KLRDMD

The generally accepted sequence is: P - reduce power A - neutralize ailerons R - opposite rudder E - elevator to level flight

Jonathan or Jennifer ? (Hart to Hart, TV show from the 80s).

Just the angle. Last spring I actually verified the props track perfectly with a pile of sand on the ground and then I recently had the props balances and the right one needed no weights at all, it was right on.

Absolutely. And for pleasure often you can. Most of my flying is business on somewhat of a schedule so I get hot and bumpy on all too often an occasion.

I loved my 231 and I may have one again at some point. For what it is, it is best of class, in my opinion. But there are risks in flying a single engine airplane. It seems at some points in my life I'm willing to take those risks and other times I'm not willing to.

Home base, KAVQ. My hangar is about as far away from the typical departure end of the runway as possible, and it is a very busy uncontrolled airport. Any number of times I've had to wait for 5+ airplanes doing touch and goes before I can get out. Yes, from engine start to airborne can be 15 minutes. KTUS, class C airport, clearance delivery, ground control, 11,000+ ft runways, airline service and an F16 ANG base, 15 minutes on the ground is not unusual.

I'm not gloating at all. I'm simply suggesting there is an alternative that many have not considered due to others posting false information. If, as a single engine pilot you're constantly told that twins are three times what a single is to maintain, you'll flip over on your back in the event of an engine failure, the second engine only takes you to the scene of the accident and other nonsense, you may never consider that a twin is an option for you. We've seen a lot of engine failures on this board in the last year, many of those pilots probably would have preferred to have a second engine when they had their engine failure. The reality is, for about 50% more yearly costs one can own, maintain and fly a twin versus a single and the twin brings you SO much more versatility and capability than the single. That's my entire point. I kinda like being the one making decisions (twin), not having decisions made for me (single).

In 120º weather . . . sure . . . BTDT. Many times. Don't want to do it again.

Fact: Insurance depends on your experience level. Complex airplanes are more to insure for the same hull value until you have enough complex time too. I pay the same insurance amount for the same hull value regardless of single or twin. And of course twins are not statistically less safe, that's a bunch of hogwash. During takeoff I have on average a +/-5 second window that the twin is *potentially* less safe than a single. Compare that to the entire flight *except* five seconds that the flight in the single is less safe than twin.

Once you're at altitude, sure. But what about the 15 minutes on the ramp and taxi way before taking off and the 15 minute climb after that until it gets cooler ? Then the reverse on the way down and landing ? That's close to an hour of every flight that altitude doesn't help.

I have one in my Baron, they're great.

Don't like the way an engine is running in cruise ? Leisurely shut it down, feather it and continue stress free to the nearest suitable airport on the other engine. Oh, you don't have another engine ? There sure seems to have been a lot of engine failures around here in the last year or so.

We’re doing a very extensive remodel, will post pictures once that’s done. Plan on Thanksgiving.

My previous Bravo was right at gross with full fuel, full TKS, weekend bags and me.

That pretty much sums it up.