ilovecornfields

That’s what I thought. Or the speedbrakes being “intermittent.” (Failed terminally on my second day of transition training). Or the prop RPM being too low by 50 and the fuel flow being too low causing high CHTs (310 HP STC was done as part of the annual). Brake disk was worn too low as well but I let that one go. Spent about $10k within the first month after I bought the plane after a $13k prebuy/annual from a shop that is touted on this site as being beyond reproach. I’ve mentioned it before, but when I called the same shop to give him a chance to make it right, he hung up on me. The one smart choice I did make was using the savvy mx service so at least I have everything well documented including pictures, receipts and JPI data.

Advanced Aircraft in Troutdale, OR has a good track record fixing tank leaks. They fixed mine the same day (even though one of the other shops previously mentioned in this thread missed it at Annual two weeks prior).

Thanks for all the responses. I’m going to try the Prop Park and I’ll let you all know how it goes.

I’m going going to drop of a passenger at Van Nuys next week on my way to Carlsbad. Does anyone have any experience with the FBOs there? It looks like there’s no public ramp and I really don’t need any gas, so I assume I’ll end up paying something for the privilege of using the facilities for 15 minutes.

This was not my experience either. My plane spent 4 weeks in his shop for a PPi and annual. I asked him to do the 310 HP STC which he said would take less than a week. 4 weeks later the plane was still in the shop. STC was done incorrectly. Fuel flow was set too low which results in really high CHTs (he said he didn’t even check it), RPM maxed out at 2650 instead of 2700. He assured me the speedbrakes were ok and I ended up spending $5000 to overhaul them within a week of buying the plane. Brake disc was worn below limits and there were several other airworthiness issues that were missed. There was also a big fuel leak he missed. Spent over $12k at his shop and when I asked him to “make it right” he hung up on me. I’m glad you had a good experience there, but I did not. If it hadn’t been for all the praise and superlatives used when referring to Don Maxwell on this site I would have had the inspection done at the MSC I had used previously, but I had the plane flown to Texas because I wanted the “best.” In the end, I ended up flying the plane to the other MSC to have Don’s shoddy work repaired at my expense and kicked myself for not having used them in the first place and wasting my time and money with Don Maxwell. He may have the knowledge, but quality control and customer service are horrendous.

I didn't see it mentioned already, but I would talk to a broker and explain your situation. Tim Lundquist at Strategic Aviation and Mark Woods at Delta Aviation were very helpful and both were extremely knowledgeable and professional. They clearly know WAY more than I do about airplanes and what they're worth. I did not have the same positive experiences that other people have reported with All American because every time I spoke with them they would say "make an offer" whereas Mark and Tim both seemed genuinely in finding the best fit for me, even if it wasn't the plane they were trying to sell at the time.

Those are all good points, thank you. Not sure what to do about the camshaft SB either but hopefully I can find one that isn't affected by it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After pondering the Bravo vs Ovation topic for a while I've decided that an Ovation would probably be the best fit for me. I'm hoping to spend about $175-200k on it (seems like some on the higher end have really nice panels or FIKI). I'm located in CA so it would be nice to find one nearby, but I'm not holding my breath for that. If anyone has any suggestions please let me know. My email is the same as my username@gmail.com. Thanks, Raul Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If anyone is bringing an Ovation and would be willing to let my wife and son sit in it please let me know. I'm trying to get them excited about getting one and we only live a few miles away. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I was actually replying to Don Kaye's post. I apologize for my poor attempt at humor. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right now I'm leaning toward the Ovation. I have about 450 hours in an Arrow II so I think it will be an easier transition to the Ovation and it will be sufficiently more plane than the Arrow to keep me satisfied for a while. If I end up feeling like we've outgrown it in the next few years then it may be time to look into a Bravo (or twin!) at that point. Now if I could only find an instructor for my transition training. [emoji6] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for all the thoughtful replies. Does anyone have experience owning both aircraft? Would be curious what motivates someone to switch between one or the other? Also wondering if anyone has recent overhaul costs for the two engines -- the brief research I did online looks like the Bravo would cost significantly more at overhaul. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I apologize if this has been covered before, but my unrefined search skills did not yield an answer. After much lurking and some extensive effort to clean and lubricate my flying skills after a 10 year hiatus (is that the appropriate term?), I've finally managed to get my medical, BFR, IPC and get my wife and son to fly in a plane with me and agree that we should buy one (they both want to take flying lessons after their first plane ride -- not sure if that is due to their love of flying or their lack of confidence in the pilot). I live in California about 1.5 hours north of Santa Barbara. I have been looking at planes in the $150-175k range an it looks like there are several Ovations and Bravos in this range (I contemplated a 252 briefly but I think I like the longer body mooneys more). My plan was to mostly use the trips to fly within CA, NV, AZ. It would be nice to be able to go places like Big Bear and Mammoth although I was hoping to have some short(er) field capability as well (like Oceano and Sea Ranch). I like the simplicity of the NA engine, but also appreciate the added value the turbo would bring, especially during the summer trying to fly East over the mountains. I was wondering if anyone could comment on the difference between these two planes with respect to cost (hourly, annual, turbo overhaul, engine overhaul) and if there is a big difference with respect to sea level short field performance between these two planes (I downloaded copies of the respective POH, but I was wondering if anyone had actual experience in the two). Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Raul

