1001001

Wish I had heard of them when my pump gave up the ghost last year. Hopefully I won't need another rebuild, as the last one had been in the airplane without overhaul since the mid 1980s. I ended up buying a new one from Spruce and getting a core credit, which was quite expensive (I needed it fast).

Fair enough for an inflight fire. I agree I'd put up with a lot to be able to put out a fire and get back on the ground in one (uncarbonized) piece. A ground fire would be a slightly different story; I'd want a non-corrosive and nontoxic extinguishing agent for sure, in a hangar or ramp fire.

I don't particularly care for the budget solution to be government owned; that usually just hides the fees from the user and puts the local taxpayer on the hook. But the fact is that most airports in the US are owned by municipalities or county governments, and to a degree, should IMO offer a basic level of services to the taxpayer while attempting to recoup costs from users. That said, my home airport (which is government owned) actually is self supporting (according to the airport Board). The fuel concessions and hangar rents are enough to cover the operation and maintenance of the entire facility. We are fortunate to have a rather large aviation community in the area, and three very busy flight schools on the field, which definitely helps matters.

I can't find any information about what chemical compound is used/generated on activation. They claim their unit works "at the molecular level." I guess their marketers used to write for "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Most extinguishing agents other than water rely on direct chemical interference with the combustion reaction. Without more technical information I wouldn't want to make a decision on safety of use in an aircraft or other confined space. They also say the compound is "non-corrosive," but what does that mean, exactly? It's well known that normal dry chemical extinguishers will corrode the heck out of aircraft structures, and the residue gets in every nook and cranny. I'd need a pretty specific statement from them saying the unit doesn't create a residue that would corrode aircraft equipment. That said, the compact nature and apparent light weight of these would make them possibly ideal for aircraft use, if the above concerns could be addressed.

Actually, MQS is specifically one of the airports AOPA has complained about with regard to this subject. Unfortunately, AOPA hasn't gotten very far with this.

These are very good points. Most times when I fly, I don't need services other than a tie-down and self service fuel. The fact that Signature controls the only transient parking at MQS means I have to walk through their doors and "use" their "services." I have zero issue with paying for services I want and need. But take, for instance, my experiences at MPV (Montpelier, VT). There is no need to even talk to the FBO there other than to pay the fuel bill. There is sufficient transient parking there available at little cost (waived with a fuel purchase). I generally don't need a car rental there because when we go there it is to visit family who will pick us up. Same thing with Key West. We have family there, so I don't see why I should pay a fee beyond a nominal parking fee and the cost of fuel. I don't need "services" there very much. On the other hand, if I choose to fly to SRQ (Sarasota) I am happy to park at a big FBO because I don't have friends there, might need desk services, etc. We all need different things at different airports, and for individual pilots, these needs change with the mission. What I take issue with is FBOs that have virtual monopolies on site facilities such as parking and fuel such that even a simple stop-over visit would incur significant charges, as if I were staying overnight in a strange city. Most of these concerns could be addressed by having an inexpensive transient parking area and self service fuel, or even full service fuel at a higher per gallon price.

Fair points. In my experience, MQS Signature staff have been very willing to waive some fees if I buy fuel. When staying overnight, they tend to get you for a sizeable tie-down fee (can't remember how much) regardless of fuel purchases, charged on a nightly basis. The cost of fuel is high (but maybe not exorbitant for the eastern PA/NJ/NY area). The worst part is the parking situation. I have arrived at MQS a couple of times when there were either no parking spots remaining, or only one. I had to park off to the side one time and allowed them to tow the airplane (my old Warrior, not the Mooney!) when a spot became available. These factors have led us to consider Brandywine (OQN) and Heritage (PTW) as alternatives. They are a little farther out of the way, but in some cases better, depending on who we are visiting. Sometimes I think FBO staff help you out more if you're polite and engaging. I have seen some jerks come through who treat the staff badly, and they don't seem to get the fees waived...

I fly to MQS frequently to visit family (well, not so much this year). The people who work there (at Signature) are great, but Signature (the organization) needs to go. Their fees are ridiculously high, they don't have enough parking, and Signature maintains a monopoly for all transient aircraft services/fees, including parking. AOPA has included MQS on its list, along with Key West and other airports, of Signature locations that abuse their monopoly position on the field. Unfortunately, FAA has ignored AOPA's concerns and even supported Signature in the dispute. Why FAA should have any say over this is questionable, since isn't the FAA's mandate to maintain and improve "aviation safety?" Hard to see a legitimate safety interest in helping maintain a monopoly.

