Schllc

Hector at aerocomfort told me he ordered 25’ of 52” wide material. This sound about right to you? also, did you use the 1/2” material. If so was it weight or space?

Sensible is a very subjective term in aviation. if you get the use and enjoyment of the plane for say five years and sell it for 100k less than you invested is that worth it to you? It’s just an example for the exercise. There is a number there that makes it sensible and nonsensical for all of us. I would not be overly concerned about hidden reasons your airframe is not worth restoring. 1991 in airplane years is not that old. I do admit, the specter of not being able to fuel my plane in seven years or sooner would make me pause as well.

A lot more than double, closer to 4-5x the cost. That’s if you can pay cash. turbines are an order of magnitude more. No bigger bang for your buck per mile than a Mooney.

That’s true for any Mooney out there now.

I’d invite you to look at it a litttle bit differently. assuming money is not “the” controlling reason. And assuming you have no immediate plans to sell and are capable of holding the asset. If you renovate your plane and even drop a new engine, you would spend 300k tops. for that 300k you will have a practically brand new airplane, that you know every squeak and purr. It will be done exactly to your preferences and special appointments. it will be just like a brand new car x100. It will also be very easy to sell later and probably retain the value over any in her age group you can of course sell it and buy something quicker and probably save at best 100k, more likely 40k after you run through squawks, upgrades deferred maintenance etc. so yes, it’s still real money, but even then you will only be close to what you really wanted, with some compromises. or fly her like she is until you have to do something. No wrong answer, but a restoration ant being able to pick a la carte isn’t all bad. do you really think a gas will be banned in 7 years there?

Couldn’t agree more. the best $1500 I ever spent.

Don’t disagree with anything you said. I would just add that the ground risk is pretty small, and a lot more are injured in other transportation modalities than would ever be hurt by badly maintained aircraft. As for the passengers…. Well, they know the person they are getting in the plane with! I just think harsh consequences are ultimately much more effective that punishing the law abiding/competent among us…

Completely agree with that unfortunate reality, but if bubba wants to experiment with his life, I’m ok with letting him.

I happen to be pretty libertarian on this issue. I mean we are not flying hundred of paying passengers around with a 100,000# of fuel. I know there would be some awful consequences to that path. I also know that my plane will be as well maintained and safe as it currently is, if not more so. I have rebuilt engines in everything I have ever owned prior to plane ownership. I absolutely have confidence that I could properly overhaul my engine if it was allowed. There are also more than a few tasks on my plane that while capable, I do not want to do! I was more than happy to pay someone to reseal my tanks! I also have no sympathy for the dolt who shouldn’t do it, but does. We all know people who if they told us they did the work we would feel comfortable, and we also know people who if they told us we wouldn’t get within 100’ of that plane! I still love them, but I know I don’t trust their attention to detail. People who do shoddy maintenance and pistol whipped annuals will pay the price when they sell their planes. It’s relatively easy to tell if a plane has been well maintained or not. When I bought my Aerostar I didn’t pay for a pre buy. Partially because of what I was doing with it before I used it, but mostly because I looked intently at the logs, personally inspected it and met the owner, and the main maintenance provider, and lastly and most importantly, it had been flown at least once a week for the last year. enough of another feckless bureaucratic hot mess over regulating. Loosen the reigns already…. caveat emptor

There is absolutely no doubt that if owners were allowed to maintain their own planes, lots of abuse of the privilege would occur. It is human nature. However, just like any other regulated item, efficacy is the goal. Example: Allow owners to do their own maintenance. If an owner does something afoul of the FAR, first offense a warning, second a substantial fine and loss of license for a year. Third time loss of license for life. Not exactly a suggestion, but anything you incentivize you get more of, and what you punish you get less of.... Why punish all the people who are competent and responsible to prevent morons from killing themselves? What happened to natural selection? That being said, I would just be happy with a realistic list of what owners can do, as well as bi annual inspections.

If this change were to actually occur, it would have an impact on the behavior and service of many shops. I have found a provider I am comfortable with. They are honest, generally on time, and above all, the communication is excellent. I pay for this, but I am happy to because there is nothing worse than having your plane down.

