DonMuncy

To be truthful, I don't know whether the horns are disconnected or not. Perhaps the Voice Alert just overrides the horn. but with my ANR headset I never hear the horns. But in essence, the power that used to go to the horn now goes to the VA box which turns on the voice. My avionics guru did some more stuff at the time of the installation, but I think the VA installation was about $650.

Alex, My Voice Alert is p/n 2040. Got it from Aircraft Components Inc. About $500. Installation was not too bad, as it ties into and is activated by the existing stall warning system and gear warning system. It is great, as that voice saying "stall" or "check landing gear" can't be misunderstood.

As usual, I'm talking when I should be listening.

I think someone has suggested that one can squirt contact cleaner in there, wiggle it a bunch and maybe get it to work again. I understand they are tough to remove and replace.

I have no experience with Bonanza, but I keep up with their forum. From what I read, my impression is that the parts availability, repair costs, finding capable A&Ps, and insurance costs are likely to be close enough to not be significant. The differences appear to me to be (1) speed - Bonanzas likely to win by a little, but different years can shift it enough that its not too important. (2) Center of gravity problems are significant but not insurmountable in the Bo - almost non-existant in Mooneys (3) Fuel burn - Mooneys win hands down. (4) Interior space - Bonanzas appear to be much roomier. Mooneys are difficult to get into, but once seated, have plenty of room. Strictly your choice. (5)Bonanzas cover up pilot ineptitude in landing, whereas Mooneys require care or will embarrass the pilot. These are all my opinions based on little actual information, so utilize at your own risk.

The oxygen concentrators seem like a good deal, but I presume they are working with the ambient air. So if you are at 16,000 ft, there is a lot less O2 for them to "concentrate". I have not seen any numbers about how much O2 they kick out at altitude.

Headsets Inc. sells a great product. Not to difficult to install if you are mechanically adept and know how to solder. They work great. They also have the jacks, etc. to hard wire into your plane, so you don't have to fool with batteries (unless you are in someone else's plane)

Since all the oxygen comes from the same source, I would buy welding oxygen. I am extremely skeptical of anyone saying their O2 has undergone any special testing.

The tank(s) is/are the biggest expense. If I didn't have two of them, I would probably shop Craig's List. Renting tanks will eventually cost more than buying your own. I have found the fittings/connectors are the only items you ought to pay top dollar for. The rest of the set-up can be done with cheap gauges, copper tubing and standard hardware.

Steven, I had previously heard that batteries had a longer life it they were often discharged and recharged. For some period of time, I have routinely (once every month or two) turned on the 696 with no external power and let it deplete down to where it gave a low battery indication . (Yes, I know, I should have mentioned this earlier.) But I did not leave it in a depleted state. I would charge it back up fairly quickly. When I would go out to fly, I would hook it into the ship's power and leave it plugged in for the duration of the flight. So, the battery was virtually always in a fully (or close to it) state. What do you and everyone else think about this.

If you haven't already, open the storm window, turn on the master, and move the stall warning vane. If the horn doesn't sound, it is either the switch itself (unlikely), the connections or wiring (a little unlikely), or the sonalert (most likely).

Thanks guys.

Bob, I have mine hard wired as well. If we were to have a total electrical failure in the soup, it seems we should use the 696 and/or the IPad to get on the ground well within the hour or so of battery life. That shouldn't be too difficult; it isn't like we should have a total electrical failure without knowing if had happened. I don't know exactly what my 696 battery did earlier, but it seems to have lasted better earlier.

How many hours of use is everyone getting out of their 696s. Mine has decided it will only last an hour and a half with low activity (just turning it on and letting it sit).

I know The Tankman (tank re-sealing operation near Houston) routinely replaces all the gaskets with a re-seal. I presumed all of them did it.

The insurance industry is based upon statistics and economics. It assumes that any insured property can be replaced in the marketplace with like property. For the most part, this is true. Somewhere out there, there is likely to be someone who thinks enough like you to have bought a plane like yours, equipped it similar to yours, and now wants to sell it. This is the theory, and sometimes it just isn't that way. My comments have been based on what I believe to be the most economically feasible method of how to use insurance. I recognize I am far from infallible, and your situation may dictate you do it differently. I sure do not want to disparage someone who does what is in their best interest. I was just trying to point out that there are risks in insuring one's plane, and no matter which way you jump, you might be wrong. Just as we know that we will not get all our money back when we put additional equipment in our plane, we should recognize there is no way to guarantee that in the event of an accident, we will get all our losses covered. We just make the most intelligent choices we can and hope we never need the insurance at all.

You are right too, Bob. The dangers of under-insuring are worse than over-insuring. I still contend the probable best number is the amount it would cost you to go on the open market and buy a plane equipped like the one you have, and perhaps a little over to cover some of the expense of having to buy a "new" plane.

Or you can play both ends. I have a Miata I drive every day. I also have a 1967 Lotus Elan, and a 1972 Lotus Europa (and a few Lancias, etc.)

Chris, You are correct that if the insurance carrier will agree to your number, you can insure your plane for the full amount of anything you add to it. If you put in the cost of everything you install in your plane, eventually, you would probably reach the limit of their tolerance. But that is OK; you could stop then. There are only two drawbacks to over insuring. The first is not too important; that is your premium will be a little higher. The second is more important. To make up some numbers. If your plane would sell for $100,000 and you managed to insure it for $150,000. Then if you have an accident which can be repaired for $120,000, they will pay for repairs. Now you have a damage history plane which most likely will be worth less than the plane you could have purchased with the $100,000 they would have paid you for a total loss, had you insured it for that. If we were pretty sure we were going to total our plane, we should insure it for as much as we could. If we were sure we would never total it, it would probably be more economical not to insure it at all. But probably the best way to play the odds is to insure it for what you could buy an identical replacement. Maybe we would feel better if we bumped the insured value by the cost of the new equipment, and then at the next renewal date, drop back down to the fair market value.

You just have to be aware of what you are doing. Everyone (hopefully) knows that putting a $10K box in your panel doesn't increase the value of your plane by $10K. If you total it a year or so later, you understand and accept that. But if you put the box in and total it the next day, you likely just blew $5K. So yes, if you add equipment, increase the hull value to reflect the increase in value of the plane. But unless you know when you are going to total it, don't increase the hull value by the amount you spent.

If your hangar elf tries to use one continuous baffle strip across that zig zag, it will buckle and cause a leak. However, if he uses two pieces and create kind of an overlap on the zig and cut a slit on the zag, you can (virtually) eliminate any (bad) leaks. It is easier to do than to describe.

Bob, I agree. I think my reluctance was the function of the star washer. In my view, the star washer, like any lock washer, in their typical installation, "bites" into both the nut and the flat washer (or whatever surface it abuts), to resist the likelihood of the nut vibrating loose. In the "blade-star washer-blade" configuration, there appears to be no "locking the nut in place" function. Maybe the best way would be blade-star washer-blade-star washer-nut. But I still do it the way they say.

Why "per hour". I don't calculate my expenses at all.

I have seen the "blade washer blade" admonition, and do them that way. But I have real questions about it. It would seem to me that electrical continuity (and lack of resistance) is what we are dealing with, and any method that achieves that would suffice. Perhaps they really mean that "blade washer blade" gives the lowest likelihood of future failure of the connection.

Be careful to make sure that all ADs have been complied with. Every annual the IA is supposed to verify AD compliance, but sometimes they don't.