sleepingsquirrel

I think the general public is/has been flying for years in the airline industry. I suspect subsidized as well. However that may be losing its luster. I vowed I will never ,ever pay to be treated like a criminal. Are more people flying commercial now or are the seats full because of scheduling? Is the AOPA a viable voice? How about the EAA? Should I join both if they are helpful? Most people don't know or care where their pilot learned to fly , or why he flies. Since the cockpit doors are now sealed , I hear there may just be technology running the show. I'm sure some commercial fliers have considered and moved back to their own pilots and planes for their own reasons.

How about instead of de certification,just a change of certification option at some point in time. Different aircraft could have different times based on their quality ,reliability,durability. An owner could opt to continue under the existing structure, protecting his investment with his original certificate of airworthiness. Others could go another route with understanding that recertification would require manufacturers hands on inspection and correction of any changes made during operation and maintenance under another catagory? This could allow some aircraft to gracefully fly on as long as capable owner operator/maintainers cared to meet the reduced regulations . It would economically allow the exceptionally maintained aircraft to re-enter the structured certification program at the hands of the original manufacturers. The less than exceptionally maintained aircraft would meet a manufacturers pricing structure based on their state of condition to return to its original factory airworthiness certification. Yes the less than exceptionally maintained aircraft could be the bridge to the manufacturers new/recertified planes as a core exchange. One could have a 50 year old Mooney worth $65,000 or one could have a 50 year old Mooney worth $30,000. both would be airworthy and subject to safety standards. The market would ultimately decide which airplane was safest and held most value. Some of us could fly high and fast in style ,some of us could fly our pocket books but somewhere in this maybe more people could fly, more people could work on planes and the bureaucrats should love a parallel system to maintain!

I think that your panel could only be enhanced by looking into these items: A. Proprietary covering designed to reflect odd harmonic light frequencies to reduce non-linear photon radiation interference. Available in leather,wood grain, or krinkle coat B.Time warp compression/expansion to synchronize Here/There time coordinates. C. Independent power & glory switches. These are just a novelty item (stick on, surface mount) I use the power switch for takeoff and the glory switch for landing. I personally like versitility of the time warp synchronizer. (Can only be installed in a Mooney by an authorized service center) These items are available through the RANE Corporation, copyright material 1992

Hi Jim, My mistake, He started in Ercoupes, in 1952 . I was born in 1952 and didn't start flying with him until later. Straight tail Cessna was my first ride. Sorry you smelled a rat, sure it wasn't a squirrel? Thank you for reading my opinion and experience so closely though , I hope this mistake does not detract from the intended discussion that all of have something at stake in aviation, and that it does not have to die because our government has the power to regulate it to death. I will strike the Cessna model # "172" from that sentence for the sake of accuracy since he never had the ability to time travel in a 172 like I do in a Mooney.

One good thing about oil consumption like that is less frequent oil changes by draining and filling. Just keep adding and blowing it out, does that qualify as an oil change after 4 hours?

My flying essentially stopped when the bi annual flight review came into being. I was in the Navy , single, had disposable income and spending it in aviation. One of my friends obtained his CFI at the same Cessna flight center where I was flying. I wanted him to do my review, it would have been his first endorsement . The FBO told me in order to rent their aircraft one of their instructors would have to sign my bi annual. I saw no good reasons that this should be the case. Perhaps niavely I hired the new CFI for my review and found that I could no longer easily get into the air by renting. Fortunately , I had access to other aircraft and managed to keep my PPL skills alive but on life support. (I didn't need to log PIC to maintain skills, I wasn't actively pursuing ratings). Others were forced to the letter of the law to maintain skills. I developed a strong dislike for this government intervention in a passion of my young life. From my point of view the very thing created to insure my proficiency created a need for itself when for all intent and purpose I quit flying as regularly. As you all know nearly 40 years later I'm back and pleased to have found not one but two great aircraft in our stagnant economy. I'm flying for fun and $5 /gallon fuel crawls right up my spine. I see young men working just as I did on the flight line, pumping fuel , and spending their hard earned money to pursue their passion. So I buy the fuel instead of slogging my own. When I worked at this airport in the late 60s and early 70s the ramp was full the hangars were full . There was flight training, charters, rentals and fuel sales. Full staffing to support the activity. I feel badly for those trying to keep a dying GA infrastructure alive . I'm sure my annuals will give me another eye opening experience but I have steeled my spine with the fuel prices and will be ready. I particularly respond to one fellows signature line "pound it ,paint it, #*!%< it'll fly" and another "it flew in it will fly out" . I learned under my Uncles wing how to fly without spending a lot of money needlessly. He was flying auto fuel in 1952 . As one of my cousins proclaimed to him "you can't do that, that's STRICTLY PROHIBITED!" He calmly continued to fly auto fuel right up to the point that it was found no longer necessary to keep the burning of auto fuel "STRICTLY PROHIBITED". I got a lot more flight time than my cousin, by the way, for keeping my mouth shut and learning from a man ahead of his time, yet firmly rooted in aviations past. I'm going to get a lot more flight time. Ever seen an EXPERIMENTAL Mooney, an EXPERIMENAL Cessna? There may have to be a lot more of them. This forum has great passion and zest for General Aviation. General Aviation is the birth Mother of all Modern Aviation which has grown into sophmoric adolesence. She will still be there when the adolesent fool comes to his senses, as long as people who love to fly exist. I have a five year old grand daughter she has already seen the "mysterious beyond"!

