afward

@Tcraft938 not just fuel injected. Basically, it's a way to ensure safe mixture settings for any given power setting. There's a lot of math & science behind it, but in general you can trust that it'll help keep you out of trouble. https://www.jpinstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Mike-Bush-Red-BoxRed-Fin.pdf

Interestingly, Remdesivir was developed to target the pathway for RNA replication that the virus uses during the cell hijack. And for that reason, it "should" be useful against any RNA virus (though reality has a way of being difficult). It was, however, not developed for mers/sars... Gilead originally set out to treat Ebola (which is an RNA virus), and while they did secure approvals for production, it didn't actually help that much in practice. The record is currently held by Ervebo, which is for Ebola. That was a five year program. Estimates of 12-18 months to a vaccine are probably wildly optimistic. Even if they do, it'll be a stop-gap created at breakneck speed and without the normal protections (read: pre-human and dedicated phase 1 safety trials). Expect limited efficacy and possibly safety issues. As far as I can tell, our best bet is mono-clonal antibody treatments, of which there are several in development. We "might" see those in use at-scale by early Q4.

Dr. Derek Lowe (In The Pipeline blog; he's a drug discovery scientist) has an article talking about Remdesivir at https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/30/about-remdesivir-and-about-game-changers (actually he has several, if you look back through his articles). Putting it mildly, he's not impressed with the studies. In effect, we're rushing the process so much we're leaving a lot of holes in the studies, and may find out later the studies aren't actually telling us what we think they are.

If one reads the ICA linked from the EarthX page, there's a sentence on page 2 (end of the third paragraph): "Additionally, the aircraft charging system must have an over voltage protection device (OVPD)." They don't go into why, but the short version is they battery _cannot_ sink an over-volt event, whereas a lead-acid battery not just can, but does. The Vans Airforce guys discussed using crowbar circuits for this. That's probably the simplest, though if someone knows of a voltage-sensing circuit breaker we can use...

Fair point. Personally, I subscribe to the incentives model of economic theory, which is one of the simpler approaches (though it also suffers from lots of hidden variables, too). It does, however, let us make some generalized statements about what people will do and be more right than wrong. And really that's what I was getting at with the "understanding the human decision making process." Note that there are economists that disagree with the incentives model, largely on the basis that it's too simple to accurately model anything. I can't discount that, though I've found in my career (not in economics!) that the KISS theory usually provides the cleanest and most useful result.

Per the operator's manual, page 3-36 (page 68 of the PDF), it's a relatively flat torque curve (see the sea level section). Peak is probably just above 2600 RPM, but not by much; best guess is that it's basically at peak between 2550 and 2725 and falls off slowly on either side. For all practical purposes, any cruise setting will be in the power band, no matter what it is.

A good economist is also a good psychologist... One cannot forecast human behavior without understanding the human decision-making process. And not just everyone has been trained to have or consistently use a good process. In any case, I think the economists are in a bit of a bind because the human factors really aren't well-understood enough to be up to the task. But to the point of recovery, I think it really depends on the actions of those who were financially secure during the duration of the lock-down: If we continue to hold back, recovery will be slow or non-existent. If we return to normal or even elevated spending levels (especially if we choose local businesses and US-made products), recovery will be assured (though it may not be rapid). No, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night... Take it all with an appropriate grain (boulder?) of salt.

No offense intended, but I really hope you have to do just that. I've no illusions, though...

Binary thinking is incredibly common in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere), no matter the education or intelligence level involved. Don't get me wrong, we can be certain the left & right are actively looking for ways to spin this and other things to their advantage. Politicians gonna politic, to butcher a phrase (and the English language). But the truth is there's a huge range between both sides, and even other viewpoints that don't "fit" on that spectrum at all, so lacking any form of nuance is just a sad state of things today. To the thread topic, though, I think (and you've pretty much stated as much) that the salient point is, "It's not about you, the individual." To be blunt, from a public health perspective, none of us matter individually. The guidelines may help each of us not get sick while a vaccine or treatment is developed, but the actual goal is to reduce the infection & death rates. Not awesome to contemplate, but it's the truth. The front-line healthcare professionals I know (my wife being one of those) are nearly universally annoyed with the way this is playing out. On the one hand, mass media and InstaSnapYouTwitFace (did I miss one?) are absolutely freaking everyone out, making it hard to get real information out to people. On the other hand, people are doing _dumb_ things and making it worse, all while the healthcare system itself cannot handle a large epidemic (and the pro's know it).

Isn't that what Yetti said? That reminds me, I need to add some angry pixies to mine so it can be fully "fueled" for my next flight...

