jaylw314

I'd also point out that if you're renting, flying clubs and schools generally insure the plane (although I think non-owned aircraft insurance is still a good idea and very cheap)

Assuming flying isn't your job, remember that after your training your flying will regress back to something like 50-100 hours a year. Sure, the cost-effectiveness of ownership improves during training when you're committed to flying heavily, but life won't allow you to keep up that level of commitment continuously. I don't think I fly enough at about 60 hours a year, but my mechanic says that's more than the majority of recreational owners he deals with. I'd suggest renting for your PPL -- you probably won't have an idea of what your mission will end up looking like and what you need until you've gotten some time under your belt, and the cost of renting will not likely be worse than the costs of ownership anyway. After that, a flying club is a good way to test out a couple different types of planes to get a feel of what you like I'd definitely suggest buying a plane if you do IFR, though.

I could use that same argument to borrow like there's no tomorrow if there's no...well, tomorrow

if I were passive-aggressive, I'd just chirp out a cheerful "See and Avoid!"

That's fricking hilarious! In fairness, it may be that there are enough Mooney drivers out there who bomb onto final at speed, so people may be expecting that. The first M20J I looked at the guy said his normal landing is over the numbers at 100 KIAS I probably wouldn't be making friends if I called 'on final at Cessna speed'

Hmm, okay, I guess that depends on your definition of easier! My wife got annoyed because I started making little aluminum doohickeys for stuff around the house

OK, that's a good point, I guess aluminum fabrication and riveting is more time intensive, even if it's easier to teach/learn

I can't say I agree. My experience with sheet aluminum work and pounding rivets in an RV build was shock at how easy and straightforward it is to learn and perform at an ideal level with only minimal learning and practice. There's a reason they made P-51's that way, it was easy to teach people who'd never done that type of work before, e.g. Rosie the Riveter. I haven't done much composite work, but from what I hear it takes a level of knowledge, anticipation, and skill to that is hard to learn out of a book and without a lot of practice

In Arizona, you must get first degree burns over your entire body just getting in the plane!

I made some spreadsheets using Google Sheets. That way I can update them from anywhere, and my shop can peruse them from any browser

I'm a cheap enough bastard that I haven't bought a filter cutter. I just fly up to my IA's shop and ask if I can use his. He says he's okay with me doing that because I drain the filter for at least a full day so I don't make a mess with his cutting tool, and it's nice to get a second set of (better) eyeballs on anything in the filter.

I bought some of those ETA switch covers from Shapeways and I still have a couple left. They do fit perfectly on the switches. I can send you one if you need? I wish I knew something about CAD, I keep trying to learn it, but whenever I start my brain explodes and I wake up a few hours later

Interesting! Although I was just asking about in general, not this specific approach

Am I understanding correctly that , even if you're a Category A aircraft, if you fly your approaches > 90 knots you still have to use Category B minimums anyway? I've always used Cat B for my minimums since I usually shoot for 100 knots. The argument that the Cheyenne going missed didn't make it illegal for the M20J to attempt the approach is a straw man argument. The M20J never could have done anything illegal because it never landed. The point here is that the Cheyenne going missed made it less smart to attempt the approach. And while that might not be a good enough reason on its own, that is also a straw man argument. The known facts are that the weather was below minimums, at night, in an unfamiliar aircraft without autopilot approach aids to an airport with no approach lights, so it was never the only reason.

Remember the 80/20 rule. 80% of complaints come from 20% of people, so based on this thread I might argue that there must be a lot of more people out there doing okay with ownership

The top becomes warm, yes, but it's always cooler than the oil pan since heat is always going in there and out the top. If there's enough moisture inside that the dew point of the humid air inside rises above the temp of the top, you'll get condensation, even if the top is warmer than the outside air. I suppose if you had one of those dehumidifers that blows dry warm air in through the breather, that would be the ideal for constant heating

IIRC the concerns about leaving engine heaters is that they usually heat the oil more than the rest of the engine. Any moisture in the oil then condenses on the colder parts of the engine, so there can be a corrosion risk. In theory, heaters that heat up the top part of the motor too should mitigate this, but it's hard to imagine heating up every single part of the motor to avoid condensation

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't aware of any M20F's out there with Continental motors?

I'm not sure why that's funny but I LOL'd there

Interesting, I didn't realize there was a multiweight Victory line. I thought X/C was their multiweight line and Victory would be their straight-weight line. FWIW, I use Victory 100AW. It's motor oil Congratulations!

Don't forget you are the primary confounder here. You're selectively getting information from E-AB people who post videos on YouTube. To assume that is representative of E-AB pilots is fallacious, and as a potential (and failed so far) E-AB pilot myself, I find that to be a pejorative position. I've been to EAA chapter meetings and I can't say the degree of recklessness and/or risk taking is noticeably different than the other pilot groups I've met. The only additional risk all E-AB pilots take with certainty beyond that of other pilots is that they are willing to fly in aircraft that are built uncertified. If you're taking the position that uncertified aircraft can be safer, then even that doesn't apply.

The approach course for the RNAV-A was lined up with his course, so less distance to fly? Seems a silly reason, but I've heard sillier.

My understanding is that ice builds up first on sharp leading edges, someone mentioned the wingtip fence and the OAT probe. At least, that's the case on GA aircraft, there may be different effects at F-15 speeds

My IO-360 already has a BSFC of about 0.4 lbs/hp-hr. Car tech will only get you percentage points more. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumption , the Ford Ecoboost only gets 0.40 lbs/hp-hr. Even an older Prius only gets you down to 0.37, but that's a 76 hp 1.5L motor.

Common sense dictates that common sense is present half as often in the EA-B community, then Either that or common sense is neither common nor sensical