Hi, Welcome to the most comprehensive Mooney site I've found. You might review : Landing gear biscuits There are some knowledgable folks there. Thinwing may have answers. Just don't use your wifes biscuits , it will make her very angry if she sees them on your landing gear. I was smart enough to not answer mine when she asked "what did I need all those left over biscuits for". Once they were painted black she couldn't tell.

Now here is a Mooney begging for a nickname! N6088Q November 6 zero bar-bee-Q

I love the beautiful scenery. I'd love to spend some time in Alaska in the Summer. I doubt my wife would let me do any bridge jumping with the locals. Especially after this weeks episode. I'd probably make a pretty good bush pilot . I used to fly off of a short strip cut out of a piece of land too small to grow cotton. There is one strip here so short that once you are in many pilots opt to truck the thing out. One of our smarter pilots , tired of taking the wings off airplanes, told me "Lookie here son , just taxi out on the highway and follow me". Thinking we were going to a neighbor's field down the road, I tried to keep up , about 65 I broke ground. That's what we call trucking the thing out. I'm sure I'd make a good bush pilot.

Hi, I enjoyed your post. It sounds like you knew exactly what you wanted and had others who understood that to help cull some non contenders. Since there is no such thing as the perfect machine, compromise is an important art (which it seems you understand very well). I'm betting you will treat this thing like a new bride and fly the ears off of her. Just don't tease her too much. My first landings were my best because I used the numbers given to me. Little experiments with attitude and speed yielded knowledge, knowledge of what NOT to do. There is nothing like getting what you want at the right price. I'm loving the challange offered by my OLD Mooney. Just slippery enough for an old guy like me! I wondered if buying a plane is like what they say about buying a boat? "The two happiest days of a boat owners life are , the day he bought it and the day he sells it." Just enjoy all the days in between! By the way I understand what a compliment your check pilot gave you, mine asked me "if I knew how to fly".

I was just dozing off and then my squirrel radar went off. I read Thinwings thoughtful response and I'll bet a winters worth of acorns he's right! I was thinking that is what I would have said but I'm not IFR rated. I was betting myself I would regret using that old joke about Drs in "V" tailed Bonanzas and have to apologize to the rednecks first , well I was wrong. In my VFR world a sun dog is a sign of rain within the next three to four days What does it mean for the IFR world? Just remember the only good squirrel is a sleepingsquirrel.

Yes, I concur, But as Skywarrior hinted the only way to get a dimpiled Mooney to fly faster is for it to spin like a golf ball. Everyone knows that you shouldn't spin a Mooney. Gee, Bacachero I'm sorry , I thought we were all pretty much on topic. I'm going to sleep now.

Yes, I concur, subatomic dimpling occurs naturally to some degree but it is difficult to dimpil at the subatomic level with a ball peen hammer. Our government has done extensive research in this and the only positive result was the $800 hammer. I really didn't want to open this box for fear of finding a dead cat, or a live cat for that matter. (ref: anyone fly a cat in a Mooney) However, research has been done at this level by Stan Portigal ,Eclispe Aviation.(ref: FAQ) "This light should give you an extra 5 kts because of reduced optical friction from the light. If you install one of these on a Piper, Bonanza, or a Cessna, you should get an additional 20 kts because the air molecules see the Fresnel lens and figure it's a Mooney coming at them" Have you ever noticed your Mooney goes faster at night? It's because of the light. You can't see the air molecules getting out of the way because trying to observe this will cause the wave function to collaspe. The wave function doesn't disappear as most scientist think it just reappears in a different form <notably the Mooney wave function>. Remember Einstein's greatest discovery was not that time is relative but that time is money. As new as I am to the Mooney airframe even I know it takes money to make a Mooney go faster. There are lots of ways to skin this cat some of them yet unexplored.

