Seth

That may be the one I saw on the ramp in Tampa in March 2011.

.

Ok, so I went to replace my landing lights over the weekend with regular bulbs one more time. I could not figure out where the filament was broken in either bulb as both looked fine. In the back of my mind I was thinking I may have an electrical problem or that maybe when the bottom cowling was off the wires were not reconnected, or something, but as it turned out . . . When I pulled the co-pilot side light, one wire was connected, and the other terminal had broken off, but was still screwed in. As in the terminal itself broke off the back of the light, with the wires still screwed into the terminal, but connected to nothing. This caused the circut to not be complete, and thus when I installed the co-pilot side bulb, and checked to make sure it worked, both lit up. So, my MSC is replacing that bulb for free (they'll send it back to the manufacturer since the terminal snapped off, not the filament burning out) and I thank Alex for giving me his used bulbs when he replaced his plane with LED lamps. I still plan to replace the lights with LED - one taxi and one landing light, either AeroLEDs 36LX or Whelen, but for now I've got lights on the front end again. Take care, -Seth

Tom- Glad you stayed in the Mooney family and glad you remained flying. Your new bird looks fantastic - the HP increase makes a huge difference. -Seth

Surf Air, Silicon Valley's Newest Airline, Caters To Wealthy Entrepreneurs, Investors Posted: 04/ 6/2012 9:51 am Updated: 04/ 6/2012 11:52 am reddit stumble Surf's up: Surf Air caters to Silicon Valley's monied elite. 94 49 10 165 61 Get Small Business Alerts: Sign Up React: AmazingInspiring Funny Scary Hot Crazy When David Eyerly earned a partial scholarship to attend a California flight school, he asked his older brother Wade for some advice. Pilot jobs were tough to come by and David didn't see the payoff. But Wade, 32, wanted his brother to stick with flying and asked what it would take to keep him in the air. David, 27, joked that Wade could just buy a plane, start an airline and hire him. "I took him more serious than he intended," says the older Eyerly, who on Thursday launched Surf Air, a new membership-based travel service that lets clients fly as many as 11 times each month between six California destinations for $990 a month. Surf Air's members drive right up to an eight-person aircraft, where valet parks their car and takes their luggage, much like a private jet. Except the cost is drastically less than that of a private plane. Marquis Jet, one of the cheaper carriers in the industry, locks fliers in for at least 25 hours of flight time at $119,000 plus taxes and fees, according to its site. Surf Air's 500 current members are only required to make a three-month commitment ($2,970 total), after which they pay on a month-by-month basis. Commercial flights between the destinations that Surf Air serves run around $250 round-trip, which makes Surf Air a cheaper option for business people who fly at least four times a month. Eyerly expects its members to average between five and nine one-way flights a month. On top of the reduced price, Surf Air flights operate out of small regional airports, where Surf Air members don't have to deal with security or the hustle and bustle of major airports, which is part of the problem the startup aims to solve. "Half of America's regional airports operate at less than 10 percent capacity and yet for some reason we keep flying through the same 29 overburdened airports in this country," says Eyerly, who used to fly 27 days out of most months as a member of Vice President Biden's advance press team. (Pictured left: Wade Eyerly.) Passengers of Surf Air can reserve at most six flights at one time. That could pose problems for ultra frequent travelers, such as those who fly three times a week, PandoDaily notes. "Passengers can't book their next trip until they're already back from the last one, and chances are the next flight they would want that week would already be booked." Surf Air, which says it's paying around $700,000 a month to lease and operate two planes, wants to prove the model works before it expands its fleet or accepts new members. "Once we can show the pay-off for our members and successfully demonstrate the model," Eyerly says, "it's a whole lot easier to walk into a venture capital firm and ask for $25 million to buy 30 planes." So far, the company has funded itself -- including the cost of leasing the planes and some hefty lawyer fees to ensure it is abiding by regulations -- with personal funds and money from angel investors. One of those investors, Paige Craige, who is the founder and CEO of Los Angeles-based startup Betterworks, and who often travels back and forth between Los Angeles and Silicon Valley, is just the type of customer Surf Air is targeting. Indeed, Silicon Valley and its surrounding areas are rife with wealthy entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and attorneys whom Surf Air says make up the lion's share of its first 500 members. Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Silicon Valley-based Facebook, spent $700,000 last year for costs related to private plane use, according to papers filed for the company's initial public offering. Perhaps Facebook's newest shareholders might appreciate Zuck cutting costs and instead flying Surf Air when its service launches mid-Summer.