Is it duration alone or a combination of duration and communication? Years ago I scheduled an annual with a very well revered shop, the owner promised me a turn around so quick I could wait in a hotel. One belligerent phone call and 10 weeks later I get texted a video of a loose turbo housing. No text, no explanation, no suggestion. Followed by no response to my questions, call or emails for three more weeks, only to find out they had not ordered the turbo bc they needed my permission to do so…. The captive market nature of this genre, shapes customer service, and not for the better. Shame on me for being so optimisticly suckered…

There is no doubt in my mind that the things I choose to do on my own airplanes, are done as well if not better, than any mechanic that has ever touched it. I do not tinker with things beyond my comfort zone, and I always consult with my AP, but I’ll be damned if I am going to ground myself in some foreign airfield over something I can easily and competently address. Even things that I do not feel comfortable with, I am eager to assist or get involved so I understand what is being done, and can inspect the process. I had this delusion in the beginning that aircraft mechanics would be super competent and diligent. Much to my surprise, they are human. There are good ones, bad ones, some that pay attention to detail, and those that can’t wait for 5:00 to punch out. I have found rags, tools, loose bolts, old parts etc in my cowling and plane after service. I realized very quickly that most are inured to some extent with the “life and death” issue and are just going through the motions. You absolutely must inspect, what you expect. Common sense, doesn’t appear to be, so I understand the rules serve a valuable function, but good decision making isn’t limited to pilot choices…

”inspect” is a very subjective word. that being said I’m sure every single airplane owner over all of time has checked each tire pressure every single time prior to flying. I do “inspect”, that is what preflight is…. just saying that something like this would be very easy to miss and I suspect it was not in the position it was when he took the photo, for all the other “inspections”. A preflight can take hours if one chooses….

a slight tangent…. 113tn had a very checkered history, no pun intended… the owner who sold it auction years ago, In my opinion, was not honest. I was the one who won the auction, and subsequently found out about the engine failure that occurred in air, DURING the last day of the auction. he claimed to be a physician running multiple clinics while accumulating something like 5000 hours over three years in multiple airplanes. this plane had multiple prop strikes and so many misrepresentations, that I refused to compete the transaction.

Man, I’ll be honest, my preflight likely would not have caught that. do you crawl under the wing for every preflight?

Or you can just dial your governor up to 2700 and increase the fuel flow. Voila!! ps. Zero amu’s

While there is always something to learn from these analysis, the critical element I am always left asking is why? why would one take off in heavy snow, whiteout conditions at night? I can’t in my wildest imagination see a scenario that I would make that decision. This makes me wonder the why, and what detail is missing from the story? I am certainly guilty of some bad decisions over the last 10 years I have been flying. I have found myself in situations that I did not predict, and fortunately everything turned out ok, but how close was I in those scenarios to being a statistic? That being said, none of them were so glaringly “wrong” at take off, and while none were planned for, all but one, were merely more than I asked for, not near death. One example was I flew from Alaska to Louisiana without stopping, but for fuel, in a TBM. I was not the PIC on the last few legs, and when we landed I had not accommodated for the time change and took off for home (FL) in my Mooney. I did not want to land at night, because I just don’t fly at night much, and not only did I find myself landing at night, but with less fuel than would have made me comfortable and malfunctioning landing lights at the airport. weather was nice, and it was a non event, but what could have gone wrong? As informative as these stories are, and as instructional as they can be, I am always left wanting more information, because the story usually sounds too bizarre for reality…

@Jetpilot86 I love this paint scheme that is beautiful!

Like this? it is actually my company logo and while I am from Louisiana, I was never a big fan of the saints. Fans had bags on their heads when I was growing up

I’m late with the comment so the decision is likely made, but I absolutely vote for the darker scheme. I understand the thought of the black making the plane hotter, but don’t believe if it’s hangars it makes much of a difference, even while on the ground. Maybe if you spend an hour or two on the ramp it may make a few degrees difference, but not enough to make me choose something I don’t want. I finalized my paint scheme…

Hahaha! may need military experience to know that one.

I’m pretty sure I can use anything burn rated, and that fits, I just didn’t think to look at the spacing when the panel was out, so I don’t know what thickness I can use or how much to order. I also don’t think I want to replace with the original material. It literally turned to powder in between the foil sheets. It’s completely gone.

I am in the process of redoing the interior and windows of my plane prior to painting. When I pulled the side panel off the existing insulation has turned to powder, and it needs to be replaced. I didn’t think at the time to look at what thickness would work. Some looked like it’s cut between the frame tubes, and some looks like it goes over the tubes. I plan on doing this myself, so I will do a much better job than the factory, in the gaps and awkward spaces. There are a few options on spruce and it’s sold in 4 square foot increments, however I have no idea how much to order, or which thickness will actually fit everywhere. I would also like to put something on the floor under the carpet if that’s practical/possible. I prefer the non precut versions, but I want the material that will provide the most sound attenuation as possible, I am much less concerned with weight. I am replacing the windows with .25” for sound, so I may as well go the whole 9 yards. Has anyone done this, or do they know what will work? need some help!

with regard to the "car alternator" i have owned probably 50 vehicles in the last 40 years, and i have replaced three alternators. i have had 11 planes in the last 10 years and have replaced four alternators. i think the car ones may be more reliable!!!