My apologies. I didn't mean to take my ball and bat home, just got tried of saying the same thing over and over again and having people give bizarre responses that seem to miss the point and just be argumentative. Maybe it's all Siri's fault. I appreciate the PMs and glad I'm not the only one who advocates using well established technology to make flying safer. When I was in paramedic school we use to joke that all you needed to know was "air goes in and out, blood goes round and round, oxygen is good, blue is bad." Things got a little more complicated in med school and two residencies but I think if you're going to oversimplify things you could probably do a lot worse. As long as you promise not to have lung disease or a heart attack you'll probably do ok with too much oxygen in your airplane for a short time. Perhaps we can all agree that it is beneficial to know your hypoxia symptoms and to carry a pulse oximeter, although I would caution people that some of the "hypoxia symptoms" are symptoms of a heart attack as well so if your "hypoxia symptoms" don't resolve with oxygen it may be a good idea to get down sooner rather than later. Thank you to all those who took the time to respond to me. Raul Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

John, Curious why you would recommend "learning your own hypoxia symptoms" instead of (as opposed to in addition to) "buy a $40 pulse ox, check it against a calibrated one, and use it to spot check your oxygen levels during flight and adjust your flow rate accordingly?" There's clearly something I'm missing here because I've received a lot of negative feedback regarding my suggestion to use a pulse ox to titrate your oxygen levels and I have to admit I don't really get the pushback (other than the fact that it's the internet and people tend to do things online that the would never do in person). Maybe some people are slow adopters to new technology (if that's the case, I think I still have my KLN-88 "IFR certified" LORAN-C to sell you). Maybe it adds excitement to either use too much or too little oxygen instead of being told the right amount (which is surprising considering how precise people are about FF, ROP or LOP). I can't imagine someone saying "don't waste your time with the EGT, too much fuel never hurt anyone" I've treated lots of pilots from young Navy pilots to old GA pilots and I have to say that many of you aren't as healthy as you think you are (sorry, but it's true!). While I agree with everything said and I think an altitude chamber is a great experience, depending on "hypoxia symptoms" is less reliable than a pulse ox (just like troponin is much more accurate than myoglobin or CPK. Why would you depend on a less sensitive and specific test when you have access to one that is clearly superior?). A few months ago I saw an active GA pilot with a 92% oxygen saturation at sea level who told me he didn't use a pulse ox because he "don't need it." I guess he must have read House of God and subscribed to the "if you don't take a temperature, you can't find a fever" philosophy. Unfortunately, aviation tends to be unforgiving with people who take this approach. Ok, I'm done ranting. I promise this is my last post on the subject. I'm going to use my pulse ox and I'll let everyone make their own choices. Just disappointed to see something so simple turn into something so complicated. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow, I never imagined it would be so controversial to propose spending less than $50 on a pulse ox and using it to titrate your oxygen to a normal oxygen saturation. With respect to the harms of hyperoxia, I have to disagree with you (and so does a vast amount of medical literature). It's been shown to be a potent coronary vasoconstrictor, is associated with acute lung injury and is associated with worse outcomes for several medical conditions. The heart association removed their recommendation to give oxygen to chest pain patients (unless hypoxic) several years ago for precisely these reasons. Medscape and UpToDate both provide good reviews of this topic if you are interested. How does this apply to aviation? Oxygen is a drug. Use it appropriately and use a pulse ox to make informed decisions. I'm not trying to scare anyone, I'm just advocating appropriate use of oxygen using cheap and readily available tools. The concept of "if a little is good, more is better" rarely applies in medicine and this is no exception. I apologize for taking such a controversial position on the subject and advocating safe evidence-based use of a medical device. