jaylw314

For future reference, there is 'Non-owned aircraft insurance' that you can buy, and that I assume your instructor has. That being said, it seems pretty risky for the buyer to be the one doing the transportation for pre-purchase inspection--if some damage or failure occurs to the plane, who's responsibility is it? It seems safer to ask the seller to transport it and reimburse him for fuel, time and any additional transportation costs that you agree on. That way, if somethin happens on the way there, you're only at risk for that amount instead of a demand to pay for an open-ended repair bill. Have you looked at GMax? They're in Texas, but they're the biggest Mooney broker and reseller, and most here see Jimmy Garrison as a stand up guy. I did buy from him several years ago, and he posts here every now and then. I noticed he has this M20E in inventory: https://www.gmaxamericanaircraft.com/inventory/?/listing/for-sale/219228295/1965-mooney-m20e-super-21-piston-single-aircraft?dlr=1&dscompanyid=6946&settingscrmid=614667

Is your cabin heat closed all the way?

A couple loops of masking tape stuck to the engine mount bars can hold the bag up so you have an extra free hand.

That's because we all got dumber at the same time

Well, even though everything is through 'computer', not everything computer is communicated in a way that's fast and easy **ahem**NOTAMS**ahem**, so I don't know that immediate would be a natural expectation

When I call them on the phone at the hangar I remind them reception is spotty at the departure end of the runway Here, their default seems to be to just give me a time in 15 minutes, which is plenty. If I call them up on the radio on the ramp, they'll just ask me to call when I'm #1 for departure, since it's pretty obvious its working that day. And yes, reception is really that spotty at the departure end, I'm not just making that up for them

Sorry bud, you were the one making extraordinary claims so the burden of proof is on you.

Sorry, that should be minimum, not maximum, I keep confusing myself about that. He showed that fuel flow is proportional to power, and uses the term omega to refer to fuel flow and alpha to refer to airspeed, then sets the derivative of omega/alpha to zero to find the minimum. He does it in a weird way to remove units, but that kind of obfuscates the actual conclusion, so I'm not sure why he does it that way. I don't remember that, I recall people have discussed that best glide is sometimes higher than both Vx and Vy, but since Vx and Vy are partly determined by max engine power, they're not relevant to his discussion (equilibrium at cruise). This is absolutely incorrect. When you have only a straight line, picking a point is arbitrary without another line. When you have a curve, you have plenty of unique points--local minima/maxima, absolute minimum/maximum, points of inflection, and whatnot--without requiring another line or curve. That's not to say your personal preferences don't matter to how you decide to do things, but physics (and math) doesn't give a rat's ass about your preferences. It just gives you information that applies to everyone regardless of preference, then you can decide otherwise.

Nah, I wasn't terribly clear myself

I misspoke, the slope is an ideal, not arbitrary value (probably the wrong terms). He's trying to show that maximizing power per unit velocity was what von Karmann was actually interested in as his measure of 'efficiency,' as mapped out in his space of P/V vs V. It's not relevant to the calculation of Carson's speed, he's showing an empiric example of someone else who was interested in the maximum value of dP/dV when talking about efficiency. He had already mathematically calculated the maximum of value of dP/dV at the bottom of page 3.

Just to be clear, I ask for clearance in 15 min, void by 20 min (so 5 minutes of airspace)

FWIW, I take off from a non-towered airport, and in IMC I always call for my clearance by phone before starting up and ask for 15 minutes. I do it via my Lightspeed Zulu bluetooth link to my phone, to test its connection. That's a pretty sedate pace for startup, taxi and runup. The listed ATC frequency is pretty iffy at the departure end of the runway, so I've had to call at least once to delay my time, and once to move up my time (they said yes to both). Since I just called them on my phone, I can redial the # pretty easily.

Induction leaks should cause fuel balance that changes between partial throttle and WOT. If your #4 is peaking late at partial throttle, but the problem goes away or diminishes at full throttle, it could be an induction leak If you have the stock injectors, putting them back in while you're waiting might be informative. Realistically, IO-360's really should be pretty darn well balanced to begin with, with their distributed air intake (not sure what the name for that is) as opposed to Continental setup. Even with stock injectors, my GAMI spread at cruise is about 0.6 gph

Calling it 'hand-waving' or arbitrary does not make it so. I suspect you are looking at the graph of D/L vs V (Fig 2) in isolation. The slope of that line is mathematically derived previously from the lift/drag equations as the minimum of E/s (fuel flow) / velocity, and then he goes on to talk about the empiric observations by von Karmann that seem to support this theoretical conclusion. Again, whether fuel flow per unit velocity is an important measure to you or not is up for you to decide, and I think it's sort of useful but not something I want to minimax all the time.

Nope, I'm not sure! I've never planned any route through R airspace before (nor do I plan to), so it's not something I've thought about It was R-2513 over Hunter Liggett, and ATC's response when I asked was that I definitely needed to stay out of it, so I suppose that simply could have meant they weren't going to give me permission through it even if they could have... I guess that's pretty much the same as most TFR's

I had a funny a few years ago, I hadn't heard from ATC for a while and asked for a radio check. The controller laughed and suggested in the future to ask for an altimeter check, it sounds less anxious As to the TFR, most of the popup ones do suggest if you're squawking a discrete code and have permission from ATC you're okay, but I'd still be nervous enough to be double checking. I had an IFR flight last year where I got routed through an R area, and, for the life of me, I couldn't remember if I could enter and R area with ATC permission, so I asked. Turns out you can't, but ATC had somehow forgotten I was on an IFR plan and had expected me to skirt around it.

I guess I sort of get it? If you're gentle, the plane will eventually roll into the turn, so it allows you to fly hands off the yoke for a while, and I've seen some VFR guys do that in the flying club. IMC, though? I did think the wing spar was not broken. Not because of the Titanic thing, but because the video recording looked so strange I figured it must be a rolling shutter artifact, so I was surprised to see that the wreckage evidence did suggest both spars had broken.

Oh, no, AFAIK most of the prebuilt kits nowadays have demand regulators that work in a completely different way. The Oxymizer NC/masks with reservoirs are popular because they can just use regular regulators

Wow, I missed all that, and I used all the wrong search words, thanks guys

Did we miss this? It apparently came out last month, and they did suggest both spars had failed before the crash Report_CEN21FA360_103651_4_21_2023 8_30_04 PM.pdf

The nasal cannula with reservoirs (Oxymizer) 'store' oxygen in the small reservoirs while your exhaling, so in theory none is wasted. Once you get above a certain volume flow, though, the excess flow gets wasted during exhalation like a normal nasal cannula, so you start wasting an increasing fraction of your oxygen. I did the back-of-napkin calculations a few years ago, but IIRC the reservoir volume on my oxymizer is about 30cc, so for 10 breaths/min, that's about 300cc. So if your flow is above 0.3 L/min, you're starting to waste some oxygen between breaths. That tends to happen between 10-15k' You can still keep your O2 sats up by turning up the flow further, it just means your O2 supply doesn't last as long as you'd expect.

Just one small point, the typical common oxygen conserving nasal cannula are only useful up to about FL150, at which point they become oxygen-wasting like normal nasal cannula. That might be why your instructor specifically mentioned that altitude, even if it's not a very important reason

Just for future reference, minor alterations just require acceptable data (including the methods and standards in 43-13-1b), not approved data. I don't know what that means for the parts specifically, though

I got my O2 bottles here https://www.prorackgasproducts.com/gas-cylinders you can get a CGA540 valve if you want to use an industrial regulator and your own cannulae, that way you technically should not need a prescription to get oxygen (although many medical supply stores will still demand one anyway) This is the CGA540 regulator I use. Hard to find, and I didn't get it from the place: https://www.promolife.com/cga-540-industrial-oxygen-tank-regulator/ FWIW, I would NOT go into the flight levels with this setup, that should be left to prebuilt or certified systems

There's a difference between speaking freely and slander--the latter is obviously morally wrong and illegal. The problem, of course, is that slander is rarely the intention of people speaking freely (okay, most people). It is very, very easy, in the process of speaking freely about a problem, to inadvertently say something that ends up being slanderous, especially when there is a lot of emotion or when the information is changing quickly. As such, @redbaron1982 you probably did make a wise decision regardless removing the thread, but it would be helpful and informative if eventually we could get a recap on how events went down and what the conclusion was, at least in a way or time that is safe for you.