kortopates

I would expect the same speeds on both and would expect the 262 conversion included POH performance charts to be identical to the 252 - but can't attest to that. There are other differences if you take the time to review the type certificate. For example, the 231 landing gear extension and gear extended speeds were limited to 130 kts where as the 252 went to 140 and 165 kts respectively. Manuevering speed also went up from 117 in the 231 airframe to 123 kts on the 252. Other subtle differences include the 252 can be upgraded to the Encore SB engine to allow a 230 lb increase in max gross and are eligible for FIKI. But overall, there just aren't that many 252's out there and even fewer Encores.

There are number of minor airframe differences such a rear bucket seats that fold down and are easily removable in the 252. Obviously a 262 will have the same engine as the 252, the TSIO-360-MB that has a complete turbo system rather than just the blower found in the 231, and therefore should have essentially identical performance. The main difference though and benefit for pursing the 252 is 28V electrical system with the optional dual alternators. The 231, and therefore I presume the 262 conversion will have same 14V system with a single 60 amp (perhaps 70) alternator. I had a 231 before my 252 and I can tell that you that 14V system was too weak to run everything at night with the lights on, pitot heat on and the weather radar - just as the POH warns. The dual 28v 70 amp alternators provide you with 4 times the output and eliminate loss of the electrical system when you loose an alternator. Its great piece of mind. The 252 also has much improved cowl with electrically operated cowl flaps that are infinitely adjustable, which enables you to get just enough cooling without the 6-8kt speed penalty I recall from the open 231 cowlflap (allowed only 3 positions, closed, in trail or slightly open and fully open) - but hopefully the 262 conversion includes the 252 cowling. Other improvements on the 252 were standby electric vacuum system and that they made several 231 options all standard on the 252, including speed brakes and the hot prop. Flying turbo altitudes the hot prop is very useful and would easily cost $8K to add. Lastly I had the weather scout radar on my prior 231, it was a factory option at the time. IMO its worthless and not worth the weight its robbing you of your useful load. Dump it and get your self satellite weather from XM or WSI and a GMX200 or similar MFD to display weather and provide music and you'll have something you can rely on with much more information.

Finally, if the GTX 330 and the GLD 90 cost exactly the same what would you put in your plane today? And why.

The FAA did just recently published the final ADS-B out performance requirements this past May. Unfortunately they went with a dual standards for ADS-B Out and left ADS-B In for another day. ADS-B In requirments, defining air-to-air applications for TIS-B (traffic) and FIS-B (weather) are still in their infancy - but we do know they will only be provided over the UAT 978 MHz such as provided by the GDL-90. Turbo aircraft that want to continue to fly at 18K and above after 2020 will require 1090 MHz Extended Squitter (ES) - an extension of Mode S; available in the GTX 330 ES (for about $5.5K or about 2k more than the base GTX 330). So unfortuanetly, high performance aircraft seeking ADS-B In services will require both: the 1090ES for ADS-B Out and a separate UAT for ADS-B IN services. Given that standards for ADS-B In services are still only in their infancy it is risky to invest anything sizable like the $8K cost of the GDL-90 - especially when you'll only be using half of the boxes capabilities if you need the 1090ES ADS-B Out. Hopefully over time, we'll see more choices, such as a UAT ADS-B IN only capability, (i.e. a GDL90 without ADS-B Out) to complement a 1090ES installation providing ADS-B Out. They're available now in portable form, so we should see them become available for panel mount solutions in the near future. Seems like we'll continue to need a GDL-69A or WSI recieiver for music and weather when flying oustide the US - so I expect to get many more years out of GMX-200 with its GDL-69A and WX-500.

Not sure I understand, even aviatoinoxygen says they have pricing for PMA or OEM equip on their kevlar cylinders as does aerox. I use the 115 cuf kevlar in mine which was replaced 7 yrs ago. Mine is an aerox cylinder (see http://www.aerox.com/CompositeCylinders.htm ) . You might be best checking with your nearest MSC for their source(s).

Mountain High shows a 115 cuf kevlar bottle for $1500. Their pro is they are lightest with the con being they have a more limited 15 yr life. see http://www.mhoxygen.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=49 Several sources out there and you'll want to check with the shop doing the work for their suggestions

Since no one mentions it, Aviation Safety has a good yet very general article on this topic in the current Jan issue. Discusses exposure level affects and looking for sources of exhaust leaks. One other comment - One of the biggest Myths in Aviation is "it just came out of annual..... therefore my xyz system is perfect". Not only is "airworthy" a far cry from "perfect", but that was yesterday, not today. Good luck

Tankering around fuel is generally not such a good thing to do because it robs the performance we'd enjoy flying lighter. But even if tankering saved you $1 a gal, you'd have go through 8, 9 or 10,000 gallons before you got your ROI - that's a lot of years of gas even in the thirstier Bravo. Regarding resale value, check out any of the MapaLog market articles by Jimmy Garrison, but I'll think you find long range tanks have little if any add-on value. I am sure someone here can look it up what he said about them specifically for the Bravo if you don't get them. When I got my K, I did consider it a plus at the time but wasn't interested in paying more for them. But they could also work against you in resale value if the quality of the sealant was in any way questionable - such as holding onto the plane for long time and having any signs of weeping at time of sale. But a good sealant job should last longer than 20+ years, yet they don't always; but I personally wouldn't worry about that. But I wouldn't expect much liklihood to recoup much if any of the cost either. $10K on avionics, interior or paint would have much greater resale value - but not suggesting your Bravo is in need of any of those! I too buy a lot of gas away from my home field, but I pretty much look at the savings as partially subsidizing the cost to make the gas trip and an excuse to make a IFR currency flight or the like. Your trip length sounds pretty average and I think you'll find most flying companions won't want to stay up beyond 3 hours anyway. Those supermodels that seem so common flying in Mooneys have such small bladders! Enjoy your Bravo!