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am absolutely NOT making the argument that using oxygen at altitude is a bad thing. What I'm saying is that you should use oxygen with the goal of maintaining a NORMAL oxygen saturation. We're learning now that both hypoxia and hyperoxia can be harmful and with the availability of inexpensive and reliable pulse oximeters we should be monitoring oxygen saturation and titrating the flow rate in order to maintain a normal SpO2. I like to use 96-98% although some would go lower. I don't think there is anyone here who would have a 96-98% oxygen saturation at 10k feet without using supplemental oxygen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, picture didn't go through on the previous post. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, increasing oxygen concentration (FiO2) does increase CO2 levels, especially in people with lung disease. The mechanism is somewhat complicated but it has to do with hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and the fact that blood vessels in the lungs normally constrict and direct blood away from areas of the lung with low partial pressures of oxygen. If you increase the FiO2 (fraction of inspired oxygen concentration) then it counteracts this effect and in areas where the lung is poorly ventilated, blood flow will increase to those areas, creating a right to left shunt and allowing blood that has not had the opportunity to exchange CO2 into the systemic circulation. This causes an increase in CO2 levels, proportional to the degree of lung disease and the FiO2. In young healthy lungs, this effect is small but as you deviate away from that the effect is significant. The curves below illustrate this effect starting with healthy lungs at the bottom and severe COPD at the top. How does this apply to you? Don't use more oxygen than you need in order to maintain normal oxygen saturation. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This discussion is really interesting (and that video of the gear up landing was really sobering...especially how that guy kept touching that bent prop in total disbelief over what had just happened). As we all know, it usually isn't "one thing" that causes accidents to happen. There's a guy named James Reason that used this "Swiss cheese" model to explain how accidents happen which I find very compelling. I think one of the concepts it illustrates is that there is no single intervention that can be 100% effective at preventing an accident (the holes in the cheese), and even if you have several layers, they all have holes and if the "accident trajectory" lines up just right you can still have an accident. In other words, the only 100% effective way of preventing gear up landings is to fly a fixed-gear plane. It's just a matter of how many layers of cheese you're willing to put up with and where the holes are. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I couldn't help myself. As a reward for reading the entire thread an old GI joke came to mind (not sure if it applies here). Q: What's an anoscope? A: A hollow tube with an a**hole on both ends. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow! I guess work hour restrictions have certainly made an impact in terms of quality of life. As an intern on the surgery service I worked close to 100 hours a week and barely had enough time to see my wife or pick up the right dog from "doggie daycare" (you bring home the wrong dog ONE TIME and you never stop hearing about it...) I would still argue that getting 200 hours to fly as a surgical intern is the exception rather than the rule, but kudos to you for making time for your passion! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably not the answer you want to hear, but with 100 hours and no instrument rating I think it's unlikely that you'll be able to do your residency and stay current in a high performance airplane. Personally, I had over 400 hours and a multiengine instrument rating before I started my residency and ended up taking 5 years off because I didn't think I would be safe to fly given all the time constraints I had as a resident. Just like in medicine, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD (of course if you're going into derm, then you should have plenty of time!). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Oldguy (and I mean that in the nicest possible way). That's exactly what I was looking for! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk