Earl

Quote: thinwing ehscott...500hrs.....that is what I recall i would typically get from an airbourne pump on my Baron...The Bravo I fly now has about 900 hrs on the main pump and as you stated the standby is only switched on at beginning to test function.My main pump is only driving a standby aI...when I did the install of the g500 (gad 43 now drives the a/p)if I had installed an electric aI with its own backup lithium battery for redunacy to the main electrical bus,,,I could have done away with the vac pumps altogether...the only reason I didnt was I was already over budget and decided enough was enough.I will consider it though if I suffer a vac pump failure..sinc kp couch

Quote: Cruiser just curious, did you report the failure to ATC? What did they say? 91.187 Operation under IFR in controlled airspace: Malfunction reports. (a) The pilot in command of each aircraft operated in controlled airspace under IFR shall report as soon as practical to ATC any malfunctions of navigational, approach, or communication equipment occurring in flight. ( In each report required by paragraph (a) of this section, the pilot in command shall include the— (1) Aircraft identification; (2) Equipment affected; (3) Degree to which the capability of the pilot to operate under IFR in the ATC system is impaired; and (4) Nature and extent of assistance desired from ATC.

Quote: thinwing ehscott..thanks for report ..very interesting the way the ai ran down.Since it also commands a/p I could see why you would intially be playing with a/p....what kind was it and why didnt it "flag" the a/p with an unreliable attitude input??If your backup vacumn pump is similar to mine,its just engaged by a clutch that is electrically engaged by a switch.Once you engaged it and got a vac. indication ,why did you turn it off again??Were you trying to save it from wear and tear??I dont think you need to because it is probably the same pump type as your main pump.Last questions...how many hours on main pump??thanks again kp couch

Fortunately for me I was in VFR conditions even though on an IFR flight plan. Very interesting how it manifested itself. I was climbing to an assigned altitude and had the autopilot engaged. However, the plane would not climb and every time I pushed the up button on the autopilot it would climb for a short while and then begin to lower the nose as the artificial horizon wound down. If I had been in the clouds I would not have had the visual clues and at some point would have only noticed that the artificial horizon said I was climbing at 15 degree attitude but the VSI would have shown a descent, the altimeter would be going down etc. It did keep the wings level initially but it would have been a real challenge had I not noticed the loss of vacuum. I would say it took me less than 30 seconds to notice the flashing High/Low Vac Light and then I saw that the pressure was zero. I engaged my standby vacuum and it returned to normal but since I was in VFR conditions I shut off the standby and covered the artificial horizon and finished my flight. By the way, this was the longest flight I have flown in a while with no autopilot and it was good to have to focus on altitude, etc. for a long period of time. A couple of observations and comments about what I learned. One, this confirms my SOP that I do not use the autopilot in the initial climb phase in IMC. Two, it confirms why I never depart an airport unless the weather is above minimums for the approach for the active runway. Even at 200' ceilings it does give some time in visual conditions before being in the soup (albeit not much in a turbocharged Mooney). Three, I can see how insidious a loss of vacuum could be and how easy it would be to get totally disoriented with conflicting information and sorting it out. Four, if I did not have the warning light that was flashing away I would install one right away. I was messing with the autopilot but finally it caught my attention. Finally, I can really see the value of regular partial panel work. Once I covered the artificial horizon it was surprisingly easy for me to transition to the electric turn coordinator for turns and VSI/altimeter for attitude. I also played with the panel function on my 696 to see how that would work if I were in IMC. Worked OK and would be great in a pinch but I would not want to have to rely on it for any length of time. All in all I am really grateful this happened in VMC and I learned a few good lessons about what to expect and if it happens in IMC I will quickly recognize those symptons. On another note, I had forgotten that the speed brakes run on vacuum and I sort of missed it when they dumped me down from 12,000 feet. Was able to manage but it would have been nice to be able to dump some airspeed. I could have popped on the standby but didn't really need to.

Wish I could go but am headed off for spring break to look at colleges with my daughter.

I did mine on the mains after 20 years and 2,200 hours (only 3 years after I bought the plane). First priority was a prop O/H and Garmin 430. Next year will do the nose gear as well as O/H the gear actuator. Man are these planes expensive!