At $3K for the kit plus 60 hrs for labor with additional for sealing off the speed brakes area I imagine you'll be looking at north of $8K - depending on shop rates. If your existing sealant in your main tanks now isn't in good shape that could also be a significant added cost. As one that has them, be sure to consider the downsides before you commit. They came on my 252 but I would not recommend them. On the plus side, they have proven helpful when wanting to fly long legs such as half way across the country, or from Socal to Cabo and sometimes just being able to add an extra 10 gals above normal full when flying in Mexico where alternates can easily be over an hour away has been helpful. But that is very seldom (for me) and quite frankly I can only fill up the long range tanks if I am flying solo. Even with my supermodel wife and co-pilot, we'll be over gross if we're both going with more than full mains. I really don't relish 6+ hour legs anyway, nor peeing in bottle, and I rarely go anywhere alone where I could use them even if I wanted too. Run your WT&Bal numbers, but I bet you'll find the majority of their utility is limited to a solo flying pilot - which may well hold appeal to you. There are some additional more suttle downsides to consider. With a fuel analyzer or JPI EDM like I have, you'll be able to accurately know how much total fuel you have on board but never exactly what you have on each side. It will be forever challenging to accurately tell how much fuel you have left in your tanks except right after you filled the mains to "Full" - and that comes with a caveat. You will no longer be able to just fill or top off a main tank and know pricesly what you have unless you wait till you have less than 15-18 gals on a side, or you'll still have some unknown amount of fuel in the long range tank adding to your main "full" volume (since fuel added to the main tanks will drain into LR tanks, with the LR tanks not becoming entirely dry till you are below 15-18 gals on a side). More often you'll be putting in a meaured number of gallons based on your "fuel calculations" tracking gals remaining per side - unless you do most of your flying solo. Because of these, we are very careful wth our fuel calculations as I am sure you will be too if you go this route. I also use a dip-stick on the LR tanks for a rough measurement, but of course your fuel gauges only indicate whats in your mains - and thus will tend to show less than what yo uhave till the LR tanks are empty. Lastly, it could be a long time off, but in addition to your initial cost to install them consider the eventual much costlier reseal cost down the road if the added utility will be worth the cost to you along with the loss in simplicity in avoiding overfilling your tanks when your intention is to just fill the Main.

The prelim report is finally out yet it is very brief and provides very little info – after the usual FAA boilerplate about .. “and no flight plan had been filed” it states: “The CFI stated that they had just completed two simulated short-field takeoffs and decided to perform a simulated soft-field takeoff. The student pilot was at the controls during the takeoff roll, and as the airplane rotated, the nose lifted at an angle that the CFI determined was excessive. He verbally coached the pilot to lower the nose, but the nose did not lower. He again requested that the he lower the nose, but there was no response. The airplane then began to drift to the left, so the CFI took the controls and attempted to lower the nose. Before the angle of attack was corrected, the right wing dropped. The CFI responded with rudder input, which was followed by an opposite wing drop. The airplane then landed hard and skidded off the runway on its belly; the CFI reported that fire simultaneously erupted as the airplane slid to a stop.” Says nothing though regarding them doing touch and goes as the press reported, nor if the landing gear was retracted, or what position the flaps were in and if the excessive angle of attitude that the CFI reported was exacerbated by the plane still being in full nose up from the landing etc. Although the remark “skidded off the runway on its belly” sure seems to suggest the gear was retracted and therefore the “hard landing” with a wing dropped could explain compromising a wing tank and a subsequent fire from the sparks of skidding off the runway. But we’ll have to wait for the full report to get all the facts. I was out instructing soft field take-off (and balked landing while in the flare) just last weekend and I can’t think another maneuver that has me guarding the controls closer; especially while the pilot is learning to get the feel of the airplane to hold the nose off. Way to much excitement to be doing that on the go of a touch and go – at least for me. Very unfortunate, I hope both of them come out okay from this. The report is at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20101211X85133&key=1

I've enjoyed monitoring the site, but haven't posted till now and thought I would add my two cents to this thread. Jason spelled it out very well that updating avionics DB is "maintenance" and showed the requirements by which "all" maintenance must be logged. Danb35 explained exactly why the the units expiration date does not qualify as a maintenance record spelled out in 43.9 which requires 3 to 4 pieces of information in the maintenance record and the expiration date of the database is not one of them. Complain all you want about the silliness of this but its clearly spelled out and its so very simple to properly log all your database updates in your VOR Test log. That's what I've been doing with the 3 databases I have, including my Jepp charts DB which is updated every 14 days. Although a pain perhaps, not a big deal.