Paul Thomas

There is a price to quality and traceability. I was just at Sun N Fun and saw some AN fitting. The price immediately caught my attention and I picked some up and put them back down soon after. They weren't the right color of blue, didn't have the right markings, and didn't feel the right weight... It may work, it may not and that's not something I'm willing to play with. I'll begrudgingly pay 5x in that case for the right fittings.

Landing on the upwind side of the runway is a poor strategy; I know it's regularly taught online and by inexperienced CFI. While I can see the logic as to the touchdown, it's a bad idea as to the rollout and taxi. I've never had the wind push me toward the downwind side in a way that's dangerous - either give more aileron to land or go around. You are still safe and in control as long as you are flying. That will change once you touch down and slow down. What direction will the airplane turn toward if you lose control due to the wind being too strong? You will turn into the wing, toward the upwind side of the runway, the side on which you left no margin. Being on the ground, with winds that are so strong that the airplane turns into the wind is a scary thing. I'm a strong proponent of landing on the centerline, every single time. The very experienced tailwheel guys will land on the downwind side and land toward the upwind side to cut down the X-wind component. Me? I don't want to be flying in those conditions and if I am, I'll divert to a runway that is more aligned with the wind.

I've seen these type of threads on multiple forums and while our Mooney do well in X-wind, I still don't like these threads. Some members misremember or exaggerate the numbers and mislead others about the capabilities of the airplane. Touching down is the easy part... slowing down and taxing in are the real challenge. The closest I've ever come to damaging an airplane was getting out of a C140 when a gust almost took the airplane into the hangar door. The bigger the number, the more questionable becomes the judgement if you damage the airplane. My suggestion is to use a number you're comfortable with or divert instead of going by someone's max number on the internet.

It would be interesting to see who's buying the little fuel that is still being sold.

100k for mine.

410TT, 115 complex, 55 in type.

I was discussing this fuel and the legal case with my wife who brought up something I have no seen discussed: corrosion. Since this fuel appears to act as a paint stripper, how does it affect corrosion? Is there a concern that ingredients in the fuel may accelerate corrosion? If so, that would be a nasty combination.

I'm also with OR; quote came back at ~2350; $50 less than last year. Hull is 100k. This is my second year owning the airplane, IR and I need to check how much time I have. The airplane is hangared during hurricane season but I'm otherwise on a tie down. I was disappointed that it was only a $50 decrease given I now have time in type and the overall market has been stable/ slight decrease in premiums.

Have any of the affected airplanes filed insurance claims? The insurance companies are going to have something to say...

The pro of a multi piece panel is upgrades. You can remove part of the panel, re-cut as appropriate and leave what is not being modified alone. It makes installing or removing a single instrument much easier.

What happens if you back off to 2,200 RPM, can you increase back to 2,500?

The top one is showing your are tracking 77 while the bottom one shows you are on a 98 heading. Apples and oranges.

When you say reset the gear breakers; had anything popped?

I only do ADSB. You should be able to display the ADSB feed on your other avionics and your iPad.

Experimental do not require an STC to use alternative fuels, just like they don't need an STC to put an alternative engines. It's all up to the owner/builder.