1964-M20E

you are correct but it don't matter you build next to a cesspool and complain about the smell and the the cesspool gets closed or moved. I live next to a military base. Luckily I live on the down wind side not take off so noise is less for me but I love to see the F-15s and F-18s and helicopters fly over. There were many Saturdays they would be doing run up and testing on engines and you would hear the roar of jet engines all morning. Never once considered or thought of complaining about the noise. The sound of freedom. Also when they would be on alert and take off with full after burner into the night sky talk about awesome. Spielberg cant do that. However, I do have a biased opinion. As a teenager cutting the grass on the riding mower I would see the F-15s flying over head in formation breaking left or right to land and I would start flying the mower around the yard having dog fights. well I guess the grass didn't look too good but I had fun. Heck I've had the blue angels fly right down my street at 100 to 200 feet AGL rattling the windows and the fillings in your teeth you can't get a better seat for the airshow.

Cool I'd love to be able to buy a new one and make many trips there watching it be built.

Yes a new processor, more memory and screen would be nice in the ASPEN if not already done. This should be done every 2 to 4 years IMHO. The advances in processors is always phenomenal. My opinion is they, ASPEN,need to make the fully capable box available for around $6AMU plus install as a normal price. The VFR version is somewhere in that price range now. With that pricing they would be more competitive with the new boxes coming on the scene now. What more can ASPEN put in the boxes that they don't have now? I would like to have an ASPEN or 2 G5s in my plane but ultimately what does that give me? The biggest thing would be an HSI after that not much more information than I already have. I'm looking to see how the G5 will interface with my IFD540 and the STEC 30 AP and at what price point to get 2 of them to replace the AI and the DG.

FYI most if not all Disney hotels do not charge for parking and your parking permit for the hotels will get you in the parks and not have to pay parking. Disney transportation is good but sometimes there is a line or wait for the bus.

I fly into KORL quite often IFR and they will give me the LEESE 2 arrival every time even though I put NO SIDS no STARS in comments. However, I file OCF and LEESE in my flight plan so I'm already set up for the arrival. After LEESE they are vectoring me around. I suggest you do the same since after LEESE you will probably be vectored from Orlando Approach anyway. Oh and usually starting at OCF Jackson will start stepping you down. I am generally between 5,000 and 7,000 feet by the time I get to OCF starting from 90 or 110.

Hey 225 to 250 kts cruise would still be nice. I think somewhere in there documentation they mention 300kts as a maximum speed and I think they have something more realistic in the mid 200 kt range as well as a more realistic HP output form the engine during cruise. Yes some pie in the sky claims. Don't all manufacturers do this out the box on new designs?? I'm not sure I'm ready to risk $2000 deposit yet but I like the design. Also if they started producing the kits now it would be about 5 years before your number would come up if you got on board today.

Yes the electric motor can go through the RPM ranges with no problems. MY thoughts were that in the event of an engine failure the sprag clutch would allow the prop to freewheel same as on a helicopter if the engine fails the rotors freewheel without the drag of the engine. The electric motor could then power the prop for a short distance without having to turn the engine to extend glide range or avoid an obstacle. Oh and the electric motor might be able to double a the starter saving some weight there as well. Some have touted the diesel electric type model where you have a generator powering the electric motor with a battery backup. The generator can always run at its most efficient speed and the electric motor with a limited battery backup could provide good takeoff and acceleration power with no density altitude consequences. However, you do get a weight penalty for the extra batteries and the extra generator. To get 150HP continuous at the electric motors you will need an engine to produce 150 to 180HP and a generator to produce 150kW. This system wold have a weight penalty. A true hybrid would use the direct drive engines we currently use a small battery for energy storage to assist in acceleration and climb 10 to 15 min. Once at cruise the electric motor would be along for the ride. Now a fuel cell and electric motor or motors arranged in a pancake set up and prop that would weigh about the same as our current engine and props that would get you to an all electric powered aircraft. The question is does such a fuel cell exist? Also what would the physical size of the fuel cells be? fuel cell Fuel: methanol, ethanol or gasoline hydrogen storage at high pressure would be too much weight, liquid hydrogen too expensive fuel cell Power density: 150kW to 200kW output 2 or more individual cells fuel cell weight: 200 to 300 lbs Battery: sized to run for 10 minutes at 50% power electric motors: 150kW to 200kW output (utilize 2 or more motors stacked for added redundancy) this would be for J type performance