Surf Air gets three new aircraft and $2.6 million for Christmas By Michael Carney On December 31, 2012 If you think developing a mobile app is difficult, try building an airline from the ground up. That’s the mountain Los Angeles startup Surf Air is hoping to summit. The company announced their plans for an all-you-can-fly, membership-based service to enormous fanfare this summer, and raised $3.76 million in VC and angel funding upon graduating from Santa Monica’s MuckerLab accelerator. Now it’s slowly checking “to do” items off its long and ambitious list. The Surf Air team has been relatively quiet in recent months, focusing on obtaining final regulatory clearance for their ambitious project. But they came to the surface over the holidays to announce a few significant milestones. First and foremost, the company took delivery of three single-engine turboprop Pilatus PC-12 aircraft. Each aircraft can accommodate up to nine passengers plus a three person crew. While details remain scarce with regard to the company’s regulatory status, the fact that it’s shelling out cash to lease its own aircraft is a strong sign that things are moving forward as planned. One investor in the company who spoke on the condition of anonymity said, “If you had asked me three or four months ago, I would have been significantly skeptical that they were going to be able to pull it off. Today things are looking far more promising.” The grand plan is to offer $1,000 per month unlimited flight memberships, initially between regional airports in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. According to co-founder Wade Eyerly, the goal is to prove the model in a single route and then expand to 25 strategic markets nationwide with up to six aircraft per market. Members will all be pre-screened, not unlike the line-busting system offered in major airports by Clear, allowing the passengers to avoid lengthy security procedures and instead drive up, hand their keys to a valet, and board their plane. As I wrote when I first saw the company at their demo day: For those questioning security and the ability to operate this ambitious plan, the company is founded by two brothers who consist of a pilot and a former member of the Department of Homeland Security, who personally flew an average of 27-days per month for years. To say they understand the market would be a dramatic understatement. In addition to making room in its hangar for these new toys, Surf Air added an additional $2.6 million in funding to its bank account. The corresponding SEC filing paints the financing as part of an ongoing, planned $7 million funding round. The company’s earlier round was led by Anthem Venture Partners with participation from NEA, Siemer Ventures, Baroda Ventures, TriplePoint Capital, and several notable angels including Gil and Eytan Elbaz, Paige Craig, Bill Woodward, Rick Caruso, Jeffrey Stibel, Mike Walsh, and Aviv Grill. Despite its notable progress, Surf Air still has enormous challenges standing between it and a sustainable business. First, the company is said to be having difficulty finalizing an airport in its home market of Los Angeles. Regional options include Santa Monica and Burbank, but each presents its own regulatory and logistical challenge. Burbank is too far from the the Westside technorati that the company is targeting, while the sleepy Santa Monica airport is supposedly reticent to see the volume of traffic that Surf Air hopes to generate. If the company can’t solve this problem in its own backyard with the enormous goodwill of its well-heeled local investors, the viability of the whole nationwide plan must be questioned. More concerning still is the onslaught of competition from dramatically larger players the company is sure to face, should this model gain any sort of traction. Air travel has been sliced and diced in every conceivable manner over the last five decades. Commercial has coach, premium coach, business, and first class in all their various incarnations. And private has seen countless flavors of charter, leasing, fractional, and full ownership. Surf Air’s model is new, at least in the current market, but to think that they’re the first to think of it is naive. There are surely reasons why Richard Branson’s Virgin, Warren Buffett’s NetJets, and others haven’t previously offered all-you-can-fly, semi-commercial memberships. But if they see Surf Air successfully siphoning off their most lucrative business flyers, expect these titans to unleash the full weight of their financial and industry muscle to unseat the relatively under-capitalized challenger. Surf Air has generated significant buzz and good will amid the VC and startup crowd for its travel-hacking model. Assuming it can successfully navigate the regulatory quagmire, expect it to see a good level of adoption in its “Silicon Valley to Silicon Beach” route. The good news is that according to the company, it can be profitable on a single route basis. If this initial rollout goes as planned, that’s when things will get interesting. I know plenty of people who travel the LA to SF route the minimum of three times monthly as to make the plan economically beneficial. There are plenty of others still who travel less frequently, but would gladly pay a premium for the added convenience. In each camp, people are standing by, waiting for the company to cut the velvet ropes and see if this concept has wings.

