GeeBee

True that but if he holds the aircraft out for rental, is he going to let just anybody fly it solo or is he going to require an instructor? To meet the invincibility standard, he has to make the rental a rental to all comers but he can require an instructor which makes him subject to 91.409b.

I don't have to work hard to find out who to sue with an LLC. An LLC is required by law to list with the State in which it is registered a physical address for an "agent for service". I simply go to that states corporations website, I find out who that is, serve them with a suit. Move for discovery (which is a given) where the agent for service has to disclose all the officers of the LLC and it's over. Worse an LLC with a sole asset, an airplane is prime bait for "piercing of the corporate veil". As one aviation attorney said to me, "I move through LLCs like a hot knife through butter". It is easy because with the LLC with an airplane as its asset is fundamentally under capitalized from the get go and not a going business concern (tax returns provided in discovery will prove that). Judge will think about two seconds on a motion to pierce. All of that is about 4 hours of lawyer time. Unless the LLC holding the aircraft, rents it to you, you provide periodic rental payments, show a positive cash balance in the LLC's account, insure the aircraft as a rental and maintain it as a rental meaning 100 hour inspections your corporate veil is an illusion of protection.

Yeah, sure, of course! Some lawyer is going to spit out the bit of pursuing a 7 figure litigation because it is too hard to track down the LLC. Do you really believe this?

Lot of "Jesus Nuts" on a rotorcraft. You know the ones where you pray to Jesus that nut does not let go.

Armor All foam cannon with Armor All "ceramic detergent" is the bomb. Use it on my boat, cars and airplane. Yes I own two pressure washers but the foam cannon works really good on vehicles.

Don't know your altitude but it looks like you're running hard there (28.1/2700) Continental says to run it had 75% power at best power (100 ROP) for the first hour. Then run between 65 and 75 best power there after until oil consumption stabilizes. Finally break in should be complete by 25 hours. So get your airplane to a Density altitude where you are at 75% WOT. Lean to best power and cruise it for a while and see where your CHTs settle. You'll know when it breaks in when the CHTs settle down and often, this happens quite rapidly. I've ferried factory new aircraft and at on glance in cruise CHT is near 400 then the next glance they are 350. https://continental.aero/service-bulletins/pma/e-sb003.pdf In the case of your picture, I would not be concerned with a new engine at that high of a power setting. What are your numbers at cruise at 75% 100 ROP? Once they settle within 30 degrees of each other, you're good. That can take up to 25 hours.

Maybe there are more problems in DCA Tower than we know. https://www.foxnews.com/us/faa-employee-charged-assault-after-altercation-air-traffic-control-tower-reagan-national-airport

First step to an Airworthiness Directive.

Listen to her!

Low fuel price. Maybe inventory clearance?

Actually an A330/A350 wing rises above the top of the fuselage in flight. Equally so A330/A340/A350 have "active load alleviation" in that if the wings are over loaded the speed brakes pop out and unload the wing. Then of course there is the ultimate test, going 15 meters above the fuselage.

You apparently have never watched an A330/A350 wing in flight

A friend of mine at KCVH said there is a Grumman AA-5 there leaking after using G100UL.

Yeah the hardest to land after the MD-80 series. The trick to the 727 is to ease forward just before the mains touch, but if you are low on speed dropping the nose will decrease lift rapidly and slam the mains down anyway. Never get slow in a 727.

You got to work hard to. screw up a 757 landing.

3.6 sec before touch down they were 1100fpm. That is a required go-around.

My plan and hope is I never need it. I plan to sell this airplane about 3 years from now and I will likely use it as a sales incentive along with numerous other unobtainable parts. I have sealed these parts in vacuum bags with desiccant in them. My view is given the current state of affairs for Mooney, the more you can assuage a potential buyer, the better.

Same plane, same airline almost the same accident https://www.yahoo.com/news/planes-wing-hits-runway-during-003535414.html

Well I paid 1300 4 years ago for a kit. So given inflation I would say it is in the ball park, a little high. However, I have one on the shelf ready to go. Which is very sweet. I paid 125 for a fuel gauge. So I suspect using the same business model....250

2500

Personally, I think the no-back spring business model has worked fine. (I got mine last week) The business model is in hand, it needs to be extended to other parts without delay.

I will also say this. With a little litigation, Mooney's contract with Rochester could be broken as illegal restraint of trade, particularly when Mooney is unwilling to supply the parts.

I have had my order in for over a year.

If you find that number, let me know. I might be interested.

It is a nice dream. Wish it were so. As it is we have to trust in some wee gee board in Kerrville.