0TreeLemur

Perhaps differences in the stress distribution in the main spar, especially the occasional hard landing? With the Mooney landing gear directly connected to the wing plus the use of rubber pucks for shocks, there is probably more abrupt deflection that might cause sealant to locally debond from the aluminum. Plus, in the case of the C wing landings stresses are reduced by the landing gear "springiness". This almost certainly means that M wings experience a lot more shock loading than C wings. Just a WAG, not an aeronautical/structural engineer.

Thanks- I looked at the link. Which one? My inner CB would like to keep it under 0.1 AMU so I can spend more on airplane repairs.

My hangar faces an FBO that offers wifi. The FBO is 1000 ft. away and the signal is too weak at my hangar. Looking for suggestions on a CB-approved way to bridge to their xmitter and repeat it within my hangar? I could mount a high gain antenna inside my hangar with line-of-sight, without having to mount anything to the outside of the building, which I don't want to do. I'd like the elusive cheap-n-easy solution. Pulling this off could potentially make me a hero of my hangar complex. Ideas anyone?

I've used their services and recommend them as well.

Had mine done by Wetwingologists in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Still good with no leaks after 2 years. Winter is a nice time to take a trip to Florida.

I have an hour flight planned for tomorrow to keep the oil freshened up and the parts wet. Plus, I watched the SocialFlight webinar by Mike Busch last week where he pointed out the utility of doing mag-checks in cruise to diagnose the health of the ignition system using the engine monitor data logs. Since I'm going in for annual here in a couple of weeks, I thought that would be a good thing to do tomorrow. Supposed to be a nice day here in 'bama.

BTW- most of us are civilians too. You can learn to fly and join us!

Yes- I've used it on a tractor and for surveying. As @tmo pointed out, probably best to be in a different frequency band.

Great point. We'll definitely be forced to buy new equipment.

High enough you get good VOR reception though. Ground based GPS transmitters make a lot of sense for non-precision approaches provided there are 3 towers in range. A local transmitter at the airport could provide a fourth signal for reduced vertical error. Plus a ground-based gps-like system would not suffer from ionospheric delay errors. I'm dreaming- just like I'm dreaming of a modern engine when my a/c is due for overhaul in a few years.

This book saved me a pile of money last annual. Reading it armed me with the information needed to push a shop to do the right thing, not the expensive thing. You'll learn a lot. I look forward to the book that synthesizes all the stuff that Savvy is learning by harvesting our engine monitor data coupled with actual knowledge of problems and their solutions from their service.

Glad you were able to quickly diagnose and adjust. Distractions, fatigue and/or unusual conditions are the enemy of thoughtfulness. We all forget to do stuff. Identifying mechanisms to help us realize when one of these gets in the way of the normal decision making is crucial. I guess these mechanisms must be personalized to be effective. Checklists in my lap don't always get my attention.

My co-pilot keeps an eye on the Sensorcon. Great thing to have! In the air it always reads 0 before about 15 minutes after takeoff. If it ever doesn't I'll know something is up. Thanks for keeping this thread alive Dan! -Fred

Happy Groundhog Day to you too!

Precise INS systems remain expensive and subject to their own drift limitations. A better scheme might involve beacons on cell phone towers transmitting gps-like signals. Those signals would include the fixed coordinate of the transmitter rather than satellite ephemeris data, and time-coded messages. Because they are much closer to the receiver, jamming them would require a lot more power. These cell phone tower transmitters could get their reference time from the internet. They probably already do in addition to GPS. Receivers would be cheaper, lighter and probably more reliable than INS and could be integrated with GPS. This also provides GPS manufacturers supported by FAA mandate a chance to retire all current operating hardware and make some $$. Remember ADS-B? Seems so long ago.

I received a reply from her to a question I had about getting a TC100 inspected in early January. Brittain is still not up and running.

Not if you are in or above those pesky clouds.

An article written by Commercial Pilot Kate Murphy and published Jan 23, 2021 in the NYT that is relevant: GPS_spoof_article.txt

Like a KX-155?

Lots of ideas here.

Good job Ross! This is a pet peeve of mine and I wonder why more fields don't change. Freqs 122.8 and 122.9 ridiculously oversubscribed in many areas. Not only clogged with the training crash-n-dash traffic, but I've noticed a general lack of etiquette with folks talking about all kinds of stuff on CTAF frequencies,often 50+ nm away. Why can't 122.52 be a CTAF? What about 122.67? Why do so many airports have to be crammed onto two of the available 720 frequencies??? Major safety issue, especially when you are turning final, and some other aircraft announces a turn to final but either mumbles the airport name or doesn't say it at all.

That was a beautiful thing to behold. Great outcome as well.

What about the KNS-64? That would fit in my panel. Is that a stand-alone DME, or does it require other items like the -62?

Studies conclusively show that H2 cannot compete with electric (ground) vehicles independent from the source of charging power (fossil, wind, solar) there are instances where it can provide significant benefits. Small H2 generators installed on diesel powered vehicles that inject H2 into the intake air produces significant gains (3-8%) in fuel efficiency and reduction of particulate emissions by enhancing the combustion process. Batteries offer a much more efficient way to store electricity, and we are seeing continuous improvements in the technology. They just weigh too damn much for economical use in airplanes at present compared to liquid hydrocarbon fuels. LH2 is likened by rocket engine designers to a dragon. I recall reading that when the Apollo program decided to use LH2 for the second stage fuel, a sense of dread fell on the engine design team at Rocketdyne. LH2 is diabolically dangerous requiring special seals, gaskets, lubricants, etc. When a problem appears, it is usually too late to do anything about it. It also has the nasty tendency to infiltrate defects in metals and cause fracture propagation/embrittlement. Following the KISS principle, SpaceX chose RP-1 for their second stage fuel. What I want is a Diesel replacement for my O-360 in three years.

Wow. Al was really quite the "can-do" designer. Some of the design assumptions in the M-18 where pretty "interesting". Great article! Thanks Don! Fred