Gotta love that. Of course, it sounds like if the Mooney driver was left to his own devices he probably would have floated half way down the runway with that excess speed.....not that I've ever done that....well maybe not too many times.

I just went to the Hartzell website and their top prop conversion allows a diameter reduction from 74" for the 2-blade to 73" for the 3-blade. What is interesting is they show the diameter of a 3 blade as 76" but it can somehow be reduced to 73", which is not allowable on the 2 blade. Not sure haow that works. Harder to find specs on the McCauley site but they have some goofy pdf with Professor Propeller telling you that one of the advantages of a 3 blade prop is more ground clearance. Maybe the hub where the blades are mounted is smaller and you get the reduction there? As for me, I went with the longer, cheaper 2-blade blade and my wife loves it!

Quote: JimR I believe that that is only the case with the 3 blade MT prop. The other 3 bladers are the same length as the two bladers, so they offer no ground clearance improvement. Jim

Also I believe the 3-blade props are a bit shorter than the 2-balde so you get one more porpoise before a prop strike.......OK, that's probably not a mental image we want to have. How about more clearance when operating off a grass field?

Quote: flyby201 I financed with the AOPA vendor (Bank of America) 5 1/2 years ago and have had no problems with them. It seems to me someone was complaining about them on this site a while back, but a some point in the discussion admitted they were 3 or 4 months behind in their payments. B of A's interest rate is (or at least was at that time) competitive and I think they pay your AOPA dues while you have the loan (not positive about that, though). For those of you talking about front loaded interest... It doesn't work like that. Interest is calculated based on the amount of the principle. When you start your loan the principal is high, so the amount of interest is more. As the principle is whittled away the amount of interest charged decreases proportionally. If you divide your interest rate by 365, that is your daily interest rate. Multiply your principle balance by your daily interest rate and multiply that by the number of days since the bank received your last payment and that is the amount of interest you will be charged on any given payment. If you pay additional principle with each payment, that will significantly reduce the total interest paid over the life of the loan. You can also accererate your payments ,like making a payment (or 1/2 payment) every 2 weeks instead of once a month to reduce your total interest paid. Check with MAPA or MOA. They have several banks that advertise with them. Your average banker doesn't know diddly about aircraft. Deal with one of these banks that know aircraft financing, I think you will have a more pleasant experience .

Quote: RJBrown Try First Pryority Bank http://www.1st-of-pryor.com/ They want our loan business.

Gotcha.....agree that no one can predict with certainty but the consensus from what I had read was that rates will not rise much over the next year. I will put that in my analysis and see what makes sense. Either way, my payment is likely going to drop because of the equity infusion. I may even be able to shorten the loan to five or ten years which would be good. Thanks for the insight on the interest rates.

Quote: Mac201 Tried to post. I try again. Interest rates will most likely be higher by the end of the year. If you have the resources, you may consider reducing the loan balance now and go ahead with refinancing while rates are lower. Just a thought. Good luck.

Quote: KSMooniac I have the same loan (my first) that enters the 4th year next month and was told when I was loan shopping that doing a 5yr balloon/20 yr amort was common for airplanes b/c something like 80-90% of aircraft owners will either sell or do a major upgrade/refi (ie engine, paint, interior, etc) on average every 3 years. Knowing what I know now, I'll refinance it into a shorter term fixed loan sometime this year since I have a keeper of a plane and have been doing my upgrades with cash instead of financing them.

