MikeOH

@PT20J This looks to be, fundamentally, the same as Prof. Rogers "Horseshoe Heading" technique: horseshoehead_screen.pdf

Passenger sub-limits, even $200K, are why I do NOT fly with any non-family passengers except a CFI. (I'm okay with family suing me since they're in the will anyway) That measly $100K or $200K limit is going to be reached pretty easily in all but an injury free accident. THEN the plaintiff is coming after MY assets! And, while I have a decent umbrella policy, it specifically EXCLUDES GA flying! I have NOT been able to find an umbrella policy that will cover private flying.

On my F Vfe is higher than Vle, so it's first notch of flaps, then gear, then full flaps on final.

My numbers were BTU/pound for both dry ice and water ice. Dry ice is denser than water (at least it's always sunk when I've dropped in water for Halloween 'effects')

YUUP! That's why I don't think this idea is worth pursuing. The venting needs to be 100% effective and 100% reliable. Not realistic. I've considered a CO2 monitor, but when it goes off just what are you going to do? Crawl in the back seat and start throwing the dry ice out the storm window??? (Better have gloves on)

Maybe I'm wrong, but my research shows the latent heat of vaporization for water ice is 144 btu/pound, but COOLING the ice below 32 F only gets you 0.5 btu/F. Most ice is purchased is around 20 F to 25 F, so only another 6 btu/pound, so around 150 btu/pound is the best you're going to do. Dry ice's latent heat of sublimation is nearly 250 btu/pound. Dry ice is at about -110 F, so you could pick up another 80 btu if you used the dry ice to cool the water ice as you suggested; that would get you around 225 btu/pound. But, that seem quite the hassle as you still need to get rid of the water! Again, this is just 'back of envelope' spit-balling, so my numbers may be way off

I've toyed with the idea of using dry ice, rather than water ice, to build an "Arctic Cool" type of system. Dry ice at minus whatever it is, has almost twice the heat capacity of water ice and it doesn't leave behind all that water to get rid of! Dry ice sublimes at less than 0.5 lb/hour. At the higher heat capacity you'd only need about half as many pounds of dry ice and very likely to last 6 hours, or more! Thing is, it is IMPERATIVE to have a fool-proof system to vent the sublimated CO2 gas overboard; 1 pound of dry ice generates about 8.5 cubic feet of CO2! Mooney cabin is around 75 cubic feet, so directly adding over 4 cubic feet per hour of CO2 to the cabin would be seriously bad!

How much does all that weigh? Check your 'buffer' battery capability/capacity carefully because, on the ground when you really need the AC, the engine is NOT going to be running at a high enough rpm for the alternator to help much. I.e. most of that 60 Amps is going to have to come from the battery for as long as you need to startup, taxi, run-up, and wait for release. Also, I'd be very careful with tying in a non-aviation electrical item into the aircraft's electrical system (alternator and ship's battery).

The Eight Second Ride: https://web.archive.org/web/20190207032823/http://donmaxwell.com/the-eight-second-ride-sb-m20-202/

Hmm, company founded in South Africa in 2003, first engine in 2010, got some funding in 2013-2014...so, if this is the cat's pajamas in 'new tech' why hasn't the GA world adeptly adopted Adept?? Maybe if they included a family size bottle of Snake Oil? to keep that gearbox happy.

THAT paragraph is gold! Aircraft engines are stationary; all the fancy electronics just don't increase performance significantly as variable timing isn't really required. The rest of the engine isn't in much need of improvement as it already has excellent power to weight ratio, and proven reliability.

Pretty much my "investment" strategy, too

@Wapst Are you after INTERIOR trim screws? (Your 'cabin door' and 'overhead console' made me think that was a possibility. If so, a quick search at Aircraft Spruce didn't turn up anything for 'kits', but you could try, as well. If not, I'd just drive down with a couple of samples and ask the guys at the counter; they are helpful if not the friendliest bunch

Interesting....four gear-ups due to no-back spring failure in 4 decades. How many gear ups in those 4 decades due to no brain?

