dkkim73

I found myself saying "down and welded" which is kind of like my habit of saying "altitude" on the intercom when I hear center ask some other flight to "say altitude". Sort of a poor-man's Rod Machado. But seriously though I do think it helps keep up the habit of running GUMPS.

If the thread police weren't so lenient, they would've put me up against the wall a few months ago Your description sounds familiar, and it's great to hear the responses. Compared to other planes I've flown (lighter wing-loadings I would guess) there seems to be more of an "interregnum" where you're not really flying, but you're too fast to be taxiing on the nosewheel. For cross winds and weather-vaning, I have been concentrating more on maintaining intermediate aileron positions and "working the controls" more like a taildragger. But I still don't have the sense of control, lifting off and touching down on one wheel, etc., that I would like. OTOH it seems to take more of a crosswind to make it matter.

@LANCECASPER I just re-read your installation story on the Bravo. The aero accessories site only lists earlier Mooney models, through the K. Did you use that version, or was there a separate offering for Bravos and Acclaims at that time? No immediate need but this sounds like a nice upgrade.

Funny, I had wondered about getting the new Sporty's with the jacks built-in. This brings up the reliability question which I am now wondering again about. I have an old Vertex Standard (really Yaesu) VXA-300 Pilot III which has an unintuitive user interface but seems pretty bomber otherwise. Also shares battery systems with the Yaesu FT-60R ham rig...

Hi Ross, Do you mean a constant pitch attitude? (more elevator early, then less later, maintain attitude to lift-off) Or constant subjective amount of elevator, which would resulting in progressive lightening of the nosewheel and eventual rotation and lift-off? I suppose there is more drag at higher AOA, though @PT20J pointed out that induced drag is dominant here, and greatly reduced by ground effect (which we are in while rolling). And having the nosewheel off, or at least light, reduces wheelbarrowing. David PS. Coincidentally, the scenario discussion for the Pilot Workshops newsletter (received just this morning) touches on several of these topics (Leadville, how to manage potentially not enough energy for climb-out, etc): https://pilotworkshop.com/tips/calculating-takeoff-and-landing-distance/

Well, so let's take this conversation in a natural direction. What determines Vr? I'm having good results with Vr=55 and aim for liftoff at 77 KIAS.

Just saw your intro "2 years" video. Nicely done, and with funny bits (isn't life just that way?). Reminds me of flying in MN. Thanks to you and @00-Negative for all the details.

I made a joke to an A&P about about hard points on the Acclaim and got a blank look. Says the guy who's keeping his eyes out for people pulling Becker ADF boxes and fantasizing about a radar pod on the tail.

I'll bet he wasn't bored! Think of how fine a cat's balance is, probably easier to get motion stick esp without a visual reference. If I didn't fly acro type maneuvers for a few months, there was always a chance I'd see breakfast again on the first flight. But like Fluffy, after that it was all roses.

So you watch the 6 EGTs and go with the one that peaks first from the lean side, leaning back 50F (or whatever) from there? I've read others do that (including taking an iPhone video) I'll have to try it on my next flight. I've been BMP'ing then just getting TIT back up to 1540-1580 depending on how much I'm trying to keep speed up.

For all the discussion of CHT management in the wider aviation world, I have been amazed how problem-free they seem to be in the Acclaim. I think it was a broker that told me the design naturally took advantage of AOA in different regimes to vary the flow across the cylinders (in lieu of cowl flaps). Granted I don't fly higher settings ROP much (a few times to familiarization) but they just don't go up much. And even the cooling side hasn't been as rapid or as low as I'd feared on descent. Of course, I think it was John Deakin (of APS fame) who said they can't "shock cool" if they're not too hot to begin with.

@donkaye and @PT20J, thank you for that. To be clearer, my plane is fairly neutral in the stall AFAICT, and generally docile in slow flight (reminds me to go practice some...). I was thinking of some of the things I've read, including by Don, and videos I've seen about Mooney spins. All info that gave me a healthier respect for the stall in this plane. Took a bit to get used to the G1000's slip/skid indicator. A few including my transition instructor just pointed out the nose motion is a pretty good indicator. Now I'm really drifting the thread.

Hello All, Does anyone have any experiences, recommendations, or thoughts on primary flight instruction in the Salt Lake City area? My son is a rising junior at the U (kinesiology currently) and is looking to get flight training, possibly as a career path. He used to play with X-Plane as a teenager, and has had only a few GA flights (first with me recently). So it's early, though from my observations of the aviation world, he has the right basic aptitudes and temperament. I would imagine it could range anywhere from "do 10-20hrs and see how you like it", to committing to the PP as efficiently as possible, to maybe actually enrolling in a more formal program aimed at Commercial. Initially he'd looked around and found a local place that sounds like it has a few locations (so possibly a 141 school). Curious if anyone knows specific instructors or schools in the area and can opine? Also on the airports best to train from? (he's in the city in the Sugar House district, so I would imagine kind of central) My last certificate was in the 2000's, so thoughts on the current training environment are also most welcome. Thank you, David

Congrats! Fine-looking new friend you have there.