This is very neat. I've been watching since hearing about it and move information is now availale. The idea is to have a fleet of PC-12's to fly back and forth on certain routes as on-demand private aircraft service. I'm curious to watch how Surf Air does on the west cost as I'm thinking this would work fantastically on the east coast with even more traffic congenstion and many small airport destinations to get something like this working. Does this company have any legs? Will it work? What are the failure points. I searched but did not find the thread I thought I saw in the past discussing this idea. What other aircraft would you use for this mission if you were starting up besides the PC-12? -Seth http://www.surfair.com/ http://travel.yahoo.com/ideas/new-airline-offers-all-you-can-fly-service.html (Photo: Courtesy of Surf Air) Not quite in love with commercial flying, but not yet a private plane owner? Surf Air has the all-you-can-fly plan for you. Starting this summer, the new airline will offer members as many flights as they want, on a fleet of eight private planes, for just $790/month. “It works largely the way Netflix does,” said Wade Eyerley, co-founder and a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. A $790 membership allows you to hold two reservations at a time – as soon as you fly, you can place another reservation. The $990 and $1,490 memberships allow you four and six reservations respectively. (Photo: Courtesy of Surf Air)Wade and his brother, David, a former Frontier Airlines manager, are hoping to target the frequent fliers who aspire to rid themselves of long security lines and the hassle of commercial air travel. Instead of spending four or five hours getting from San Francisco to Los Angeles, Wade promises it will take you just 75 minutes on Surf Air. And, you don’t even have to take off your shoes. Sleepy Air Canada pilot thought Venus was a plane “We’re introducing the private plane experience to those that don’t have it now,” said Wade. The flights are starting with the heavily traveled San Francisco-Los Angeles route, which 20 million fliers traveled last year according to the FAA. Initial stops will include Palo Alto, Monterey, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. “Too many people are driving. They should be flying,” said Wade. And he intends to get them on planes. Surf Air is the only non-tech company launching this year out of the MuckerLab start-up accelerator based in Los Angeles. MuckerLab provides funding, guidance, and office space to promising start-ups. Eventually, the brothers intend to expand the service, but they’re beginning with the pilot test route and just 500 memberships. After getting 12,000 email addresses from people who expressed interest, they realized they had to cap the service in its initial phase or they’d be oversubscribed and unable to deliver enough quality flights to members. Applications for those first 500 memberships are being accepted right now. But, if you’re ready to say good-bye to frequent commercial travel, you’ll have to get your membership in soon. Just one week after announcing the plan, 300 all-you-can-fly memberships have already been filled.

Bumber- Great information - thank you - and very neat picture. Steve - call some of the LED companies - they may already have such a product but have not STCed it yet - could be smart for the Mooney fleet to have that sort of bulb available. Lot's of C, E, and F's with the older wingtips out there. -Seth

The AveoEngineering 6in1 AveoMAXX is what I want in my wingtips. To assists with making it happen, they are not landing lights nor taxi lights, but position/recognition lights. They will of course help with landings and taxi, but their primary purpose is anti collission. They will be able to: Have red/green position on the wingtips, strob on the wingtips, have forward taxi/landing/recognition, wig wag, and pulse/blink/strob forward. Great setup in the wingtip and Bennet's install shows that they fit. It's just a matter of getting the wiring/setup/power/everything approved and okay with the Baltimore FSDO (for me anyway). Alex, let's get that time setup to come check out the lighting of the K (just like mine cowl - exact setup) and the C just for kicks. Also, do you have two landing light whelens or one taxi and one landing light in the nose? -Seth