Well I went back and looked at my correspondence and the loan docs. In all the correspondence the only term used by me and the broker was 20 year note. However, when I reviewed my loan docs the one aspect I failed to notice was the maturity date, which was in 2011, instead of actually being a 20-year note. And I also missed the very tiny portion buried in pages of legalese where they estimated the principal amount that would exist when the loan matured. Shame on me for not having my GC review this loan as I am sure she would have noticed it. However, I can assure you that both I and my broker had specifically requested and were left with the distinct impression that it was a 20 year note instead of a 5-year note with a 20-year amortization. He did not review the loan docs and only referred me to First Merit so I really can't blame him. This is my fault and my embarrassment for having believed what I was told instead of what I was given. Lesson learned..... I also now understand why they did this and why they elected not to renew the facility. After several responses from lenders it turns out that Vref for my plane is about equal to what is left on the note. So they would have been forced to come to me and tell me I needed to pump in an additional 15% equity to get the LTV to 85%. I am quite sure they realized that when I learned I had been bamboozled (and stupidly signed onto it) and had to pony up additional cash to refinance that I would have gone elsewhere and on that note they are exactly right. They knew what they did and frankly would have probably gotten away with it if the Vref had not dropped. They would have just sent me a nice note saying they were renewing the facility and the good news is the rate is dropping a little but such was not the case and here I am. Here is my current strategy. I am going to send an additional $5K in principal each month from now until the note matures in December. That way I spread out the cost to get my LTV to more than 85%. I will then refinance with a 15-year note.....not a 5-year note with a 15-year amortization and I will have the loan docs reviewed by my outside counsel so I can say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." In 25 years in business and millions in loans and lines of credit I have never had this happen. It won't happen again.

I would echo what several others have said about using the ipad for primary navigation, not a good idea or likely even legal. I have a Garmin 430 and a yoke mounted 696 and they are almost always agree completely on speed and location. I also have a RAM mount for my ipad and have had the moving map up while I am flying but never checked it against the other two. I just had the moving map up out of curiosity more than anything else. Next time I fly I am going to check it out a little better to see if there is a problem.

Here are my numbers developed during my IR training. Have an 86 252. No tricks that I know of. I put mine on my clipboard but after awhile you just remember most of them. MP RPM Pitch Airspeed VSI Gear/Flaps Climb 36 2700 6dg 95 1000 U/U Cruise 28 2500 0dg --- 0 U/U Cruise Descent 20 2500 0dg --- -500 U/U Approach Level 21 2500 +1/2dg 95 0 D/D Presicion Descent 16 2700 Bottom Ball 95 -500 D/D Non-Prec Descent 13 2700 -2dg 95 -800 D/D

Quote: Mitch What? I know absolutely nothing about the banking business, but it seems to me that a loan is a contract agreed upon by at least two parites. They agree to loan the money, which the did, and you agree to repay at the rate/amount agreed upon.

I understand they have the legal right to call the loan. What I object to is the reason they are calling the loan and the fact that I have finally gotten to the point on the amortization schedule where I really start whittling away on the principal. So they have gotten all the intrerest payments in the first portion of the loan and now I have to start over with a new lender. This is shady business at its best.

I just go notice from First Merit that they are calling my loan on my airplane. I spoke to them this morning and they indicated they were no longer going to be national and were retrenching to a few midwest states. Despite the fact that it is a 20 year note and I have made all my payments they are pulloing the rug out from under me. DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS BANK! They are not serious about being an aviation loan provider.

Quote: hansel

Quote: jax88 Personally, I think we have Patent Offices and a court system so that attorneys can ensure employment.

Quote: rogerl What is slipping under the rug here is the argument that the patent itself is frivolous. From the text of the patent, my opinion it that the patent itself is pretty nebulous. Software patents and process must be reformed so that they are specific and meaningful. The true fools here are the clueless folks at the USPTO who are being used time and time again for very general software patents that will eventually fall to time consuming and expensive litigation. Meanwhile, folks like the guy at navmonster abandon what was a worthwhile service that got paid for by minimal advertising - thereby stifling the much vaunted 'innovation' ... I guess innovation is only cool if it serves your particular purpose ... Ever heard of google? Look at what they are providing for "free" (if you don't mind being a commodity that they sell to their advertisers, that is). We all pay for this, and running the court system ain't cheap. Our tax dollars would be better spent with the USPTO hiring a team who better understands software issues, thereby nipping the problem in the bud.

Quote: GeorgePerry Regardless of what side you come down on, (right, wrong or indifferent) one thing is for sure....public sentiment has turned strongly against FP. I agree that protecting IP with patents is lawful and in most cases "right". But in this case I think pursuing patent infringement lawsuits will cost them more in the long run. Time will tell.