WardHolbrook

FWIW, here are my thoughts, in no particular order, on the use of O2: Visit an altitude chamber and take a ride. YOU ned to know what YOUR hypoxia symptoms are. Also, symptoms can change so if it's been a few years since your last chamber ride it's probably time to do it again. Buy a pulse oximeter and use it regularly during high altitude flight. Buy a small emergency bottle and mask and keep themt within reach just in case your main system developes a problem. This bottle only needs to contain enough O2 to get you down to a breathable altitude. Don't automatically default to the high altitudes just because you can. Flight planning takes on new meaning. One of the flight planning programs or online programs will really help you pick the most efficient altitudes and routes. I use Flitesoft and Fltplan.com. I prefer Flitesoft. Do you need this stuff to be legal? No, but you do need it to be safe up there. We're not talking a lot of money, Chamber rides used to be free, I think they still are depending upon where you go. The pulse oximeter and emergency bottle aren't budget busters either. Fltplan.com is free and commercial flight planning programs like Flitesoft won't break the bank either.

Quote: FlyDave Ditto, well almost. We have the same iPad set, only using GNS5870 GPS units, up for our two Falcon 900s. However, we have found that even with all of the electrically heated glass in the Falcon's cockpit, there was really no need to go with the external GPS, so we seldom, if ever, bother to use them any more. The WingX Pro is a nice app, but it's got "user friendliness" issues when it comes to long-range IFR flying - it's a royal pain in the keester to have to enter in all of the departure, enroute and arrival fixes. Other than that, it's great. We also have the full-blown Foreflight app installed on our iPads. Foreflight is MUCH more user friendly when it comes to route input - you can essentially write the clearance just as it appears in your flight plan. You can even specify the departure and arrival runways and all of the waypoints magically appear - just like on the jet's FMS. Other than that, both apps are neck in neck, but the competition is pretty strong between the two so if you don't like one, or prefer the other you probably won't have to wait too long before something changes. Right now, I don't even bother with WingX in the Falcons, however I kind of prefer it over Forefllight. I'll see if that changes with the next revision.

Quote: crj700 I use WingXPro7 on an iPad 2. WingX uses Seattle Avionics Charts. Using a Dual bluetooth GPS ($75.00) new on e-bay. I was very impressed. I tried out this App and GPS last week flying a CRJ at FL320 to FL390 and this set-up was dead on for ground speed and course, we were cruising a 501 kts. GS and the iPad was reading exactly 501 kts. Course was exact as well. Altitude was off 300 to 400 ft, the Dual was aquiring 6-7 satellites out off 11. I was using WingXpro7 in split screen mode....VFR sectional on left side and Jet High Enroute on the right....very, very nice. Just talked to Hilton and found out the altitude was off because I didn't calibrate it in the settings mode!! I also use JeppFD which our company pays for but WingXPro7 is far better, expecially for GA pilots.

Quote: bd32322 yeah I had the same concerns. Doesnt look like anything close to my current plane. As for the long range tanks - they are nice to have if I am flying alone - which I seldom do. With a 860 lb useful load - once all the tanks are filled - I can fit only one person

Quote: jetdriven If I had an airplane that had 2 gear ups I wouldn't want to see the difference either! Same for you Byron! But as a buyer I would! Give me a fxxxxxg break! Look, you can't diminish the fact that when something unforseen and outside the normal wear and tear happens to an airplane that impacts it, it is called DAMAGE and requires repairs. This is not classified as routine maintenance but as damage repair. The goal to everyone's advantage is to restore AW. There are proper ways to do this following guidlines set forth in full daylight fully logging it without trying to cover it up. This is what neutralizes the damage history: proper repairs fully disclosed and properly logged. Not playing semantics with the words, like Bill Clinton: what is tbe definition of "is" ?!

I've flown Mooneys and 177RGs and each has strenghts and weaknesses. Over all, for me, I'd go with the Mooney. The Cessna always seemed to me to be running out of "climb".

