jetdriven

you can do it yourself legally, just not the front windshield. if considering painting the plane, do it then.

the sound waves cancel each other out. Its energy, like an ocean wave. So you send a wave that inverts the one you are trying to cancel and it zeroes it out.

ANR has no effect on your radio transmissions, the mic is outside the ANR area (the earcup). Also, the active noise reduction such as in a Bose X is more than the passive reduction. The passive is actually pretty poor. Telex even makes a Walkman style earphone which has zero passive reduction its all active.

I think the nice advantage to the Powerflow is the ability to go faster on more gas, or to pull back to the previous TAS and save the .5 GPH or so. But no one with fast planes does that; as a Bonanza friend I have says, "We didn't buy these things to go slow!"

Some well-known guys in San Antonio can likely tell you what it is worth, and what it will sell for.

I'd say most pilots over-improve their airplane with goo-goo gadgets and then double their cost of flying. A 150 will get you there, a 201 to us is a rocketship. Its also cheaper per mile than any 172, warrior, etc.

Option creep enters into the equation and you can buy two early J's for the cost of one 252. A turbo aircraft has the option of flying above icing and in clear air, but it doesnt come cheap. If you discount the engine, prop, and accesory reserve (something approaching twice a 201, or around 25$ an hour), the costs are quite similar. Eventually that 40K bill comes due, however. Just be prepared. Also, our useful load is 974 LB. A friend of ours has a '79 231 and his useful is I believe 800 lb. So, taking more than two people, we can go farther on one fuel stop or at least the same, and the time advantage of the 231 disappears. Still, the 201 doesnt have much reserve climb ability at 10,000' and it would be nice to have some forced atmosphere to the engine. A 252 is still cheaper than a Bonanza, too

We considered 231s along with the 201 for potential purchase. The acquitisiton costs are similar. But based on the fact the engine is a lot more expensive(10-20K more), more maintenance with a 6 cylinder turbo than a 4 cylinder lycoming, 20-30% more fuel burn below 7,000 feet, less useful load, and the large numbers of them needing cylinders and top ovehauls made it around 20-30% more expensive overall to fly. So we passed, and bought a 201. Even that plane is something like 10-12K a year ot own if it doesnt fly at all. Still, if you live out west and need it, its awesome. Nothing bette than your own personal airliner. But comes with a cost.

fly 4 hours without a headset in a 150, the next day 4 hours with a DC clamp headset, then the next day 4 hours with an ANR and quantify the fatigue level. For me its a huge difference with ANR. Quote: Becca

I suppose all the airline pilots just plain have it wrong then. Or, as has been pointed out, 99.744% of them Quote: rob

Actually I have no idea of his GAMI spread because he did not list fuel flows at peak, only temperatures. Ours had a .8 GPH spread, after cleaning and rearranging 1 and 4, it was either .2-0. Im not sure which did it, but it happened. What brough that comment out is yours saying that certain cylindfers typically run richer than others. This can help that.

Nah, LOP will burn up your hard drive! Electricity is cheaper than hard drives!

we have the XeVision 50W. it has maybe 5X the power of an LED light (750K CP, I think the LED's are like 125-150k CP) , and a 2,000 hour life.

I think ours is fake then, becaue the 54 gallon bladders are 20 years old, dont leak, and we still have 700-750 mile range. Quote: Piloto You don't have a genuine Mooney unless it shows some leaks.

you can clean the injectors overnight in acetone or hopppes #9 gun solvent it may tighten up the GAMI spread. We took it furhter and swapped #1 and #4 now its a zero-.2 spread.

No need to get your feathers in a ruff, but in 10 years of airline flying I have maybe seen 3 pilots use them. Yes I have flown with hundreds of pilots so my sample size is larger than yours. So taking the percentages its way less than 1%. Of course there are outliers. Do you really want to argue this? Fly 900 hours in a year, or 8 hours in a row with in-ear headsets you may change your mind. Further, I'm not talking about money. But the going rate for a top-notch ANR headset is 700-1000$. Personally I think the Bose is overpriced and the Zulu with the trade-in making it 750$ is awesome. Older Boeings have no intercom like our Mooney so we use the crappy telex walkman style headphones, which is terrible. Quote: flight2000

I saw that video too. What is it for?

the factory guages use resistance to generate a signal, them biases this against system voltage. Our partner had an alternator failure and the CHT kept climbing into the red. Because the system voltage was falling. So, unless your system voltage is stable and consistent, the factory guages wont be accurate at all. That JPI uses a different transducer I would bet, and is unaffected by voltage.

I have ~5,500 hours on my Bose X. Yes, that many. They have been overhauled once and repaired 3 times, due to broken wishbones and the bottom of the earcup. IMO they are too fragile for GA flying, they can get dropped, jerked off the panel, stepped on, or sat on too easily and they break. The repair and re-TSO is 250$. The active + passive noise reduction is pretty good, perhaps around 35-40 dB. I think the A20 and Zulu are a couple dB more. The Zulu II sems much more solidly built than the Bose. In-ear headsets are too much work, and no profesional crews uaser them. The other brands just dont measure up to this level provided by the Zulu II and the A20. Quote: flight2000 I have two sets of the QT Halo's and will not use anything else. I used a set of the Bose X in a buddies SR22 and hated the clamping. The noise cancelling didn't impress me enough to get me to the point of shelling out that much money for them anyway. I'll never go back to clamping headsets (especially in the summer!). Brian

Cost after trade in for a Zulu II was 750$. Didnt know but evidently people were getting the 250$ trade in on a Zulu I. That conversion is awful compared to a real ANR headset. Just in weight alone, its over 18 OZ. Shake oyur head L-R rapidly and it falls off. Quote: Becca Nah, I am just a looky-loo. I am still using the same pair of passive noise reduction DC headsets I got as a gift when I was 16 years old (so nearly two decades ago). But the thing that keeps almost selling me is the music input. Not enough for that much money though. I know a lot of people who have had success with those kits that convert passive DC to active for about $150. Byron keeps trying to convince me to upgrade, but $1000 buys a lot of avgas..

I wonder abouyt that thing. Namely, what happens when that thing flies off and hits another plane. or if the engine is certified to run with such an imbalance. Lycoming says anything that slows RPM to be a prop strike, such as snow, water or even grass..

when you advance the throttle on takeoff, it belongs to the insurance company. Dont worry about what youj can't control. How fast it retracts or extends to me is no factor, unless its a Cardinal RG (13 seconds). If the terrain is smooth, land gear down. Same is it is very rough.

if you go further than 50 LOP, you are losing efficiency again. Down below 4000' I do go leaner than that simply to keep power below 75%. At 9600 density altitude, I would be between 20 LOP and peak depending on what speed I was getting.

You can also leave the mixture it ints cruise setting as well as the throttle, or lean further LOP and just leave the throttle full, and set power with fuel flow. If you are getting high or fast, lean further. Somwhere like on downwind, set MP to 15", go to ROP, and continue as per POH. works for us. Full throttle from takeoff until abeam numbers.

Here is the best place for an aera in an early J. The yoke mount that comes with it is a joke. External powered antenna (from my old Northstar GPS-60) as well, all the satellites are always max full bars.