• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jeff_S last won the day on October 13 2016

Jeff_S had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

705 Excellent

About Jeff_S

  • Rank
    Won't Leave!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Fernandina Beach, FL (FHB)
  • Reg #
  • Model
    M20R - Ovation 3

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Here's a detailed look at costs to own my Ovation over the last 5 years. Fuel and Maintenance/Repair are obvious. "Other" includes things like data base updates, WX/ForeFlight subscriptions, and other expenses directly related to owning the aircraft. Taxes, Tie Downs and Insurance are a bit skewed in 2017-18 because I had hangars in two places until 2019, so use those other years to estimate. Now that I have prepared this for you, I will promptly never look at it again so I'm not reminded!
  2. Just a thought on this...the cowl on the Acclaim has much wider openings, which MAY create more drag, which COULD make it seem like it glides less on landing. All those are big IFs, as I don't know if having that drag right behind the propeller would have much effect, as it could be masked by the prop airflow itself. But just thinking outside the box a bit...
  3. Yes, a delightful reminiscence...thanks for sharing, "prophessor"!
  4. As noted above, the sight picture for landing (and taxiing!) a long body is significantly different than the shorter Mooneys. Realize that your resting attitude on the ground is 5° nose-high. (Some might be slightly more or less...mine has the A/C in the back which may add a bit more to this effect.) So your landing flare has to be about 8° to avoid hitting the nose wheel first. Don Kaye has posted a lot on the landing techniques for the long bodies, so he could say a lot more than he did above. I remember when I was transitioning, the best visual training I got was from Richard Simile. He said I should liken the landing to a bird of prey, reaching out it's talons to capture its next meal. In this case those talons are your wheels, and you want to feel like you are nose high and just letting those wheels reach down to the ground in your flare. That's really a good way to think about it. Speed control is critical in all Mooneys, but even more so in the long bodies as they will float forever if carrying too much speed. Finally, I've found that carrying a breath of power over the threshold is essential to a greaser. I used to land my J pretty much power-off, but trying this in the Ovation yielded pretty bad results. A touch of power down to the flare helps smooth things out for me.
  5. The Sport Air Race League events to do not require this, but that doesn't mean it's not common or unwarranted. Those are the only events in which I've participated.
  6. So, I'd like to 'slip' the conversation to the same topic, but from a different angle. It was pointed out to me in a tactful private message that I confused a forward slip and a side slip. I argued my point, but was shot down by FAA Documentation. I guess officially, a side slip is used on landing and a forward slip is used to reduce speed/altitude etc. But I still think this is bass-akward! I know I won't win my argument, but I lay it out anyway to see if someone can help make sense of it. My reasoning is that a "forward slip" is used to maintain the correct forward direction of the longitudinal axis, as required for landing in a cross wind. Whereas a side slip is one where the longitudinal axis of the plane is shifted to one side or the other of forward direction, thus presenting the "side" of the airplane to the desired path (and creating the drag which in fact provides the desired benefit). In fact, the relevant section of the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook agrees that this is exactly what is happening! (See pages 8-11 and 8-12 of the attachment.) So my explanation seems logical to me, but still, I always have them officially backwards. Can anyone give me a better way to think about why a side slip is named thusly, and also a forward slip? Otherwise I am doomed to just say "I slipped the airplane" and give up trying to distinguish between the two. 10_afh_ch8.pdf
  7. What Anthony said. I would slip my J aggressively to lose altitude and/or speed, but major sideslipping is not a recommended practice in the long body. Speed brakes are your friend. If you’re desperate and at 140 KIAS or below, drop the gear. Forward slips for landing are of course a different animal, and entirely normal.
  8. Thanks Anthony. I have two questions that I haven’t been able to answer yet. The first is exactly which model of Airpath I’ve got. The model number info is all worn off the manufacturers decal. I think it’s the 2400 but if anyone can confirm that I would appreciate it. The second question is how to remove the plastic casing. I can’t find any instructions for doing that on the web or at the Airpath site. Perhaps one you loosened the set screw at the back, the casing screws off the compass unit. So again, if anyone can help there that would be awesome.
  9. Hello all, I had to abort a repositioning flight today due to finding my center-post mounted Airpath whiskey compass dangling from one screw. When I touched it to see what was going on, the bracket gave way entirely and the compass was in my hand. Chalk up another victory for the preflight "heading indicator to compass" check! I could tell that at some point in the past, this bracket had already broken and been repaired with some sort of glue, which finally gave way. I was able to salvage the pieces and am trying some stronger epoxy to see if I can get a temporary fix in place, but I have found on Chief Aircraft what I think is the replacement plastic bracket that should be the permanent fix. My question is, how do you get the bracket off and back on? There is a single screw in the back of the unit that looks like it would be holding on the bracket, but when I loosened that to test it, the plastic didn't seem to come loose at all. Has anybody done this? The bracket is $40, vs. $250 for a whole new compass/bracket combo. All help appreciated. Thanks!