Quote: Parker_Woodruff My short trip numbers for the M20K are miserable. Mainly the fuel flow numbers on takeoff do me in (anothe case for the LOP climb) My brother and I flew a cross country of 85 nm each way this past weekend. Total fuel burn? 17 gallons. Fuel burn from Longview (GGG) to Lakeland ( LAL) - 52 gal I totally understand your point, Ward. It just dependS on what the trip will be before I can make a calculation like that. Also, I just worry about the marginal cost of each trip. An annual is going to cost about the same whether the plane flies a few extra hours or not. Same for the insurance, etc. Also, in terms of SMPG, I cannot get the M20K to beat what the M20J could do at 9,000'. I can get really close up high.

Quote: Parker_Woodruff Ward, Unfortunately I didn't keep down-to-the-penny costs for my M20J. Also, cost per mile on the M20K is totally dependent on altitude, so an hourly figure is the best way to convert that to $/mi. I think my costs in 2012 dollars will stabilize at about $140-150/hour, as best I can tell. That includes everything from GPS updates to insurance, to tied down, etc. But the per mile number can change significantly when your speed at 6500' is 160 knots and FL190 is pushing 200 KTAS. I will be hitting FL210-230 in the next few weeks and am excited to see the performance.

Quote: Parker_Woodruff Well, I can tell you that my 220 horsepower M20K is running an average Hobbs fuel flow of 10.05 gallons per hobbs hour. From purchase to date (June 2011 to March 17, 2012) I have done one annual inspection and flown a total of 59.6 hobbs hours. My 200 hp M20J would run about 8.0-8.5 gallons/hobbs hour, IIRC. It isn't necessarily the turbo that will eat you. So far, for me, it's been in the more complicated systems, like my dual alternator setup. An overhauled coupler for the alternator behind the engine (geared to the camshaft) accounted for about $1600-1700 in troubleshooting, parts, and labor out of my $2100+ in squawks at this annual. Other than that, it was a pretty painless annual. But my preferred MSC did a good prebuy and fixed a lot of squawks at the time of purchase.

Quote: scottfromiowa Wow, I am REALLY surprised by the poll... -Checklist -Yes I follow a written checklist -Yes, shortly after buying my plane (about 25 hours) retract I was asked by the tower to "keep my speed up" on a 10 mile final... -Yes, I had a gear up while under instruction when instructor pulled power midfield in downwind on a displaced runway (not my home airport) after six take-offs and landings and two hours of instruction (one under hood) and bi-annual... You all had BETTER BE READING OFF A CHECKLIST ON FINAL OR YOU WILL JOIN THE GEAR UP CLUB... I had "habits"...the GU happens when something unexpected happens and throws you off your game.

I use a written checklist and flows. The flows are done first, then backed up with the checklist. When I select gear down, my hand doesn't leave the selector until the gear is confirmed down. I also have a 500' AGL check. 13,000 hours of retract time - so far so good, but I don't take it for granted.

You guys are making this way too hard. There are several programs out there that calculate the time on fuel burn of just about any aircraft that you can imagine including all of the different Mooney varients. One of the more popular programs www.FltPlan.com is free and will handle pretty much any preflight task, from route selection, altitude selection, preflight briefing, filing, printing approach charts, etc. There are others out there as well but this one is free. (It's also the one that's most popular among corporate pilots.) If you willing to pay a little bit there's also Jeppesen's FliteStar and RMS Tech's Flitesoft (That's the one that I personally use.) Once you get any of these programs dialed in for your specific airplane, they are bang on and answer automatically all of the "what if" questions. They will time you time and fuel burn for multiple altitudes taking into account climb performance at each altitude, weight, temperatures, winds aloft, etc. It makes selecting the most appproprite altitude dirt simple. No more guessing. Some, like Flitesoft, do a progressive weight and balance calulation as you add passengers, baggage and fuel. They are great flight planning tools. I've been using Flitesoft for over 20 years and it allows me to select the route, including SIDs and STARs, select the most efficient cruise altitude, pull the weather and file cor a coast-to-coast trip in the Falcons in no more than 10 minutes. As far as accuracy goes, from SBA to TEB it's usually within a couple of minutes and the fuel burn is typically within a fraction of 1% - less than 100 lbs. It's not difficult to tweek the performance files to match your particular airplane and flying style and once you've got everything dial in they're bang on accurate.

Quote: Mooneymite Both VFR and IFR operations can be flown safely...as long as one is proficient and follows the rules...