That is correct. I was merely replying to the tangent about how to account fixed costs. To the OP's question, I'd personally probably do a non-equity partnership so there are no questions about "is it a rental" or how many hours per month. That way the "membership" cost is a portion of the fixed costs (and all of the difference in monthly insurance cost), and the "usage" cost is a reasonable set-aside. Completely guessing, that would put the OP at something like $500/mo + $45/hr. If that's not possible, then I'd defer to the rest of the group here.

For a business that would be completely appropriate. For a hobby? Well, "you're doing it wrong." Unless of course you also enjoy an accounting hobby... And for those of us who do fly as a hobby, it's probably better to keep it simple: If FAR 61.113(c) lets a private pilot pro rata split it, it's an hourly cost (well, maybe "trip" cost when seen in aggregate). Everything else is just the price of admission. Doing it that way helps maintain the correct mindset with regard to cost sharing on trips.

I'm really not seeing a huge problem with the Primary category, so long as the plane is properly maintained (much like experimentals). I wouldn't buy one without giving it a good looking over, especially where it differs from Normal category choices, but hey, I did a pre-buy on my Normal category plane, so there's not a lot of difference there. Two questions I'm not quite getting the answer to (here or elsewhere): I get that primary category seems to allow experimental avionics (with the right magical incantations in the conversion paperwork), but what about airframe and engine mods? For example, a custom cowling? Or maybe SDS EFII on the engine? What operational limitations are applied to the new cert? Obviously no commercial use, but anything else? "No passengers for 40 hours after a major change"? I'm not planning to do any of this myself; just trying to understand it a little better and my Google-fu is weak today...

We were talking about "Pipe Dream" here, right? I must mention that I don't intend to offend with my "Not Mooney" E-AB suggestion. I get that it's a big departure and really kills the product in some people's eyes (not to mention the cost of the engineering work involved). My concern is more with "If Mooney shipped an E-AB product, what would it need to look like to be competitive while still paying the bills?" Maybe my take is wrong, and I'm OK with that. In any case, I'd argue the RV-10 is the most direct competition to the J-level E-AB idea, and without a lot of engineering work the RV-10 will win nearly every time: Saint Aviation in Florida can build a nice IFR RV-10 (with the "builder" showing up for the requisite hands-on bits to meet the 51% rule) for $269,000, and it would be done in about a month. There's not a snowball's chance in a lit furnace that Mooney can touch that with the current design scaled to mid-body size. Technically, one could compare to a Lancair Mako if one chooses a long-body and IO-550G, but I don't know if that would really be competitive: A similarly-equipped Mako would be about $344,000 with "Fly-away build assist...", and would carry more at a slightly faster speed using slightly less fuel. Their FAQ says roughly 6 months to complete. Mooney does a little better here, but it's still clearly not a win. Ah well, I have my (vintage) Mooney and will care for it to the best of my ability, so this is all just a neat diversion into "what if..."; I don't want my plane to think I'm not happy with her...

Well... If I'd wanted to suggest a "pure" Mooney homebuilt, I'd start with an Ovation Ultra and not make many (any?) changes. That's really not what I'm suggesting here... I see it as "start with the J drawings and create a kit that's as easy to build as we can make it", so anything to make construction easier would be a win. The suggested structural changes are entirely for the purpose of simplifying construction for the homebuilder (well, except the lighter spar, but that probably goes without saying). Even with those changes, though, the end result is a Mooney in performance, economy, looks, and (importantly) handling. It not having the nearly aerobatic-capable main spar, a cage, and a pivoting tail are sacrifices suggested in the name of making it a viable homebuilding product. I think once one does all the math, one will find that the pivoting tail isn't substantially better than pivoting the h.stab on the 1/4 chord (similar to airliners). It's a complexity to construction that doesn't buy enough to justify its existence. To be honest, the short- and mid-body designs are great, but I wouldn't want to go back to them as-is for a production product. There's not enough pricing headroom in the long-body designs to justify their cost, so how would the smaller designs have even a slight chance of success? This is really why I think re-engineering to simpler construction methods is so important for a hypothetical homebuilt kit. A RV-10 is stated as a 2000 hour project, with the actual range going from about 1400 to 6000+. I don't think many homebuilders would be OK with a stated 6000 hour project (theoretical range being 4000 to "I'll be done after I lose my medical" hours).