Steve- There has got to be an STC out there to get you a second light. I know there is an STC to put the landing lights in the wings, a la newer Mooney models, but I hear it is expensive. The reason my "J" model has two landing lights size PAR 36 vs the standard era M20J PAR 46 is because of the Missile Mod. I have the M20K Cowling modified on the aircraft. -Seth

Bennett - You can't get your wingtip recognition light alteration under the Baltimore FSDO - that's for sure. I have my MSC looking at what you sent me, thank you by the way, and they are going to make some alterations to the design and work with the FSDO to see about getting it installed for me. 337s and STCs are indeed harder. I'm curious what would happen to our insurance rates should we turn our personally owned aircraft expiramental. Parker - do you think they would charge more or less for an expiramental Mooney vs a certified Mooney? How does it work for expiramental vs certified aircraft now? I know that certified aircraft have less crashes/accidents/incidents, but on similar models that have similar incident percentages, how does the pricing work out? -Seth

Kind of like the fairy that creates the cooling hole behind cylinder number 5 in ovations. -Seth

We are speaking hypothetically And so far for what I know, I've stayed 100% certified. However, as everyone here knows, if an FAA examiner wants to, they could probably look over 90% of our aircraft and ground them by finding something that makes it not airworthy (even though it's been signed off for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years of annuals). -Seth

Scott- I have experienced similar issues when researching and getting my own portable oxygen system. From what I can tell, basic constant flow systems are indeed overpriced. Also, many doctors or medically knowledgable folk are building their own perfactly acceptable systems for the price range you mentioned. Take care, -Seth

jetdriven, on 25 Apr 2013 - 09:03 AM, said: That's the point that they brought up on Beachtalk. Here is the link about the Grote Trilliant 63821-5 http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=54046 -Seth

The purpose of this poll is to see if you the owner of your plane (Part 91) would be willing to use non-aviation certified parts for certain applications. Select as many answers as you'd like. For instance - the light thread going on where I'm looking to replace my landing lights. There is an LED Par 36 light that is for tractors but many beachcraft owners use as drop in replacements, for much less than any other LED on the market. Then again, some poeple get a bulb from home depot for incandescnet landing lights vs the approved lights. Same blub without the stamp. There is the door seal that Jose talks about often, which you can again get at home depot. Let me know the application of hypothetically speaking (since none of you actually do this on your certified aircraft) that you would or would not use non certified parts and what they are. Thanks, -Seth

This is the link for the Grote Tractor Par36 LED that users on beachtalk have put in their aircraft. I can copy and past that page for referances to why some think it's legal, but here is the light bulb. LED on Amazon for $108.24. According to the beachtalk site, they use them for taxi lights and some use them for landing lights. There's a wide beam and a spot beam. Similar to a taxi light and landing light. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Grote%20Trilliant%2063821-5 Grote Trilliant® 36 LED WhiteLightTM Work Lamp 638215 Neat to think about, and much less expensive. I'm still probably going to go AeroLEDs or Whelen. -Seth