DOUBLE POST

I've been instrument rated for 37 years. I've been a CFII for over 30 years, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF7-AxleI_0

Quote: jetdriven The added (and unjustified) expense of the turbo is bad enough. LOP is even worse and asking for more trouble! The cost of fuel is miniscule next to the expense of maintaining the turbo! Not interested in a L/ROP debate, just my opinion. I woulnd'nt be thinking of the fuel! It's peanuts next to the cost of the engine. Of course I don't nor do I have any intentions of getting into a turbo! As someone said earlier its all about proper planning and proficiency and not about NA or turbo.

Quote: panther1400 What oxygen do you use medical, welders, aviation?

Quote: pjsny78

I'm one of those "it all depends" guys. A turbo gives you some additional options. However, there is no such thing as a free lunch and having options costs money. If you need the additional performance then the additional cost is probably warranted. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with a scenario where having a turbo-FIKI bird would allow you to safely fly a trip that you wouldn't want to attempt in an "asmatic" Mooney. How frequently do you encounter such scenarios? Everyone will have a different answer. Another thing that needs to be addressed is pilot performance. Higher performance aircraft need higher performing pilots. When you're up in the high teens and lower flight levels there are a lot of "gotcha's". As a pilot are you up to the challenge? For the record, most of the turbo'd aircraft I've flown were pressurized light twins. Twins are the one aircraft type that I would recommend going the turbo route is you live in or frequent mountainous areas. As far as singles go, I found them most useful flying Cessna 206s and 207s and then it only made a real difference when it came to high DA takeoff performance. I've never once flown one of those above 12,500'.

DUPLICATE POST

One of my flying buddies sent me the following link. This is a great illustration of what we were taught about scanning outside the cockpit. We were told to scan the horizon for a short distance, stop momentarily, and repeat the process. I can remember being told why this was the most effective technique to locate other aircraft. It was emphasized repeatedly to not fix your gaze for more than a couple of seconds on any single object. The instructors, some of whom were WWII veterans with years of experience, instructed us to continually "keep our eyes moving and our head on a swivel" because this was the best way to survive, not only in combat, but from peacetime hazards (like a midair collision) as well. We basically had to take the advice on faith (until we could experience for ourselves) because the technology to demonstrate it didn't exist at that time. Click on the link below for a demonstration... www.msf-usa.org/motion.html

I remember reading something, somewhere that water would settle out of avgas and work it's way to the low point of the fuel system at the rate of about 18" per hour. How true that is, I have no idea; but it sounds about right. It makes you wonder how long you should wait to sump the tanks after fueling. Fueling and airplane, then immediately sumping it and blasting off might not be the best idea. Quote: 201er Wow, 10 secounds really? I only do about 3 on each unless I have any suspicion. Whenever possible I have someone hold a cup under the pee hole (this is how I know my plane is a she) to get a sample. It seems like 3-5 seconds would already give me a cup full. Most of the time I'm on my own and can't expect the plane to go into the cup if I place it underneath (wind, drippage, etc), so I only go for 3. Of course if I so much as find a drop in the tanks, I'll be more vigerous on the gascalator. Although bad for the engine, isn't this the least dangerous of places to have water? I would think the engine would quit before you could take off if it were in the gascalator whereas water in the wings may take some time to make its way to the engine...

Personally, I would simply shut the engine down a couple of times using the fuel selector instead of the mixture. Once or twice from the left tank then once or twice from the right tank. Note the time it takes for the idling engine to quit after selecting off and you now have an idea just how long you need to wait after switching tanks for a fuel continuity issue to become apparent. Just to be on the safe side, I'd add 15 to 30 seconds to the longest time you come up with. It's going to take a while, but it's a number you really need to know. Granted, it won't take so much time if you're at takeoff power - the engine in guaranteed to run long enough to get you about 50' in the air. Personally, I'll start it on one tank then switch to the other prior to taxi and runup. Takeoff is also on that tank, unless of course you're willing to wait the prescribed time to ensure fuel continuity.

www.flickr.com/photos/izard/6348904696/

Quote: rbridges If I get a chance to use it. Right now, I'm sitting at full tanks (minus the weeping, of course), and Rome is only a little over an hour away. I agree, though. If I can get it down to under 10 gallons on landing, I probably won't worry about it.