cliffy

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wwii-fighter-pilot-harry-moyer-still-flies-every-week/

If the horizontal stabilizer tip moves more than specified in the MM you have wear in the two hinge bolts OR someone has changed them to standard AN bolts. They are actually "close tolerance" bolts (they have a triangle symbol stamped on the head around the "x" mark of a normal AN bolt), Found 1/2" of play in one Mooney a few years ago and it turned out that the bolts had been changed to regular ANs. Put in close tolerance bolts and the play went away. You can visually check to see if the close tolerance bolts are in there by taking off the tail cone. Also pay attention to lubing those bolts every chance you get. I actually "quietly" check for that play in every Mooney I walk past. Just a habit of mine. Its unclear just what the OP was looking at.

Look to the experimentals and Light Sport to see what is really selling to the masses. (both in performance and cost) One can't make it in the airplane business by selling only to the carriage trade with only one offering. How many Bonanzas go out the door every year and at what price? Not too many.

BTW American figured they saved 600 pounds per 707 with the polished look.

Just like painting the Golden Gate Bridge When you're done - start over again. It's the song that never ends. Ask any Airstream trailer owner with polished aluminum that tries to keep it that way.

Had a friend hit a deer in a Merlin. Bent the engine mount down and out

American's polish job looked great from across the runway but up close? BTDT

I too have had a few in big iron and small even into Class B wrong way landing and nothing ever came of it BUT most less experienced pilots don't realize that they are in control of the entire situation. ATC is there for traffic separation not to fly your airplane for you. To them its God on High over the radio,

Always thought Ermey should make an alarm clock with him waking the troops (you) to get out of bed and hit the deck They would have sold in the 100s of thousands. two selectable voices One soft for the easily offended and one in his Marine DI persona for the rest of us. Mostly I think it is fear of taking control of the situation Fear of the voice on the radio. Fear of doing something wrong and standing in front of the Feds. How many emergencies are there where we hear the pilot "asking" permission to do something he needs to do? Never ask permission in an emergency. Declare it and do what you need to do.

Probably true IF the airplane was flown by only 1 pilot and if that pilot had kids. Multi pilot airplanes however I think would be the norm.

I think one of the military services did some testing with a sultry female voice on audible warnings and though that that voice was more noticeable (caught ones attention) than a male voice in the warnings,

Solve the stall warning redundancy issue by installing 2 identical but separate systems One on each wing ??????????? Don't most all 23 airplanes also have a tactile buffet at stall? Even the 727 did. We flew through the shaker to the buffet and held it there in sim training. Its quite strong. 95 kts IAS IIRC at our weight. But then again, a 727 was a pilot's airplane. My take? You can have all the stall warnings you want but most accidents pass through the boundary so quickly that no warning would stop the action. I tend to think that most accidents on stalls and terrain (dead people) occur as a stall/spin as the bank angle steepens quickly at low speed in a turn. One may not have enough time to react to any stall warning system in that situation. Now if the system had predictive quality to it???? They tried to make big jets safe (Airbus) by having everything in auto from 300' going up to roll out Even take away the pilots ability to over ride the airplane computers and now what do they have ? They lose one jet in the Atlantic because no one could understand they were in a stall and now many are having hand flying skill set problems because of the automation. How is making the autopilot command no stall any different than the Airbus crash? First item on our 1st AB sim ride was pull the stick aft and hold it there. "See the airplane won't stall" Where did that get them? A mind set from training that was dangerous especially to the low experienced pilot. The exact target they were trying to protect from. Everyone seems to forget that the one big design thought at the time of the 1st Airbus was to protect the airplane from low time 2nd and 3rd world ab initio co pilots. Hence- the autopilot computer knows more than you do so we won't let you do that. I hear echoes of a movie from long ago 'I can't let you do that" ! Hal 2001 Space Odyssey Lunacy comes in all colors. Are there any REAL pilots on any of these boards that make the rules? Maybe I'm just frustrated at the 'everything automation" outlook. Flying is not just a computer game app. All the training in the world can't and won't replace experience. And, not everyone is cut out to be a pilot. It ain't for everyone.

Engineers and/or materials sometimes don't meet first guesses Boeing made a calculation mistake in the 787 wing. When they went to ultimate failure test it broke (IIRC) at @98% of what was calculated. First time Boeing had a wing break below their calculations. First time also with a composite spar and not metal. The feds let them strengthen it by calculations and not do another wing break test.

When you are done polishing and wiping off the black stuff sprinkle on some plain old baking flour and rewipe with a clean cloth. Takes off all the black stuff you can't get off otherwise. Corporate jets drivers do that all the time on their leading edges after polishing so folks don't rub up against them and get black all over their suits. Look into the Airstream trailer forums for polishing aluminum.

Nstarbf- are you sure ALL 4 seat "feet" (rollers) are down and hooked correctly to the rails? It is possible to get three in place and the fourth riding high and not seated in place. The seat will move without weight but jams with weight on it.