I've been toying around (in my head!) with the idea that Mooney should bring back the J as a E-AB kit plane, but with simplified construction. How? Ditch the cage can convert to standard stringers & longerons. This will probably impact cabin dimensions a bit, and "may" reduce weight a touch, but primarily it'll make construction easier. Convert the tail to non-pivoting and instead make the h. stab move. This should simplify construction and might reduce weight. Redesign the main spar to reduce weight. It can take a big reduction and still be strong enough. Add a pilot door. Make both doors a little bigger. Switch to a modern airfoil to improve efficiency. Apply the CAFE Mooney mods. Target usage of an IO-390 in the kit (though builders are allowed to use a different engine if desired, at the cost of potentially needing to mod the cowl & engine mount). With all that, Vs0 should be a few miles per hour lower and cruise speed should go up a good bit, plus the fuel burn should be nearly the same (or better, with the right engine mods). The "competition" would be RV-10, Lancair Mako, and Evolution Piston. The RV-10 might be a little cheaper (more expensive engine, but the kit isn't too bad), but would be slower on a higher fuel burn. The Mako would be faster, but much more expensive and higher skill (and builders that choose a 6-cylinder engine would have as much performance or more). The Evolution is a whole different class and is even more expensive (and again, with a turbo 6-cylinder engine builders could have equivalent performance).

A round parachute is so large (and non-rigid) that the pressure fields & gradients change moment by moment and parcel by parcel across the entirety of the captured area. In other words, it's a really turbulent (downright chaotic) flow, which is great for generating drag. Our planes' inlets aren't that big. In fact, a perfect inlet would have zero turbulent flow at cruise speeds. Real world we just try to minimize the turbulence. One way we do that is by limiting the size of the inlet so the pressure field is relatively uniform across the inlet (at least at a given distance from the lip; obviously the center of the flow won't have the same pressure as the edge). All that aside, having slept on it I realize your idea could be easily tested and might have some merit: The Sam James RV-10 cowl is both faster and cooler than stock, yet it does not have cowl flaps (stock does). It would probably be pretty easy to modify to include an upper deck bypass system in the cooling plenum (I'd think it would need to re-accelerate the bypass flow and dump it as close to the cowl outlet as possible, though). Now that I've thought of it, I'd be curious to know the results of such an experiment. Might be worth a post to Van's Air Force to see if someone will try it.

Yep, hence the reference to the clever people. I more thinking of the simplicity of the arrangement; Make the cone bigger than the inlet, and contour the inlet throat to fit. One moving part. In theory, having the cone stick out of the inlet can help to optimize the airflow around the lip (it would help move the pressure gradient), but I might be wrong about that. The other idea I had was NACA inlets on either side of the cowl, which would be passive but as I said earlier probably has been considered before and rejected for good reasons.

^^^ Awesome ^^^ As I recall, the pressure drop target across the cylinders is usually about 1/2 psi. That's not much, but is sufficient to ensure good cooling at speed. This is, of course, why leaks in your baffles wreck so much havoc on CHTs. I still think a cone in a round inlet is the best design (some clever people in Burbank used that one for a, uh, "high speed" application back in the late 50's). It just won't work as well on our planes due to prop clearance concerns.

That might be beyond my skill to answer. Yes, but real-world is messy so it's never truly stable? Honestly I'm not sure.

If anything, I'd say the open end will experience slightly higher force than the closed end, primarily because it will experience more turbulence and a region of reversed flow that the closed end won't have.

Well, I got a permission error trying to load that. CAFE's Mooney cowl is a thing of beauty, though.

Don't think of it from the perspective of flows. Flows are a result of pressure gradients. So it's better to think about it in terms of "where is the pressure" and "how will that pressure move" (yeah, I know, sounds like a flow... stick with me). For a cowl with a flap, you're not changing the airflow so much as changing the pressure gradient in the lower deck of the cowl (and specifically the outlet area; some cowl flaps even create a pocket of even lower pressure due to their effect on the exterior airflow). By opening the flap, the lower deck pressure is reduced, allowing a lower upper deck pressure to sustain the same flow rate (vs. cruising with the flap closed). It's really elegant in its simplicity. All that said, I'd _much_ prefer a passive system... ducted cooling plenum and a cowl with CFD-designed ramps will do everything we need without the extra drag of an oversized fixed system or an open cowl flap.

Wow, I missed what you were saying there. Makes sense, but I still see issues: 1) It doesn't take a lot of bypass air to completely wreck cooling flow from upper to lower deck. I'd think you'd want to duct the bypass air down to the outlet so this isn't an issue. That has drag implications. 2) You're always going to flow the "same" amount of air at a given airspeed, which means the flowrate at cruise will be quite a bit higher than necessary (because sizing is controlled by Vx climb cooling requirements). That also has drag implications. 3) Both the above items mean substantial drag at higher speeds, with spillage being a possibility if conditions are right. In theory, cowl flaps sidestep all of that by allowing the inlet & outlet to be sized for cruise, while still allowing for enough flow to cool during a Vx climb. Now, someone with a CFD model can probably work through all this and come up with a working design. What I don't know is if it'll actually be any better than what we have today.