The tractor LEDs are also quite a neat idea. -Seth

Perehzr- Thank you for the 1st hand account of AeroLEDs vs Whelen. Also, thank you for the picture of the Par 46 Whelen bulb. If my bulb was size Par46, I'd probably just go Whelen and be done, as they are bright enough, but the Par 36 as mentioned, has mixed reviews. I'm going flying with a buddy (thanks Alex in advance) who has the Whelen on his aircraft but I'm not sure if it's a Par 46 or Par 36 to see how it looks. As for HID vs LED - I've decided to LED. I can go into my reasoning, and though it would be great to have HID, cost is a concern. Thus, for two lights, I've decided after sleeping on it, I'm going to not deal with rewiringj at this time for pulsing, but instead go with just drop in replacements. Most likely the AeroLEDs 36LX that will be produced in may, PMAed, and that will be that. No labor charges, just swap the bulbs. I will replace my current bulbs with a regular light bulb for now, and will see if AeroLEDs has a sale come Oshkosh time. I am indeed shocked that my lights keep burning out, as my F model was good for 3 years and 500 hours - never a problem (single Par46). However, the Missile Mod may have more vibration, and also, it may be that I've had the bottom cowling off more, and the lights are in the cowling. Maybe when the cowling is taken off, the "boink" of it touching the ground and back, and being put in position helps cause the filaments to break. I was thinking about this the other night. I never had a light out landing in a Mooney until the first 10 hours in the Missile, then it happened again about 9 months later. I'm putting about 70-100 hours on the aircraft every 9 months or so. Since I'll be upgrading my wingtip lights at some point similar to Bennet's, with the "recognition" lights in the wingtips that can pulse or wig-wag, or be constant, I'm going to just drop in two LEDs, one taxi and one landing light for the center cowl - no pulse, no rewiring. Thus: Option 4: Less expensive ($650 at $325 each) - Wait for the LX bulbs to become availble and put one landing and taxi light in as drop in replacements. Option 5: Even lesser expensive ($458 at $229 each)- Put in Whelens as they are even cheaper but not as bright Option 6: Least Expensive - Just replace the regualr bulbs I was however fascinated when talking with the Factory Rep at AeroLED, as evidently, if you get two lights in the cowl, you can set up the 36HX to pulse with a simple wire poistion. So, with no rewiring to the panel, you just rewire for instance the taxi light, and it will pulse when "on." I thought about that too. Have a constant landing light, and a pulsing taxi light in the cowl. That way, whenever my lights were on, I'd have a constant and a pulse. The reason for the taxi light pulse is that's the recognition light that has a higher angle of viewing in the air for other aircraft to see me. However, it would get annoying when landing at night and having the surrounding areas pulse reflect to me. I could always also install an external switch near the landing light and just flick it to pulse or not before a flight, but I decided against the hassle. The people at AeroLEDs are very createive. So, I'll go with probably option 4, and see if I can get an OshKosh special once the PMAed 36LX lights that are as bright as the 36HX lights are being produced and ready (late May). I'll replace with regular bulbs for now. Unless of course, after flying with Alex and determine the Whelen's are what I want as well. If cost were no factor, HID for landing, three way taxi light (on, off, pulse). The wiriing and installation costs would easily top $1300-1500 for that. Thanks again, -Seth

Austin- I am so sorry to hear about this mess getting worse and worse. Hang in there, take your time getting her fixed, and I'm looking forward to the thread where you talk about having her in the air again. You may want to contact a local MSC and rent a hanger on site for the duration of the repair to get it ferriable, and then fly it to that MSC for final repairs - that way the tailcone won't come off, you'll have an MSC or similar type mechanic working the job, and it may come out to a good price. Believe me, a good A&P equal to good MSC status (as opposed to bad MSCs) will want your business. -Seth