When looking at buying a plane you need to define you mission. You already defined part of it 250NM +/- would be your typical trip. How many people will yo have? How much stuff do you want to bring? The early models B to F are excellent planes that can be had for low initial investment. As many will say get a pre purchase inspection done by an independent aviation mechanic. For 250nm trips a Cessna 172 would be suitable as well and you initial insurance would be less than in a Mooney with retractable gear. Tell us about your general location and where you plan on flying? Mountains might change what you look at in planes. Try to get with different people and fly different airplanes before you decide on any model and look at the the capabilities of the plane are and get the one that fits 80% of the flying you will do. Your location will help there are many here who are just itching for an excuse to fly and show off there machines.

I plan on being there. Hope to get into VAC.

I'm thinking about it and I like the Audi engine option but wonder why it is $22k for the engine seems like it would be less than that. Liquid cooled engine and use the excess engine heat for deicing protection on the wings nice. Therma wing without having to install multiple big alternators robbing power from the prop. However, the overall height 11' 10" has me concerned my hangar door does not go that high I would need to design and build a new hangar door. Not even sure if the structure is high enough. the Velocity is less than 8' tall. Wonder why? here you go A experimental category composite construction diesel engine Laminar vs. thick wing... economics Interior volume

Well with regard to the hybrid aspect. I could see where a smaller turbo charged engine diesel or gasoline as the main power source sized for cruise at max power and a smaller battery and electric motor that would give you a boost on takeoff for shorter takeoff run and faster initial climb out. The electric motor would then become dead weight during the flight. Utilizing a sprag clutch arrangement it would allow the electric motor to be used in an emergency to extend glide ratio so you may end up being able to make an airport or avoid a particular obstacle during an of airport landing. Detailed design would tell you how many T&G you cloud do before the battery power was used up for takeoff runs and you would need to fly around to let the battery recharge.

Simpson Congrats on the new job sorry to see you gone from Avidyne. I wish you all the best. My biggest issue with upgrading my 30 to the 3100 is panel space I'm all taped out with the 540.

Get you another mechanic and have him go there while they are dong the repairs / annual and do an inspection and see exactly what they are doing. Everything is already open your mechanic does not have to open and close only inspect. Do your own inspection while everything is open as well.

Back to the original question with 2 solid suggestions to improve our planes. The mid-west is too far for me to fly for a day meeting. However, magneto and electronic ignition have come up why not push for one of these? E-mag and replace both left and right mags. Would 30 of us going to E-mag enough to push harder for an STC? The problem is we are probably looking at 5AMU installed. Currently it is $2.6AMU for two E-mags themselves. They would know that they could sell 60 E-mags. http://www.emagair.com/pricing/ How many here would be willing to commit to approximately 5AMUs for full electronic ignition? Second one would be the EFII. Again the down side would be approximately 10AMUs installed with the current system running about 5AMUs alone. http://www.flyefii.com/products/efii-systems/ How many here would be willing to commit to approximately 10AMUs for full electronic ignition and fuel injection? This would get rid of the carburetor or mechanical fuel injection as well as the magnetos. They claim somewhere around 4% efficiency increase????

