• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


INA201 last won the day on June 12 2018

INA201 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

216 Excellent

About INA201

  • Rank
    Won't Leave!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Reg #
  • Model
    1978 M20J

Recent Profile Visitors

1,658 profile views
  1. Ok, sounds like the definition of “scam,” is the deciding factor. My definition is paying 12x the cost of something that you would do anyway without the “service” that is offered. Some scams are nice and professional but the reality is just handle it with the FAA for $5.00. Hiring someone to replace the hard drive in your computer for $300 vs doing it yourself for $100 is not necessarily a scam. You may have zero technical skills nor the time to do it and it’s worth paying the extra.$200. This has turned into a good thought provoking thread. The bottom line is you will save a lot of money the more you do yourself assuming the opportunity cost doesn’t outweigh the benefit. Yes, I pulled out the old Economics 101 from thirty years ago by adding opportunity cost to the forum matrix.
  2. This email came from my local EAA chapter. Scams have been around since the beginning of time. Always know the truth and ask questions if there is doubt. There is a company that has inserted itself into the N-number renewal process “as a convenience” to aircraft owners. The company is called: National Aviation Center. ( I received an official looking letter reminding me of my pending renewal and the letter provided me with “friendly instructions” on how to renew – through them. Of course, there is a fee. They get the renewal dates (a public record) and then contact the aircraft owners asking for renewals. They make the documents look official and something like you would expect from the FAA. They are fishing for renewals from people who are unaware. You can still easily renew through the FAA website and the FAA will send you a postcard (including your web PIN) before your renewal is due. (FYI, this “steal the renewal for a fee” has been a common ploy for years with regard to domain name renewals. ) The company also offers other aircraft related services. Again, these are things that you can do directly on the FAA website for much less cost. Everyone should be aware that they also pay for “top-of-page” Google search returns whenever you search aircraft related stuff.
  3. You guys still like Twin Lakes Avionics? Looks like there are two votes for Twin Lakes. I am not going back to my previous shop for work ever again. It was not any shop I have seen mentioned on this forum just FYI. I just need to get some glitchy things worked out that I think are connection issues, and add a second g5. I am concerned with timeliness, professionalism, and quality more so than the cheapest price. Thank gang!
  4. I was really pleased with these guys. Brand new results.
  5. My gut says thats since all are about ten points lower that would point to the person testing it vs the engine changing that much. That being said, if you try you can certainly burn up the engine but my bet is on the tester being different.
  6. Thanks for the PIREP. I had a ride in a Cirrus with the Garmin AP and was also extremely impressed with the yaw dampener. I would definitely consider buying it with the dampener if it’s not too much. It makes for an extremely smooth ride especially with non aviator passengers.
  7. I’m a big fan of MSCs and being loyal to a shop that is good to you. Going to a non MSC and then calling the MSC for advice so you can save money is not cool. If you are stuck somewhere then that’s a different story. Just my two cents
  8. I'll go ahead and give you guys the synopsis here in SC. Record rainfall for us in this area of the southeast the past year and starting this year. We haven't had many severe clear flying days this winter like we usually see.
  9. 1978J O&N bladders 985 useful not weighed just calculated over the years. Might weigh it this year to see.
  10. I am seeing real progress here on this thread! Has to be the case! “It’s my 200lbs and I want it now.” Get outta the way SR22, 182, and A36. Not to mention this would seriously improve the value of the aircraft. There is probably a track record showing virtually no airframe failures on middle conversions but I wouldn’t know. Nice thread and it breeds optimism.
  11. Is that tube really the reason that 200lbs wasn’t allocated to early Mooney gross weights? I’m retro frustrated.
  12. I was skiing in Montana in January and ran into icing on the slopes. One day while we were skiing at approximately 18F our goggles and clothing were picking up a significant amount of rime ice. It was fairly dense fog with what I am assuming was super cooled water in the clouds. We were also at 8500 msl + not that the altitude was significant. I’ve never flown in ice in the Mooney but it is truly amazing how much ice is picked up at 30mph. Certainly knocked out all visibility through the goggles. I’m afraid of the stuff personally and will only fly with a 100% “out,” solution with even the lowest chance of running into it.
  13. Dang, if I had the 2900lb gross this old J would be at 1145 useful. People really like the separate mags, folding seats etc. etc. I’m wondering if an 1145 useful load J would be more attractive than all the extras. Nowadays an extra 32 lb backup battery would suffice over an extra alternator or backup vacuum pump(give you a solid 1 hour+). The ANR headsets cover the extra DB of noise. It’s a tough call when the marketing department tells you that your competition has XYZ. Your engineering department adds XYZ.
  14. The later Js were a little heavier I believe. My 1978 weighs 1755 FWIW. I have a 985 useful. What are some of the empty weights of you guys with later Js with the 2900 gross.
  15. Anyone try to push for 2900 on the older Js? Is it doable by Mooney?