B on T- My postulation was specific to the TT A/P The TT is not approach certified AFAIK (Just like many of the old Brittains.) +1 for that item (min altitude for engagement can be high like 700 ft AGL) Doesn't have to be as most legacy airplanes and pilots would never use it. I'm sure there is data right now enough to qualify it for ADAHRS issues Autopilot hard overs are always something to consider. In the TT system they have a disable switch (as do ALL A/P on the control wheel) that cuts all power to the system (no more driven hard overs). Servo malfunction was addressed in the first certification with the design of a new drive for the servos in that they completely disengage the drive/gear system from the actuator segment so a frozen servo would not hang up the control system. Lastly the servos are designed to be able to be "overriden" by control force input (IIRC) in the event of a hardover. The electronics are already certified for Pt 23 so they know all the MTBFS and failure modes. NORSEE only calls for "some agency" capitulation on design (SAE for example). All of the work that has been done before for certification can transfer right over to a NORSEE approval for all other airframes. The "fine points" you mentioned I think would be easier to overcome due to the limited exposure if it was "certified" for only climb decent and cruise and NO approach capability (might even electronically remove that nav function once the IAF was passed) I'm still thinking they could sell thousands of them (in that condition) to the vast majority of legacy airplanes out there as most do not ever venture into IFR approach territory. They wouldn't have to invest the millions it will take in certification on all the other airframes out there. They've got the hard work done already. I'm not even going to consider "resale" value being better with a fully certified approach capable A/P as most older legacy airplanes will not ever reach that point if they have a basic A/P like described. Might be a factor in 1/10 at most. Installation kits of course would have to be designed for each different airplane (a revenue stream in itself) but a much easier path for everyone than a full certification for each airframe out there. The profit margin just might be wider (the price should come down some but the margin just might be wider overall) this way as less effort by far is needed to be able to sell the units and the installation kits can go into that. Once the A/P and servos are passed as NORSEE then they can go in any airframe Only the installation kit is needed to be designed and that wouldn't need separate certification only compliance with proper aircraft quality pieces and design. I don't see anything in the NORSEE regs that is too daunting. Certainly not as daunting a full certification for all the other airplanes out there that could use a basic A/P Just thinking outside the box

After 50+ years IF YOU CAN'T REMEMBER- D E F P O T E C You might have to struggle with it to make it appear real :-)

Go look at big airports at night :-) Many have strobes on while taxiing One could always have an A&P wire in a large (8MM) bright LED to mount on the glare shield (or any where else) wired to the hot buss. Quick, cheap easy. they even make blinking ones!!!!

After 55 years as an A&P and 20+ on vintage Mooneys the lack of knowledge (Mooney specific knowledge) is appalling among the currently working A&P work force. Most don't have and/or will never look at the MM. Call 10 repair shops and ask if they ever work on Mooneys and then ask if they have the proper tools just to check the gear. My bet is 20% Another observation- there is also an appalling lack of basic trouble shooting skills (engine and electrical) out in the field. Again, call 10 shops and ask if they use a Master Orifice compression tester for Continental engines. My guess 50-50. I had to just last year teach a long running repair shop how to use one and why. And they work on 520s every day.

I'll bring up the idea again of someone needing to use the technology of the current automobile cruise control auto/braking systems and turn the sensors pointing down out of the airplane and instead of applying brakes turn on a loud voice say HEY DUMB S%^T put your gear down. The green light would disable that function Absolutely would qualify as NORSEE and the components are already SAE approved

Still has to go back to G for recert and STC reassign if bought used

Its nice but most can't afford it

Here's a question for the group Why wouldn't the TT A/P qualify as NORSEE equipment ? Here's a cut from the enabling legislation (Policy No: PS-AIR-21.8- 1602) Most NORSEE categories fall under the avionics, electronic instrument, and display categories. However, mechanical and other NORSEE categories can use the same methodology and evaluation approach, as outlined in this policy statement. The types of equipment that may be considered NORSEE include, but are not limited to the following:  Traffic advisory system,  Terrain advisory (such as a terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS)),  Attitude indicator,  Weather advisory,  Crashworthiness improvement,  Configuration advisory (such as gear advisory for floats and takeoff/landing configuration),  Supplemental indication (such as a fuel flow or fuel quantity indicator),  Monitoring/detection system (such as a smoke, carbon monoxide, or fire detector),  Extinguishing system (such as a fire extinguisher), and  Stability and control (such as an autopilot or stability augmentation system). Why go all the way to full certification? How about the Experimental model with the certified servos (as I know the feds would require that, they decouple the drive gears with power loss)? Gets around the full cert log jam Accomplishes the same end point ( no approach capability yet in the certified one either or by choice cancel the approach capability for the NORSEE install) Maybe BK should look at this?

BTW the Brittain A/P systems would be a real, money maker in todays world with a reasonable investment. Have no idea what the current owners are doing when business is clamoring at the door. It works good, it is already approved for a large number of airplanes It would fit the dead simple A/P notch perfectly. One doesn't need full approach capability to make lots of money on the majority older legacy airplanes that need an A/P for cruise conditions. In this day and age GPS/HDNG track and alt hold would sell thousands. AND be the biggest safety item one could install.

What the world needs is a better mouse trap!!!! For $7500 all in The biggest safety item and what the majority of pilots would like would be a plain and simple left/right (GPS track) alt hold A/P Most PPs would be very satisfied with the above. Most PPs are not IR rated. Triple redundant CATIII A/Ps are not needed. (pun intended). 20-30K for just straight and level is ridiculous. Especially in a 30-40K airframe. For the Js and above its a good "investment" If Brittan had their act together it could happen If BK had their act together the TT A/P would happen for Mooneys. Its just lack of business acumen and leadership. Sorry but their are ways to get the FAA to move