flight2000

Basic Member
  • Content count

    998
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

flight2000 last won the day on September 22 2016

flight2000 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

158 Excellent

About flight2000

  • Rank
    Won't Leave!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.67m20e.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    : Reno, NV (KRNO)
  • Model
    Beech E33A

Recent Profile Visitors

1,251 profile views
  1. So, it sounds like you need to be looking for a Cessna 182 or 210 based on the bold comments above (I know Mooney blasphemy...). All of the low wing aircraft are going to be a challenge to get in with possibly the exception of the Cirrus because of the 2 doors and no yoke in the way, but you still have to step down to get in. I like the Cessna's for one reason only: the ease of entry and exit, kinda like an SUV - slide in, slide out. The trade off on the sightseeing visibility is the difficulty of seeing traffic above and slightly behind, just like low wing aircraft have difficulty seeing down and back. Every plane has trade-offs, so you have to figure out what truly is important to you - start with a simple list. I'd say take your wife shopping with you at an airport and see which one she prefers. Sometimes it's not what you wanted, but it'll be easier to say "Honey, want to fly somewhere for lunch today" if she's happy with the choice in the first place and totally on board with you. If she dreads going to the airport, you'll be flying solo a lot. It's agonizing sometimes, but don't get so far into the analysis phase that it paralyzes you from making a decision. Best of luck! Cheers, Brian
  2. Out west, if I can get an LTE signal, I've been able to text as high as 13,000 feet MSL (haven't gone any higher than that yet). I only normally see one or 2 bars due to the nature of the towns being spread out so far and on occasion, no cell service at all down low at 2,000' AGL. Bad part is I normally can't even get flight following because I'm below radar coverage over a good portion of the areas I fly in if below 8,500 feet. Cheers, Brian
  3. I find this part especially troublesome and funny at the same time: """"My engine was manufactured or rebuilt by the Continental Motors®factory before August 9, 2005. Only engines manufactured or rebuilt at the Continental Motors® Factory before August 9, 2005, are potentially impacted by MSB05-8B. Inspect logbook or other paperwork for indication of replacement of part numbers 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031 by P/N 656818. If evidence is found that the original gear (P/N 631845, 655430, 655516, or 656031) was replaced by P/N 656818, document in logbook, no further action required. If no evidence of parts 655430, 655516, or 656031 replacement is found: Use inspection instructions of MSB05-8B to determine the part number of the camshaft gear installed. Use the part number found to determine if replacement is necessary or not and follow instructions in MSB-05-8."""" Their own customer service reps have been horrible on the phone when trying to reach out for assistance to find this exact information for my engine. I had an unpleasant exchange with a rep as I was trying to simply figure out what was included in my 1994 Factory Engine since my logbook does not include a comprehensive list of everything. The only thing the grumpy dude on the other end of the phone could spout out was I was over the 12 year overhaul limit and needed a complete overhaul done. Wouldn't help me at all... CMI is doing nothing but back pedaling at this point in my eyes. If the FAA was truly driving this AD, don't you think they would have included CMI in the discussion with the other organizations? If they have limited failures on two specific part numbers produced between 1999-2005, why are they recalling all parts that are not the latest version and why wait 12 years to make it a MSB? Even in their press release above, it identifies and then leaves out part 631845 in the part I quoted and placed in bold...??? They are not doing a good job of supplying the entire picture and their technical writers are not doing themselves any favors. This whole thing just stinks....Maybe their CEO should run for United's opening next year since he is following their playbook for PR disasters... Cheers, Brian
  4. Exactly. Last update to my '68 POH was 1982. Almost 90% of the equipment listed in the service and maintenance section is obsolete and no longer in the plane. Now my POH is full of supplements for all of the new gee whiz stuff we have. Curious to see how thick @Marauder's POH is with everything he has in his now. Brian
  5. You'd think MAPA would have jumped on board with AOPA, American Bonanza Society, Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, Saavy MX, and the Twin Cessna Association when they had a conference call with the FAA last week. Little disappointed to hear they weren't there since a fair number of Mooney owners may be effected by this. At least there is enough horsepower in the groups listed above to be able to represent the rest. Brian