I got an excellent pre-buy done by a local shop who, while not known for their Mooney expertise, had a reputation for catching stuff in annual and PP inspections. I had them use the LASAR checklist for inspections. They quoted me 29 man-hours to do the inspection at their shop rate, and it was worth every penny. They caught a few problems that a simple "looky-loo" inspection over 6-8 hours would have missed. I also used the AOPA template for a sales agreement, edited to fit the circumstances. The seller and I laid out, in detail, the responsibilities in writing, and followed through. Since I was financing the airplane, the transaction by default went through an escrow service. When I sold my old Warrior II, I used the same escrow service, and the AOPA template, even though the buyer wasn't financing. The escrow service was worth it as well, they handled all the paperwork, and walked the buyer (a first time aircraft buyer) through the process.

Nope, as space gets busier, they need nav and recognition lights just like everyone else. Transponders too. If you look carefully enough, on Star Trek: The Next Generation, Enterprise has red/green nav lights as well as blinking beacons.

As far as working toward the PPL, I didn't find a sim to be terribly useful. Most of the training you need to do for the Private is developing stick and rudder skills, getting a real feel for controlling an airplane with seat of the pants feeling and visual references. I use X-Plane 11 (used to use 10) and a moderately decent sim cockpit with a yoke, rudder pedals, throttle quadrant, radio and switch panels. I also have the Carenado 201J and it isn't very accurate in terms of handling characteristics compared to my 1978 201. It's not completely wrong, but I wouldn't use it to train other than for IFR simulation. That brings me to instrument training, which is where the PC simulator really shines. I did a ton of work practicing approaches and instrument procedures in my home simulator. Doing that saved me a ton of time in real airplanes, and allowed me to go to my weekend lessons well prepared for training under the hood and in actual IMC. Flying an hour or three in the evenings on the simulator helped me to retain the lessons I learned in the real cockpit. Often I would duplicate the previous lesson's work in the simulator, which really helped me fix things I or my instructor thought didn't go so well in the real airplane. I definitely recommend using the simulator for IFR training. Also, look into Pilot Edge, a very good service that puts you in a simulated ATC environment with actual controllers and other pilots. It costs about $20 a month for the basic service, but it's well worth it. Sometimes I use the simulator when I'm about to head to an unfamiliar destination to get an idea of how the instrument procedures work, and also it gives me a good look at how the physical environment around the airport looks (which can be really helpful for unfamiliar areas).

Check out the downwash and wingtip vortices at 4:16 in the B36 video.

The "Engines" book is great, but tends to focus on Continental. The principles, of course, carry over, but it helps to realize that when he discusses specifics, they are usually Continental oriented. I have "Manifesto" as well, and I think I got less out of it than out of "Engines."

I am aware of that, but it is the social engineering and phishing that get insiders to unknowingly install those bits of malware, or give up enough information for the bad actors to get in and install them. EDIT: I guess we actually agree on this. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Most attacks involve significant levels of "social engineering" and phishing, and are less technical problems and more exploitation of human frailties. It's simply not possible to have a technological solution to an attack that involves days or weeks or months of efforts at getting enough information from various insiders to gain access. Cyber attacks these days largely aren't a lone wolf, or even a team of hackers, sitting in darkened rooms and coding exploits of vulnerabilities. They get as much information as they can and over time get someone on the inside to unknowingly give them access.

I have ridden in my boss's Tesla. Frankly, I'm not too impressed with cars in general, and I didn't think it was any better than my BMW 1-er in fitment and quality. Sure it has plenty of torque and it can go fast and accelerate very quickly, but it's way more than is legal or safe to use on most highways, and my car can more than double the interstate speed limit. His Tesla gets maybe 200-250 miles on a charge, I can go over 400 on a tank. He paid more than 3x for his Tesla what I paid for my car, brand new. It has a nice shiny screen to watch movies on while letting the Autopilot deliver one to the scene of the accident. As for the environmental benefits of using electricity as the source of power, I used to work in the generation business and I know a thing or two about how it gets generated and the overall environmental impact. Not terribly impressed with the supposed benefits, even before considering the impact of battery production and its long supply chain. As far as I can tell, Teslas at this point make nice bragging toys, and they perform quite well, but certainly not enough to justify the price tag.

I used King for my private and instrument ratings, both on DVD/PC. Both times I came close to, but barely missed, acing the written tests. The prep is pretty thorough, IMO. Whether you get a real understanding of the material is really a function of how you dedicate yourself to learning it, as with any educational opportunity, you have to apply yourself. I have the King commercial certificate training package and use my iPad to access it. They keep it up to date and add new test questions frequently. I'd recommend it.

