will need an upgrade to be ADSB compliant. If this engine holds up, 180k USD is a fair price?

With the development of highly reliable electric motor, BRS, and IAS (intelligent autopilot system) plus Uber's 70 billion market cap value.... I don't think Uber is dreaming. And sadly this will only drive young would-be pilots away when unemployment is almost certain at the end of their training.