For the Acclaim, I noticed on the Checkmate card Vr is listed as 55 and "liftoff" at 77 KIAS, Vx (nominal) is 85. This seems to square with my early sense of normal take-offs so far and your (much longer) long-body experience. Vx comes fairly quickly. Different case than the OP, of course, NA vs. TN, and 4 cyl + lighter plane. ----- A few thoughts on the overall discussion: That 3 feet being discussed is still with the gear down, so as long as you're not screaming fast, it's doesn't seem insane. I always end up flying this low twice on every flight, even when I am not specifically planning to. I find it weirdly non-intuitive to judge height in this plane. I feel low when I start flying and take off, and somehow the same height on landing seems much higher. I think it's some kind of perceptual "change blindness". The standard tricks (look down to the end of the runway, Lindbergh reference, etc, all help) but it's still uncanny. I believe it will get better with familiarity. The Microkit LHS (landing height system) is truly great in this respect, and also helps immensely with the low approach and "bleed-it-off" exercises. I wonder about being able to turn it on for takeoff in the context of this discussion? Note that that is usually set up to report height above the resting position. So "2, 2, 2..." means the tires are 2 feet above the ground. Which would be 5 feet for the wing in this discussion. We all practice things "closer" to the edge (under controlled circumstances) to expand our zone of comfort for normal ops. E.g. power-on stalls make my a bit nervouse in the Mooney given what I've read of the spin characteristics, so I'm super-aware with the rudder... But they need to be done. Anyhow, I think that's part of the point, and different for many of us. I want to be better at low approaches in the Mooney. I had to fly faster and low yesterday on final, got vectored all over trying to keep my speed up, and switched to a short runway, further away, at the end (it was great practice for what it would be like to transition from a fast ILS, I think). I did not like feeling fast on short final. But the practice helped... PP thoughts only, not a CFI

I think that drawing is a different variant than the link above. These are also sold with Hall Effect-based electronic transducers to generate signals for remote monitoring. See the photos in my last post for the back side of the dial Patrick discussed.

Received the Rochester 5-1792 (on the face) today, long # on back 5323S01792. These are the ones @Patrick Horan reported on. Measuring the angular distances between various reference points, they are slightly off what I am seeing on the 880024-009 Mooney-dialed version (for the 89/100 usable long-body tanks). I am considering whether to install as Patrick did to get a ballpark (setting 1/2 at 22gal as he did), at least for now, or cut-one open and attempt to re-face it. There is a seam around the rim, I cannot tell if it was glued, heat-fused, etc. I'm sure it can be opened with the right tools or patience. Has anyone opened these up yet? I didn't see any mention of such on the other threads. Alternatively, an arc-shaped sticker overlay on the top surface might be a more precised workaround. Esp. with @PT20J's transparent 100-mph tape trick!

@donkaye out of curiosity, what is your field setup? I haven't really customized my 760 much at all. It's a very nice unit BTW, thanks for all the advice and info on selection. My plane is a legacy G1000, so I have no data feed, just the ADS B from the GTX345R.

I bought a cover from Mac's airplane covers a few weeks ago, for a trip where I had to tie out for a while. Got the canopy+fuselage cover. It works well, seems well-constructed, and the price was very reasonable! Service and communication were great and they fast tracked it for me to get before I left (even though they were on vacation for most of that week). Stitched tail number, antenna extensions, etc, colors, made to order. Very pleased and will go back there for more covers (eg when I need wing covers). HTH, David

You're a poet.

That is the central point. Legislature exists to craft law, and make appropriations. Judiciary exists to resolve statutory ambiguity. The appeal to the idea of having "experts" decide everything has unintentionally expanded into an effectively unaccountable administrative class. While we all know examples of excellent, thoughtful, technical bureaucrats, many are not. And institutional inertia tends to cement decisions. The deference doctrine set the bar arguably too high for many years in challenging decisions.

Seems like the example might go the other way around... There might be an interesting argument about federal pre-emption. Can make a good argument that operational aviation laws need to be uniform. OTOH your example is more about intra-state commerce, so maybe we will see some heterogeneity. We are seeing an interesting experiment in federalism now with heterogeneity among the states.

It doesn't bother or get in the way, in my experience. I suppose if I were a Blackjack dealer or a left-handed gunfighter it might be an issue, but it doesn't tend to snag when I'm in the airplane. Or at night. That Oura is pretty slick. Very elegant design. Does it have good alerting features? The Wellue has a pretty noticable haptic alert which is useful for me flying solo pilot (not dependant upon the app to alert, only to program configuration). I'm also a little leery of cloud biometric service offerings, but YMMV. The Oura looks like a subscription "wellness offering" whereas the Wellue's use of the cloud platform is optional. Please let us know how the Oura works for flying, if you go that route. David

Regulator seems like a likely culprit for reasons you mention elsewhere. Maybe the apparent temperature dependence could be due to a thermal intermittent phenomenon? eg. a connection, which I would think could be in different locations.

@natdm @Patrick Horan Patrick, did you end up re-marking the dial in any way? I suppose without even cutting it you could come up with an arc label and laminate it over the top.