No, it is NOT an engineering problem! The SpaceX/Musk analogy is FALSE! He absolutely saw a HUGE market (launching other people/countries' satellites) for ENORMOUS amounts of money. It was absolutely worth the STAGGERING amount of development costs because the payback has been AMAZING. No NEW economics; just the same old ones: see an emerging market, use your capital and expertise to, well, capitalize on it! There is NO such payback waiting for the development of a clean sheet GA piston engine. It is about as much of an antithesis to SpaceX as I can imagine. If SpaceX was publicly traded, I'd invest in a heartbeat. IMHO, only a fool would invest in a 'new' GA piston engine project And, hey, I understand the emotional nature of this...I, too, am royally pissed off! For me it's this 'no lead' mandate being forced down our throats!

Better than the KX-155?

If I'm reading this right, you say you can run the flaps with the flap CB pulled???!?!?? Something is seriously wrong if that is the case. I can't quite form a mental schematic of how your NON-STANDARD avionics switch could play into this, but it sounds like you are backfeeding both the master relay and the flaps! Uh, maybe TWO exceptions! And, both are pretty BIG FLAWS, IMHO! Despite your 'preference' for leaving the avionics switch in place, you might consider at least temporarily disconnecting it and seeing if these two 'flaws' go away.

Truer words were never written! I grew up in the 'burbs of LA during the peak years of smog; it was BAD!! I'm talking 1 mile visibility due ENTIRELY to the smog, not weather (well, ok, an inversion was responsible for the really bad days!). Your eyes literally watered from what was likely sulfuric acid from the sulfur dioxides dissolving in the moisture in your eyes! It actually hurt to breathe in deeply; no joke! If you haven't experienced it, it's hard to understand how bad it really was. The problem was solved by the advent of EFI/O2 sensor feedback and catalytic converters. The latter is the real reason lead had to be eliminated; lead ruined the catalytic converters. Back then the lead emissions were the least of the concerns for smog. I.e., lead elimination was just a beneficial artifact of solving the smog problem. As you say, the big government organizations MUST survive...particularly, the SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District), a Taj Mahal government organization and edifice if there ever was one! However, they did manage to perform a study (which I cited somewhere in the 50+ page G100UL thread) of airborne lead levels around Whiteman Airport (KWHP) and found them to be no higher than anywhere else in the Los Angeles basin. Furthermore, the measured levels were many times LESS than Federal EPA levels! So, yes, they are coming after our little airplanes that emit minuscule levels of lead under the guise of "NO amount of lead is safe" and the standard fear-mongering of "save the environment" and "it's for the children." This is a politically created 'problem' that is forcing an expensive and sub-optimal 'solution' upon us. Yeah, IMHO

I doubt you're even interested in a rationale rebuttal to your tirade, but I'm going to respond so that other readers that might have been 'swayed' by your hyperbole have a counterpoint to consider. The real answer, as usual, to this problem is not poor engineering, failure to take advantage of new technologies, or 'lazy poor excuses from engineers', but ECONOMICS. What is the volume and price of turboprop engines these days compared with GA piston powerplants? And, yet again, how many 'spaceship' car engines do suppose are built and sold every year compared with GA piston powerplants? Finally, given the testing and certification costs for aviation products, on top of rather significant development costs associated with a clean sheet design, just how long do you suppose the payback is going to be given the miniscule market volume of GA piston powerplants? QED

That just doesn't sound right, but I'm not an A&&P. Is it possible the engine mounts are deteriorated? I've also heard the mounts can sometimes be installed reversed; no idea if that would cause engine sag.

What bothers me is the list intermingles annual items with discrepancies and provides no breakdown on individual item labor. That’s what I’d ask for: Please break down the labor for each item.

Because taking over an existing lease with 20 years remaining and the availability of equipment in place is a whole lot better than auctioning off said equipment. Not sure how LASAR fits into that possibility but it is at least hopeful.

That makes me feel a lot better! (Glad I didn't see it back in 2019)

Sadly, that 'brochure' looks a whole lot like what industrial auction houses publish before an asset sale. While Mooney has risen from ashes countless times, if the equipment gets auctioned off, it may well be the end. I fervently hope that is not the case.

Interesting how that might work...do the 'workers' actually making the parts have to be Mooney employees, or can they be Laser employees physically in the Mooney factory using Mooney factory equipment/processes, and still be able to use the Mooney production certificate?