  6. I miss the old gal sometimes.... Brian
  7. Wow, it's amazing the mess we have behind our panels these days.... Cheers, Brian
  8. I know that bird and its former owner. I've seen the plane in person and it is very nice. New panel will make it that much better!! Good luck with the sale! Cheers, Brian
  9. Response from the American Bonanza Society: https://www.bonanza.org/community/member-forum/maintenance/posts/apr-2017/continental-motors-revises-camshaft-gear-guidance/ I wasn't logged into the website when I opened it, so it should be available to all. Let me know if it's not and I'll find another solution. Cheers, Brian
  10. Yep, agree with that 100%. Brian
  11. From my experience last year, this is very true and I cannot emphasize it enough. Be ready to pull the trigger and really narrow down what you're looking for because paralysis by analysis is a very real disease.... The good ones go fast. I've gone through this process twice now and the first time was kinda painful because I was spit balling what I wanted since I didn't really know. Here's what I learned and added to the second buy. - Make a list of must have's for the plane (range, useful load, avionics, engine times, etc) - Make a second list of nice to have items (specific A/P's, type GPS, paint colors, etc) - Have finances in order ahead of time (cash is king or finance if necessary) - Once you start the process, make sure you know who you want to do the pre-buy/annual and where you want it done at The more stuff you have in order before hand will make it easier and also show the seller you are serious and not wasting their time. I feel your pain on looking everyday, but it has to be done if you're serious about buying. I found 7 different aircraft that met all of my criteria over a 4 months period only to find that each of them were already in pre-buy when I called (5 V35's and 2 C210's). The one I ended up buying was listed on controller.com for 2 days before I saw it and called the seller for more information and then give him a verbal commitment to buy pending the annual. I remember that Saturday in August perfectly because I was in California with my wife for her masters swim meet and surfing Controller on my iPhone. Showed her the pictures between her events and went from there. After I closed the deal, the seller told me there were three other guys that called behind me in case I pulled out and the funny part is that the #2 in line actually offered $10K more than the asking price to make me "go away" so he could buy it....lol. Seller was a stand up guy and I had my new bird. If you see airplanes languishing on those sites for a long time, there's generally two reasons. 1. it's overpriced and the seller is hoping to catch that one special buyer and/or 2. there's something wrong that everyone keeps finding and the seller won't fix. Priced right, aircraft will move quickly, even if it has some minor issues. My M20E spent 2 weeks on Controller and here on Mooneyspace (and other forums) before I sold it. Just some random thoughts for you. Cheers, Brian
  12. Both websites I looked at (Pacific Coast Avionics and Sarasota Avionics) had the 60-2 at $1K more (or $1.5K more in PCA's case): $15.5K for the 55X and $16.5K for the 60-2. If you need automatic electric trim added to either, that's another $4.5K and that does not include the labor to install. I learned my lesson, make sure the plane you want has the autopilot and avionics you want already installed.... Cheers, Brian
  13. Want a fun read, go to Beechtalk where it is up over 17 pages of discussion already.... https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=136515 Full MSB is here: http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/MSB05-8B.pdf Bottom line, if this becomes an AD, anyone with an engine that does not have P/N 656818 will need to split their case and change the gear on the engine if written as the MSB currently shows. Most estimates I've seen are somewhere between $9-$11K. The new gear is $1,200. I just find it really funny that the revised SB comes out 12 years after the original one was published. The alphabet organizations are already working on it, at least ABS and AOPA are that I know of for sure. AOPA article on the issue written back in December: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/december/20/camshaft-gear-failures-generate-airworthiness-concern-sheet Cheers, Brian II
  14. For whatever reason, the STec 60-2 is more expensive than the 55X. Go figure. I do love the coupled approaches now. Still learning everything in the 60-2 as my new plane has it versus the 30 I had in my Mooney. Cheers, Brian
  15. When the heck did USAA start doing aviation insurance??? I've been a member since 1997 and this is the first time I've heard this. I know they won't do loans on aircraft, because I asked... Brian P.S. Also with Travers. They had my Mooney and then my current Beech since 2009. Best rates I found, especially on the Bo.