Yes , I concur, taking a ball peen hammer to the wings is not the best idea . One should concentrate on the the fuselage just aft of maximum frontal area. Dimpling (use the round end of the hammer) from here back will encourage turbulent flow . A turbulent boundry layer unlike a laminar boundry layer is relatively insensitive to flow disturbances and will remain attached in areas of an adverse pressure gradient. (remaining attached is good) The flow seperation is caused by the designers need to reduce the diameter of the airplane from a point somewhere just aft of the baggage compartment to the diameter of the navigation light fixture located at the end of the tail cone . (really, this reduces the over all weight of the aircraft and keeps it from being infinitely long) An adverse pressure gradient is initally set up by the furious beating given to the air as it passes through the propeller disc.(remember the air was relatively calm , minding its own business until we came along). As discussed in another thread three blades may look sexier but greatly adds to the beating and consequently the adverse pressure gradient. You are going to get a greater drag reduction doing this than reversing the brake calipers. Conservatively there will be 3kt/$ spent increase in speed. (excludes labor) Because the laminar flow wing on the Mooney has a narrow drag bucket it is better to leave the plane tied down outside in the Southeast or Midwest in the Spring. If you are lucky hail damage will dimple the wing randomly just behind the designed (known) flow seperation point of your Mooneys airfoil. Nature can produce this random pattern far better than you can. If your not so lucky and you get hail damage anywhere forward of where the flush rivets are call your insurance company and let them fix it. Better yet leave the hail damage and get the windshield mod for extra speed. For faster looks get a three bladed propeller.

My Dad took that photo, he's 87 .

Yes, three blades is sexier than two blades, but four blades would be better! North American had one heck of a marketing department!

I think model aircraft running for speed use a one blade counter weighted prop. I don't think that it's practical for a one bladed prop to be used on larger aircraft because of power density. I always thought that the number of blades had to do with the horsepower of the engine and power density. There is something to do with the effeciency of the blade and it's percentage of the area of the propeller disc and the strength of materials the prop can be made from in the existing technology. One blade transmitting 280 HP to the air is closer to limits of material failure than 3 blades sharing the load. The Sea Fury had five blades to handel the HP , keep the tips subsonic ,and give ground clearance without cranking the wings like the Corsair. I think that propeller technology really needs the tips below supersonic speeds to be effecient, for a given RPM then there is a maximum diameter, for a given HP there needs to be the right number of blades to turn HP into thrust without exceeding the stength of the material the prop is made from. Too many blades gets into more blades = more tips=less efficient just due to tip losses.(there are other losses when lift is generated as well) This is what gave birth to the jet age. We are just the orphan children of technology that reached its peak around 1945. There have been advancements in propeller design, recip engines, and material. However, the gains are not quantum leaps. I have read that our propellers are not more than 5% more efficient than the Wright's props. OK I'm out on a limb now, but squirrels are good at that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-blade_propeller example of a low power application.

I guess I don't have more Mooney than brains after all or you could be reading about me in the Ovation. Not saying I still don't have a chance at the Darwins, but I'm debriefing myself after every flight. I'm being very careful about loading with fuel and passengers. I've found that airspeed is the key for every landing & take off . I must be getting better because I see a lot less money changing hands after I land now.

My response to anyone wanting me to pay them for something like this would be , "yea, I did it with a ball peen hammer on purpose, it's cheaper than vortex generators, and it flies better , just like a golf ball !"

That was one question I asked my instructor on my Mooney check ride. If the nose wheel blows should I expect a prop strike? He said no.

Hi, must have been the fumes from plasti-dip. There was some kind of Data storm on this site when posted. Every thing was mixed up. Having some experience with the crash course seaplane rating I took. I pulled the plug on my check ride. I will continue training because it was the smart thing to do for me (I'm not 27 anymore) . Check ride could have been easily passed and I could legally have become a hazard to myself and others. (no fault of the training) Forgive me for being cautionary, never said IFR is wrong or dangerous. In 1969 only Doctors in "V " tailed Bonanzas got their IFR ratings. We all know what happened to them. We know that the "V" tailed devil took the heat. There is still a dark joke about it, "You know what the two most dangerous things in the world are?" ; " A redneck in a logging truck and a doctor in a "V" tailed Bonanza!" Since getting back into aviation , have been amazed at the get it NOW ratings available. I'm like Rip Van Winkle just getting used to the new culture. Have fun , be careful, choose your days.

Cats an dogs flying in airplanes , now grown men measuring, and one of them betting his is SHORTER ! Scott makes a good point about the three blade prop holding the plane off the ground. Forgot to mention the reduced wear on the nose wheel and mains as a matter of practice.

Hi Highplanes, It's OK to do all these things and they probably all should be done. Remember to: Trust YOUR instincts. I've been all over this site and I'm glad I didn't know too much before I bought my "OLD" Mooney . If I knew then what I know now I'd still be a Cessna pilot! Remember If you listen to me, your listening to someone trying to find a Lake amphibian. Have decided to KEEP the Mooney just can't get it on floats. Sincerely, The links below should be helpful in finding some things to ask. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage http://www.mooney.com/servicepdf/2114.html

,,,,.....,,,,,

Does he have his commercial? I know he isn't IFR because they don' t make a hood that will fit a German Shepard.