dkkim73

All true. There are also physiological differences between humans, not only are some conditioned better but some tolerate it better due to varying protoplasm. Some people, from what I've read/heard (not personal rx) get repeatedly "bent". IIRC diving them can sometimes reduce recurrence. But I'm not sure of the time window for that. Physiology of breathing 100% O2 as someone else mentioned above, displace N2. Astronauts will pre-breathe prior to"spacewalk" as the EVA suits runs lower pressure. So also high-altitude pilots (think Spooky types). And doing it for a chamber ride is just cheap insurance. I used to do this in the Eagle while waiting on the ground, which some people thought was weird. But hey, it's essentially free. There would be near-zero downside to breathing max O2 if you feel funny in flight, in this context, whether CO or something else. Unless maybe you're a COPDer or have some other altered physiology, in which case you should talk to your AME. I agree with above rec of a chamber ride. I think it's better than PROTE/ROBD as you get to experience more, but either is better than nothing. Done it multiple times, probably should do it again as I'm older now. DK

That makes a lot of sense. Besides wear-and-tear, I would also argue there is some value in having the skillset to land a lot of more conventional GA aircraft (e.g. several cessna's land similarly). The Mooney, with its secret aerodynamic profile (see the Al Mooney was 7 ft tall video) and superconducting wing, refuses to bleed energy anywhere near the ground. Ok, that's an exagerration, but it is a bit different in some ways.

Your broader point is more important, but a small technique that helps with the above (from one of Mike Elliott's experienced instructors) was keep your hand on the gear lever until confirming indications (I look down at the mechanical indicator then up at the annunciator panel). Also I check again on short final. Main threat is variant flow, from dropping gear way out to lose energy when in ice and can't deploy brakes, to planning on abeam but then getting extensions, 360, side step etc. Postponing seems the biggest red flag to me.

Your comment makes me wonder if it might be possible to design a curved bracket or something to increase retention. Something "fence like" and thin that would be affixed further aft along the wing. Might look a bit busy. Might be simpler to periodically re bond. Just thinking out loud.

It's amazing how well that actually works, too. I was practicing uncoupled the other day and marveling at how well the SVS and calculated velocity vector work.

I think there are two kinds of restrictors: 1. for using the built-in oxygen system and titrating flow (like the little needle valves) 2. a pressure regulator to drop the supply pressure to match the requirements of the Mountain High O2D2 units I would also call Mountain High. Their guy there is very patient and helpful.

I think the 737 stuff was all about excess forces on the structure with rudder use. I'm not sure the lesson is transferable to our (more durable) airframes. Appreciating the other rudder comments, though.

I will actually do that. I'm sorry for your loss, and theirs. RIP

Full fuel in the Acclaim doesn't leave enough weight for 2 pax unless they are small.

*Great* pictures! It looks really clean and somewhat fighter like with the wing tanks. Very cool also you met The Great Man. I've heard him speak at Oshkosh years ago but never met him. I wonder how his new project (the ski amphib) is going. Thanks for sharing!

I wondered if he had an in flight issue mandating a descent, with distraction maybe causing a trim stall. NB this is of course all speculation. Very sad, overall. (Edit: fixed autocorrect, mandating not managing)

I think it's even cooler he built a Long EZ. I was seriously planning to build a Cozy back in the 2000's.

Good answers above and some fairly long threads on almost the same topic (might take a bit with keywords but you can probably find them). A few people here have done ab initio in a Mooney and thought it worked for them. They should be along shortly. I think that would be the minority. Agree most are better-served by a stepwise approach for multiple reasons. "Gnothi seauton" as the old maxim goes, know thyself. I would further add that, if you have limited aviation experience, you might be very discerning in other respects but not really have a basis for evaluating your own ability to do this kind of approach. A practical thing I would add to the above posts is: If you are an airplane owner/buyer you will spend a lot of time doing things that are not making you a better pilot. And you might decrease your actual aircraft availability vs. finding a good rental situation. Spitballing out of the blue: - get some hours of training, ideally through the pre-solo stage, make sure you like it - get a medical (required for the above) Yes a 172 or PA-28 is different than the Mooneys but the knowledge and skills will dovetail nicely into a foundation. You *might* have this same conversation about instrument training, but even then it's not a clear choice IMHO as a human factors guy. I think it's certainly too early to think that any time in trainers would be "wasted". As to cost-effectiveness, it could go either way. I'll leave the tax strategy to more knowledgeable people but if that's a determining factor for you, probably best to consult an appropriate planner early. HTH D

*Great* write-up! I love the practical weather stories here. Congrats and welcome.

This is a great rec. When life gives you lemons... You could also do some hard IFR sim dual. But taildragger time heals all wounds.

Coming back after close to 12 yrs off I was surprised by: 1. How behind I felt in the first hour (in a 172 to boot) 2. How quickly things came back thereafter. I will say the longbody extended the time to get the feel right, but the aviation environment, comms, IFR were all better than I thought they would be. No reason not to get dual if it's not crazy to find an instructor.

It's tricky doing medicine over the Internet, but what you describe falls into the general spectrum of decompression sickness ("the bends"). There're a broad range of manifestations, less and more serious, type I and type II, respectively. A bit discussing cutaneous symptoms is here: https://dan.org/health-medicine/health-resource/dive-medical-reference-books/decompression-sickness/diagnosing-dcs/ You might consider visiting with a doc who has some expertise in the area, ideally someone with a dive/hyperbaric certification. I never went to DMO training though I wish in retrospect I had. IIRC they will sometimes dive people after the fact. I will have to read a bit more and reflect on the comments earlier in the post where the flight doc recommended that restriction. That feels aggressive, though I've talked to a few other knowledgeable people that do not like flying the FLs in unpressurized aircraft. D

Wow, that's very cool. I have been impressed by how much you know about all the various models and their quirks, maintenance, etc, not just your own. Also appreciate how generous you are with your time in helping newcomers (e.g. me a little while ago). Hopefully I will get to meet you and some of the others at one of the meet ups. Best regards, David

This is *NOT* a criticism. Rather an acknowldgement.

Are you an AI? You summarize every post.... Prompt: "Please review the gear rigging thread and summarize it in the style of Andrew Caruso".

Was it chafing against something?

It's people like this that make me realize how much I haven't done.

You know, people debate open source as to whether it is optimal for for-profit development or not, whether it is "as effective" as a well-managed owned team, etc. Certainly the feature factory and support aspects of Foreflight are hard to beat by a small shop. Same for drawing programs and even email clients (though the latter is a success story in niches). *BUT* a big draw of open source has always been that "they can't take it away". If our favorite paid services become unaffordable or unusable, at least there's some options for GA pilots to work with. At that point, support interest might be higher. That said, either big corporations or governments can starve open source communities by other methods. Main risk to GA products would be currently free data sources. OTOH I would argue that chart and meteo info is "public infrastructure", like road signs and road cleaning, for which we pay plenty already. But hey that's like saying small airports are public infrastructure and Vector is a grift. Or a grift enabler

This is *exactly* what I was talking about with respect to killing companies with no respect. They'll enshittify random companies like rental cars, etc, but they do kill brands with actual cultural value.

It's a great service. There are some other posts about it here. Great for debriefing.