  10. I did Google it, right after I replied to the post. So I got the information. It just seems to me that a bit more context might have helped everyone understand who isn't following TIGHAR religiously. But titillation and obscure information are part of the process, I understand... Personally, having examined all the photographic evidence that is now on display everywhere, I think people are stretching with this one, but you never know. I do think that Nikumaroro is the likeliest spot for them to have ended up based on other evidence. Perhaps Ballard can help validate. Only problem is, what happens to the intrigue-industry if this is ever proved? What is the next mystery to be solved. I know...Ancient Aliens!
  11. My Ovation doesn't have an official nick-name but I affectionately call it my "rocket ship" because I love the way it accelerates off the runway. I've also been known to call it my personal time machine. My first plane, a Warrior, earned the nickname "Jugs" because not long after I bought it we had to pull a cylinder off to repair the studs which had corroded and were causing an exhaust leak. Like any good call sign, the nickname should be earned through behavior or reputation! My buddy has a 1963 Cessna 172 that flies very nicely but clearly looks like it's been around the block a time or two. The call sign ends in "1U" so the plane is named "1 Ugly".
  12. Say what you will about Tom Cruise's personal life weirdness, he has found a niche in playing the the rough and tumble hero in a variety of genres: Missions Impossible, War of the Worlds, The Mummy...and yes, Maverick. The man definitely has a persona of cool and just enough "out there" to buck the system and get the job done. It's always possible that they could screw up the sequel, but frankly I doubt it: they spent plenty of time putting it together, and I think Cruise's innate ability to piece together this kind of story will make it quite enjoyable. And based on this trailer, I expect most of the flight sequences will be real. If he's willing to dangle himself outside of a C5 Galaxy (going from memory there) for numerous takes, I think he'd want to do as many real cat-shots as he could!
  13. So I'm not an expert on avionics software by any stretch, but what I have gleaned is that Garmin and Mooney did the work to certify the G1000/55x combo, utilizing the known specs of the 55x. A lot of the 55x behavior is really driven by the G1000, especially in terms of the VNAV signals sent to the A/P. So that is one source of the conflict with the new 3100, which has its own VNAV algorithms which could conflict with the G1000's. Again, there are potential solutions for this (you can write code for anything), but Genesys has decided to pursue other business opportunities for now.
  14. Hello Everyone, I had a nice conversation with Barry this morning. He called me up to let me know that due to a lack of perceived demand (only 8 confirmed POs according to Barry) they have decided to push off the Mooney STC indefinitely. He went through the count of interested parties as he knew it, and said that of the original 22 POs that came in, many of these have dwindled off due to airplane sale, selecting Garmin instead, death of owner, etc. Genesys has determined that with bigger demand from other airframes in their pipeline, they have to focus on those instead. As a software business person, I can't argue that point. Most of my time was spent working with Genesys on the G1000 interface elements, and this is problematic for those of us with the G1000/55x combo. The short form of the story is that Genesys could implement many of the 3100 features on the G1000, but two areas were problematic. The first was getting annunciation from the 3100 to the G1000, and given all the new modes in the 3100 that the 55x didn't have, they pretty much decided to NOT annunciate any modes on the G1000. That was probably a livable solution. However, the (potential) inability to utilize altitude preselect from the G1000 to drive 3100 behavior has proven to be a much stickier wicket. My comments to them were that if G1000 couldn't drive altitude behavior in the A/P, for manual preselect as well as the programmed altitudes in the approaches, then this would be an unacceptable user interface and I would not pursue installation. I think they agreed. And the time/cost of further exploring this solution is one of the reasons they decided to hold off for now. Barry did say there may still be light on the horizon vis a vis the G1000. The exercise they've gone through so far has furthered their general knowledge of the G1000 interfaces, and they have other groups (including one training firm that has 50+ Pipers with G1000/55x) that they are still talking with. There may still be a solution, but for now it is on the back burner. Barry asked that I share this with the group, so I have discharged that duty. I am somewhat disappointed with the current resolution, but on the other hand, the 55x still works well and Barry said they expect to be supporting it for 20+ years. In the meantime, none of this impacts the ability of my beautiful Conti IO-550 from aggressively purring through the sky! Cheers, Jeff