Where does most of the cost of building an M20 come from? Labor, I assume. There can't be much in the way of development costs that haven't been amortized. Where does most of the labor cost come from? What would be the cost of a basic M20J/K airframe, stripped of avionics and interior right now? How much of the cost of a new Mooney goes to debt service?

There is literally an order of magnitude separating the cost of a new Accord from a new Mooney. Also an order of magnitude separating a used Accord from a used Mooney. Cars, in most of the US excluding a few city centers, are a necessity. Airplanes are not. We buy airplanes because we like the idea of flying, and we have the disposable income to justify it. Expanding the market is the only way to sell more and, short of miraculously raising everyone's income by an order of magnitude, the price of new aircraft has to come down, or they have to be supplanted by good quality used aircraft. Frankly, there aren't many people out there who can truly afford to spend a few hundred thousand dollars on an airplane. In much of the US, houses cost less than a used airplane, much less a new one. Until a used/refurbished aircraft costs somewhere in the range of 1.5x-2x the cost of a midlife-crisis satisfying Harley or Corvette, aircraft sales are going to be primarily to a much smaller market. And once all the older aircraft rot away, all we'll be left with in the used market is a bunch of beat up trainers and Cirruses with a few Bonanzas and DA-40s thrown in. Cirrus, marketing to the "lifestyle" set, has a firm grip on the upmarket and can justify a premium price. Not much more room there, in my opinion. Would I like an airplane that performs like a Cirrus? Sure. That's why I'm building an RV-10 and flying a used 201. But I don't give a crap about the "lifestyle," and frankly won't pay someone to stroke my ego. Eventually maybe I'll be fortunate enough to step up to a Meridian or similar, but it's about capability for me, not image. Bottom line for me, is if a company like Mooney wants to survive, it has to make an "Accord" -- something like a 201 or Encore with updated avionics, basic interior, lightened up, and with minimal accessories. No need for your only models to be an Ovation Ultra and an Acclaim Ultra. What you need is a modernized 201 and a modernized Encore. Give people value options that undercut the Cirrus price structure significantly. Grab the people who are are in the used Cirrus market or, who are at the bottom end of the new Cirrus market. Poach the customers that Cirrus doesn't cater to anyway.

Why is there such a disparity in rates people are reporting? Mine actually went down this year compared to last year, but so many other people are reporting (large) increases! Is it just an effect of people with bad news more likely to report it than those who haven't seen a change? Are these issues primarily with particular underwriters? Particular agents?

It looks like you are saying that both the intake and exhaust pushrods are broken, but only the intake pushrod was bent and damaged its tube. Is that correct? And no valve damage, no piston damage?

Based on my own experience and the experience of friends who have bought, flown, and maintained more airplanes than I ever will, always do a pre purchase inspection. There are hidden things that may never be caught during an annual, especially an annual done by the same shop that did it last year, and the year before, etc. When I bought my 201 last year, it was right at the end of its annual and needed a new one. My choices were 1) have the regular maintenance guy do the annual and accept it, or 2) pay for a PPI at a shop of my choosing. The owner had to get a ferry permit to fly it to my shop (risky for him!). I specified that the shop use the LASAR PPI checklist, which they quoted at 25 hours of labor. I paid for the PPI, and gave the owners the option to convert it to an annual at their expense. The findings in the PPI were worth the cost of the 25 hours easily. The owners agreed to fix all the squawks (a couple of which were major--like a bent nose gear truss, damaged gear actuator gearbox, etc.). I agreed to pay for new brakes and a couple of other items. Without a PPI, I would have been stuck with all of that expense, and in the case of the gear actuator (which LASAR said was only a few cycles away from giving out totally), quite probably the cost of a gear up landing, engine overhaul, prop replacement, etc. within the first year of flying. I ended up buying that airplane, because I and my shop now know it very well and we're convinced it is a good and safe airplane. Don't skip the PPI, and have it done at a shop of your choosing.

Something to try out on an engine that's going for an overhaul anyway...

What kind of particle size are we talking about? I have a feeling that a pleated or oiled sponge induction air filter is likely not going to do much to such a fine dust as is described above. HEPA filters are generally rated to stop particles above 0.3 micron in size, but in general I can't even find references for the capabilities of typical induction air filters. Fine dust may simply pass through the filters and not even foul them.

I would not count on that. In wet particulate scrubbers that are specifically designed to remove dust and ash, the difficulty of removing particulate increases exponentially as the size of the individual particles is reduced. Rain is not enough to knock the fine stuff down, especially in an open environment with large liquid droplets and a large mean free path between droplets.