xftrplt

Sun it is. With a reasonably priced 50-60 gal fuel purchase I can park free till the cows come home. Thanks.

Thanks, all. Restaurants are of no concern, as I'm staying with friends and parking the bird for a few days. Brett, VRB is more convenient, and, at the moment, the fuel's cheaper than FPR. So it's a choice between the VRB FBO's. Bueller...Ferris Bueller?

Deleted.

Deleted.

I plan on flying down to VRB for a few days this week. There are three FBO's--Corporate Air, Sun Aviation/Jet Center, and Paris Air. I'd appreciate any inputs. TIA

Quote: Mazerbase I live near Kennedy Space Center with a very long runway for the ex-shuttle but I want to know where you land on a 23,000 ft (4.4 miles) runway!

Sorry, JC. The above post was mine, not N9660M's. (The gremlin strikes again.) Quote: RobertE ...can't I adopt pretty much whatever bank angle I want without risking a stall? The short and absolute answer is yes. (And any attitude you want, too.) At the airspeeds and altitudes we fly, the ONLY factor determining the wing stalling is AOA. I'd suggest a bit of self-study and recommend "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" as the best single volume on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/Aerodynamics-Naval-Aviators-FAA-Handbooks/dp/156027140X

Quote: fantom You don't need to file IFR to practice IFR, as long as (no) one one is logging IFR.

Quote: jetdriven If it's VMC, and (sic.) the safety pilot nor the PF are current, or perhaps neither have an instrument rating, how could they file IFR?

Quote: jetdriven But also cannot file IFR, right?

Quote: danb35 Incorrect, I'm afraid. You need an instrument rating to act as a safety pilot (whether PIC or not) under IFR, irrespective of the weather conditions. See FAR 61.55(a)(1) for the cite if he's acting as SIC, and of course a PIC (whether he's the pilot flying or not) under IFR always needs to be instrument rated, equipped, and current (FAR 61.3(e), 61.57©).

Quote: Bnicolette Give that guy some oxygen, he's obviously hypoxic. He must have just moved there from Florida and isn't acclimated yet. You could probably ask three different inspectors the same question and get three different answers.

Quote: flyingwrench poster on the door to the ramp at a local airport I flew out of in the 80's, stating "85% of engine failures occur when powering back from takeoff power be ready for it if it happens". I never did know its scource or it's accuracy but when departing airports from that day on I tried to scope out the best possible off field landing options.

Carson Speed is not Max Range Speed. It considers the need for speed--an economic or psychological issue--and is, therefore, faster than Max Range. ------ Maximum Range To maximize the range, we want to get the maximum distance for each pound of fuel burned. Starting with our basic relation or, splitting out the units Now if we divide both sides by velocity, we get Dividing out the hours, we get Note that the left side is what we wanted, pounds of fuel per nautical mile. To minimize the pounds of fuel per nautical mile, we can minimize the ratio of power over velocity. Looking at the power required chart, a line from the origin to any point on the curve has the slope of power over velocity (P/V). As you trace a line from the origin to each point on the curve, the slope will be a minimum when the line is tangent to the power required curve. Therefore, the maximum range airspeed occurs where a line from the origin is tangent to the power required curve. This also corresponds to the minimum point on the thrust required curve (drag polar).

Quote: jlunseth In theory, L\D max (best glide) will give best range.

Quote: mooney2201 gear cut off switch is out rig.......easy adjustment......

Brett, My 231 did the same thing for years, and it may be common, but it's not "normal." Though I hadn't listed it as a squawk on my last annual at Royal Aircraft at HGR, Tom discovered the problem on a test flight. I believe was the gear going too far in the retraction cycle. I'd give a call to Pam at Royal--301-791-3642--referencing my plane (N888BC). I'm sure she'll check with Tom. If you don't get an answer, pm me, and I'll check the log. It's not a tough fix.

1. Arguments/debates in cyberspace are almost always doomed to failure because: a. Most discussions in person are unsuccessful. After all, when have you actually changed anyone's opinion (other than, possibly, in your immediate family) by a carefully reasoned argument buttressed by facts and statistics? b. Politics, where there are few (any?) provable truths, is particularly hazardous and, especially recently, closer to religion, where "leaps of faith" insulate against rational persuasion. c. Both sides believe they're arguing with pigs. d. Participants lack the natural restraints of face-to-face engagements, which provide feedback that tempers the exchange. [The mean-time-to-use-"Nazi" (MTTUN) is much shorter online.] e. Since you probably don't have to actually live or interact with your opponents, normal discretion and manners are relaxed. 2. This meeting board has been graciously provided ostensibly to discuss Mooney-specific topics and subjects of general aeronautical interest. a. Political food-fights seem to push the bounds of the respectful use of this bandwidth, if not Craig's largesse. b. From a simple cost/benefit perspective, do we gain more in terms of opinions swayed and spleens vented than we lose in good-will and civility? c. If too many threads spin-off on contentious tangents, we may discourage participation from members and dissuade newcomers from joining. d. There are, after all, numerous other sites available for those disposed towards political combat.

I can neither type nor paste-in what I'm trying to say. I'll trouble shoot and try again.

...person's right to happiness... It's the right to pursue happiness.

-harmonics [remember the Verrazano Narrows Bridge? I do, and assume it's just fine...but the Tacoma Narrows bridge no longer stands.

Piloto and Immelman(n?) give excellent advice. Leave the gear DOWN. (Hell, I'd pin it down you can.) You're already flying with an abnormal condition. Why, on God's green Earth, would you want to raise it and look for trouble? To save a few gallons on a 1/2 hour flight?

Gotta love it. Above, we have highly experienced military and civilian aviators warning of the risks of winter IFR and icing, especially in low-powered, S/E recips. Then, we have someone who hasn't even had an instrument ticket for a full (and unusually mild) winter expounding on weather theory and IFR flying and blithely plowing along in icing conditions, if its only stratus. Well, I guess you pays your money and takes your choice. (But, with over 13,000 hours flying MD-80's in the northeast--DCA, BOS, LGA, ORD--in all sorts of weather, I know whom I'd choose.)