Dream I believe the biggest obstacle to change is the FAA by far. Greed I think would drive new technologies and advancements in engines avionics etc. but the FAA stands in the way. Take the electronic fuel injection and ignition systems EFII it is available now for experimental 1 to 2 % more fuel efficient, easier starts, redundant. Where is the problem? Electronic ignitions that replace magnetos with built in alternator to power it if ship alternator fails. Available now and is less cost than traditional mag and is easy to install but not on our planes why? FAA, FAA, FAA. 3rd class medical you saw what was necessary to make a change in that an act of Congress was needed. All the FAA need to do was change the questionnaire when going to get your 3rd class medical and change a few other requirements to make it easier. Administrative change is all that would be needed it would be not an act of congress. Just like any small aircraft 12,500lbs and less in private use 20 years old or older at owner's option should have the option to be put in the experimental class. If you want to stay certified no problem stay there. I would put my F in the experimental class in a heart beat if it were possible and never look back. Really this is the change you are looking for then everything else you are talking about could and would happen. Let's push for the Factor manufactured experimental class that has been discussed here before. This could be for new planes as well as older certified planes. Keep pushing ideas I'm with you.

Someone has already done this albeit for experimental only http://www.flyefii.com/products/efii-systems/

I think there could be some more things that can be added to the list of owner performed maintenance. I like to put out there I can change the oil, change tires among other things but I can't undo 4 nuts and one 12V wire connection and change a starer???? Would I try to overhaul the prop if I was allowed too most likely no I wouldn't know what I was doing. However, changing a mag I might attempt that, I would change the boost pump, vacuum pump, governor, among many other things that I feel I am competent to do on my own. The caveat is I have done many of these items myself under the supervision of an A&P/IA along with every annual has been owner assisted. So you could say I have had some additional training and I am not an A&P. Finally, a limited maintainer certificate to do more than the current preventive maintenance on my own plane would be nice. I would not mind overhauling an engine myself with some guidance. I have overhauled different types of engines in the past.

sounds like it may be your governor. The prop defaulting to low pitch high RPM.

IF you just bring the J-bar to the gear down position and leave it un-latched it will hover right a the locking block. You then have to push it the remaining distance to lock it in. The force needed is not that great to get it to latch. Should you need to use your leg to assist you in getting it home in the block you probably have an issue somewhere. If you just need to lean into is some with your upper body you are probably good.. As an IA I am sure you have sufficiently lubricated all the moving parts of the gear system. Once on my former E model I started having trouble getting the bar into the gear down lock so after lubricating parts of the gear system that went away.

OK so it sounds like they may have changed where they are measuring from and no actual airframe differences. If you go inside the window to inside the window you can pick up about 2.5" over measuring to the inside of the tube cage.

MY stay in Idaho Falls got me acquainted with some of these new METAR terms. Freezing Fog is one thing I don't ever remember hearing.

I haven't finished watching it yet but very interesting.

2.5" is a lot to make up in interior panels but I guess it could be so. I think at many places the plastic panel rest on the steel cage or is real close. If you actually widened the outside of the cabin by 2.5" you would create more frontal plate area and theoretically make it slower but the Js are faster due to other aerodynamic improvements. The real measurement would be inside dimensions to the tube cage in the location stated above. I guess you could take the vertical tube at the rear of the door and on the pilot side move or bow them out to the outboard side 1.25" leaving everything else the same. You may not really affect the TAS of the plane that much. Looking at the plane form the front o r the back would be hard to tell the difference. Remember the article about the tail cone jig that was getting worn during production and caused a twist in the tail cone?? Only looking at the planes side by side could you tell there was an issue. The door would need to be reworked to allow for the different angle. This would give you more shoulder room but not any more room in the hip area. Doing more than that and the wing roots would need to be reworked as well as the inboard rib that makes up the inboard side of the fuel tank. JMHO

I've only had Lycoming IO360s but I'd inspect the engine as best you can without removing anything major. Analyze the data and even if you deiced you want to overhaul it I'd put the money on the side let it earn interest and run the engine. Any hour you get between now and actually overhauling it is free engine time.

It is just a non descriptive black momentary push button located on the main panel. It makes selecting the mode easier than using the knob on the STEC. You could locate it on the yoke if you have space. The wiring diagram for the STEC30 shows which lead to connect it to. I thought about doing it myself but when I had the IFD540 put in just had the avionics guy do it while he was there.