Alright . . . Update: Spoke with the people at AeroLED and it looks like I'm probably going to end up with those. Since the lights are near each other, the wig wag makes no sense. However, the 36HX has a pulse feature as well. I can have the taxi and landing light pulse vs just be on continuously when in flight. Does anyone here think a pulsing landing/taxi light on a single circut makes a difference? If it doesn't make a differnece, I can always wait and replace with regular bulbs one more time, as the less expensive 36LX is about to be PMAed without the pulsing function. These are evidently brighter than the Whelen. The Par46 Whelen bulbs have recieved mainly positive feedback. It's mixed for the Par36. That's what has kept me from making the change (along with the price of two LED bulbs). However, the AeroLEDs Sunspot 36HX and 36LX are making me think it's time. The LX used to be about 1/3 less bright than the HX, but that is no longer the case. For manufacturing purposes, the ony difference between the LX and HX now are the wiriting to allow Wig Wag or Pulse and neither. To add a pulse will require a new rocker switch (on, pulse, off), or a new pulse switch where the landing light is (on). This will also requrie running new wires from panel to the cowling. So, is pulse worth it? Customer service at AeroLEDs thinks so (but obviously, they would rather sell the more expensive HX prodcut) and as mentioned before, I plan to add recognition lights in the wingtips with a wig wag feature in the future. From a cost point of view, I should wait for the LX PMAed versions to come out (about a month) and simply go with two of those, have no pulse, and let the wig wag on the wings in the future take care of that. However, to have a pulsing system now, for a few hundred more, plus wiring is making me think. From a pure cost point of view, I should just replace with regular bulbs - I'm not enjoying replacing landing lights every six to nine months. Recap: Option 1: Most expensive ($926 in blubs plus rocker switches and wiring) - Finally Create Separete landing light and taxi light switches. Replace both with HX, have a pulsing feature for both. Option 2: expensive ($762 in bulbs plus rocker switches and wiring) - Do the same as above, but drop in a non pulsing LX light on the taxi light side, with only the landing light as the HX pulsing option. Option 3: expensive - ($926 in bulbs but less expensive wiriting - add one switch) Keep the single circut, put in two HX bulbs (one taxi and one landing light), and rig them with an extra switch breaker so that when the light is "on" you can have a pulse breaker to turn the pulse function on and off. Option 4: Less expensive ($650 at $325 each) - Wait for the LX bulbs to become availble and put one landing and taxi light in as drop in replacements. Option 5: Even lesser expensive ($458 at $229 each)- Put in Whelens as they are even cheaper but not as bright Option 6: Least Expensive - Just replace the regualr bulbs So . . . thoughts? Thanks, -Seth

Bumper- That was my next question and you answered it for me. The side by side configuration in the cowl. Since the lights are literally right next to each other, inches apart, wig wag will be more like pulsing or blinking, so really now reason for that. I'm looking to intall some sort of wig wag feature in the wingtips as recognition lights in the future (similar to Bennett) thus simply a Landing Light and Taxi Light in the Cowl will most likely be what I install. They are on one circut currently, so both Taxi and Landing light on, or both off. So . . . Whelen or AeroLED? -Seth

VIc- I used to own a 1967 M20F with a Johnson bar. When I bough t it, I could use it, but had a similar opionion to you that smoething was not right. During the first annual, I asked them to look at th system, and during the test flight after the annual, the test pilot at the MSC stated that it was not as "smooth" as it should have been. One of the bungee items was replaced, and it was a dramatic difference. We're talking differnet worlds. Smooth function by one arm without question. Separately, I've had shoulder surgery in that arm due to a different injury, so having it be much smoother vs. how it was made a significant difference. I ended up selling that aircraft for other reasons and purchased my Missile which has electric gear. I've been very happy with the electric gear but admit that I do miss the Johnson bar. Get it checked out - it should be smoother and less difficult to manuver. -Seth

I understand. Mine is a J model wtih the K cowling (Missile Mod) thus, even though it's a J, it has the Par 36. The correct size was Par 46 for the J, so I had to contact (had the MSC) contact the FSDO to make sure that we could actually replace the LED in the Missile. They said it was fine, as we didn't want to do anything that may cause the aircraft to then be unairworthy due to stupidity. I just have to decide if I'm going with Aero LED or Whelen at this time and then decide if I'm going AeroLED to add the Wig Wag since there are two lights, which would increase wiring. -Seth

Topic Re-Opened: Both landing lights are out again. About 9 months since my last replacement of both lights. My cowl has two Par 36 lights that operate on a single switch. I am aware that the Whelen Par 46 landing light is a great drop in replacement as it has a greater surface area and more LEDs. However, the Par36 is smaller, and thus has less LEDs. Due to future modifications I plan to make in the wingtips, I plan to not put in and HID or "Boom Beam" type device and simply replace with LEDs lights. I do not want to drop in one regular light and one LED. Options: 1. Install Whelen: Put in one Par36 Whelen landing light and one Par36 Whelen 2. Install other manufacturer. Has anyone put in a Par36 Teledyne Alphabeam? Aero LED (Sunspot) Any other manufacturer? Any Sun and Fun specials on the whelen, Teledyne or Aero LED? Again, size Par 36 only - I know the Whelen Par 46 are great. -Seth