WardHolbrook

One other thing to consider. It will be the owner of the airplane at the time of the damage that will take the price hit - not the buyer and subsequent owners. If you are satisfied with the quality of the repairs and can negotiate an appropriate price you'll have a nice airplane at a discounted price and even though it will be worth somewhat less than a NDH aircraft, you bought it for less to begin with and it won't hurt so much when you sell it on.

Personally, I don't think those things muddy the waters at all, just the normal routine stuff that you have to evaluate any time you're in the market for an airplane. Sellers and owners will always try to minimize and downplay the impact of damage, corrosion repairs, high engine times, inactivity etc. Buyers do the opposite. It's called the art of negotiation. But never forget this... If you've got one of a very few of something for sell and everyone wants one the hit you'll take for a bit of damage will be less. If you have something that there's a lot of and there's a lot of them for sale, you're going going to be able to command top dollar for it if yours has suffered a ding along the way.

I may be parrotting what others have said, but regardless of why or how the damage occurred, the airplane will lose value. The amount of that loss will be a function of what was damaged, how the repairs were accomplished, how well it was documented in the logs and how long ago the damage occurred. Damage that occurred 30 years ago and was repaired at a factory service center, properly documented, using factory new parts and pieces will have minimal impact. Damage that occurred last month and fixed by Bubba using a hammer and a couple of cans of spray paint and not entered into the logs will lose more value. But let's face it. If you have the theoretical two otherwise identical airplanes, but one with and the other without a damage history, which one would you want to buy? What would it take to entice you to buy the one with that damage history? The calculation gets muddied when you start considering differences in equipment, airframe and engine times, cosmetic condition, etc but regardless the basic airframe value is going to take a hit of one degree or another.

That engine was a pain in the keester in the P Navajo and one of the reasons why the airplane wasn't a commercial success.

It seems very strange to me that anyone would want to remove anything the factory installed on a balanced control surface. Things like that are installed for a reason.

Kudos to you. I wish everyone was as conscientious as your are. I wish there was a pulse light option in this poll because they may you stand out even more - day or night. For me, in anything I'm flying, the lights are on for takeoff and landing. (In the jets, they're on below FL180.) The "prime directive" when it comes to collision avoidance is, was and always will be - See and Be Seen. Running your lights - day and night - makes it easier for you to see and be seen. Who could possibly argue with that?

I agree 100%.

I could see them trying to outlaw night SE flying. That's already the case in many countries around the world. I could also see them restricting VFR flying to 50 nm from the airport. I don't think it would serve any purpose, but that's just me. Thankfully, we have plenty of politicians who seem to think that they know what's best for us. I'm sure they'll do the right thing.

Speed brakes are great tools and pretty much a necessity on many airplanes. Life would be a lot more complicated, in the jets I fly for a living, without them. The higher your fly, the faster you go, and the greater the margin you have between cruise, pattern and gear / flap speeds the greater the need for them. On slower, normally aspirated aircraft that are normally flown at low altitudes there is normally little or no need for them. As you climb the ladder, the usefulness of speed brakes increases. If you're considering them on your Mooney M20J I would simply ask myself, based upon my typical flight, how often would they have been helpful? They're like TKS systems - if you live in Phoenix and spend 99% of your time flying in the SW you probably wouldn't gain much utility by having FIKI certification. If you live in Minnesota your answer might be different. Same thinking applies to speed brakes. If you need them for thy type of flying you do, they're very nice to have and worth the expense. if you don't, they aren't.

I admit that I've never flown a Rocket conversion, but in every other aircraft - including every jet I've ever flown - my advise stands.

Trim so that you can take your hands off the controls at any point in the flight and the airplane will stay where you have it.

Yes, that's indeed what it looks like. Class, repeat after me... If the engine quits right after takeoff, making a 180+ degree turn to get back to the runway probably isn't the best plan. The accident record shows that it seldom is.

I've never had a private pilot rated student take more than 3 or 4 flights to solo a glider. I'd look around, there are some great soaring schools in some beautiful parts of the country. Getting the glider add-on rating it might make a great combination mini-vacation and BFR substitute.

Good stuff. Let me put on my CFI-G hat for a minute and recommend a bit of glider training for those of you who might have any questions or doubts of your ability to successfully manage an engine-out scenario in your airplane. It honestly doesn't take very much for a power-pilot to gain the necessary skills and proficiency to get through the checkride in a sailplane. A glider rating will introduce you to a skillset that will transfer directly to just about all of the fixed-wing flying you'll ever do. Your stick and rudder skills will be enhanced and you will gain a confidence in flying without an engine. (Engine? I don't need no stinking engine.)

I've got a little over 11,000 hours in speed brake equipped aircraft. Here's what I've learned... Never put out the boards if a power reduction will suffice. That can be easier said than done on piston-powered airplanes. If you need them use them. If you find yourself using them every time on every approach you may want to rethink your procedures. It's really that simple. They really are a great tool to have at your disposal; however, they are only indispensable in gliders.

Stabilized approaches aren't just for jets. Unfortunately, it's a lesson that we all need to relearn from time to time. As far as speed brakes go, what's the old line..."They're for my mistakes, not ATC's" (or words to that effect). Yes they are not the most efficient way to manage your energy, but just like in a jet, when you need them you need them. I've always found that when I find myself being rushed in any phase of flight - from preflight planning though shutdown and putting it in the hangar at the end of the flight - I'm most susceptible to screwing something up. That's always the time to slow down and start being a bit more deliberate in your actions.

I was talking propeller retracts. Actually in the Falcon 900 it's V2 + 25, but what's 5 knots among friends?

For me, it's positive rate of climb with no more usable runway - Gear Up. Gear up, 400' AGL and clear of obstacles - Flaps Up.

There was also a recent YouTube video showing a nice Bonanza sliding down the runway after an inadvertent gear retraction. It happens and it happens several times per year.

I must be missing something. No go-arounds in a Mooney Ovation? A go around is a basic maneuver that must be mastered by all pilots regardless of what they are flying. Of course there are times when a go-around is not recommended - single engine go-arounds in light twins are a very bad idea and even though the 3-engine Falcon 900 that I fly for a living actually does quite well on one engine, there is a restriction in the AFM about going around if you're doing a 1 engine approach. There's no going around if you're less than 1000 agl. Aside from those two scenarios, go-arounds are something that every pilot needs to practice and be proficient at. You just never know when you'll need to do one.

I've been a CFI for 35 years and it's getting harder and harder for me to see the value in TnG's especially in something like a Mooney. As this incident clearly shows, the downside will easily erase any potential benefits.

One of the guys on the Red Board posted this link. It's good stuff... http://www.slideshare.net/strappy57/ditching-water-survival-airventure