jetdriven

as long as you can pay the gas and bills, a Baron is a total blast.

The spar is actually two halves but it is bolted together with a spar cap bridge which is about 1/3rd of the wing span. it is a huge deal to remove the wing and replace a hundred rivets to replace this piece. Usually due to corrosion. To trailer a Mooney, you drill the rivets all along the tailcone at the rear bulkhead and separate the tailcone from the fuselage. remove the tail from the tailcone, and place the Mooney on the trailer with the wings down the trailer. Easier to gain speed from drag mods than horsepower. The cowling, windshield, and things like antennas, door handles, and fairings are worth 20 MPH. It would take another 50-80 horsepower to get that. I have flown the C, E, and J. I'd guess the MP is about the same with ram air on all 3. The ram air off chokes down the vintage mooney's a couple inches due to the poor airbox design. the J I flew long ago woulnd only gain 1/2" or less. on our 77 J it is deactivated. You can mod an E, F, and even a C model with a full 201 kit if you wish. Everything goes. Maxwell doesn't recommend inner gear doors on Johnson bar airplanes due to the effort required to retract the gear with that air load. I know someone who has the 201 windshield and cowl on his 66 C model, it even has the fuel injected engine It is also exactly as fast as my J ~155 KTAS. Except the longer rear window it looks the same as well. The short bodied C and E models seemed definately to get off the ground quicker and the E model when solo climbed like an empty 747 compared to a J. Cruise flight seemed about the same, perhaps the were a little more sporty. For hot dogging I liked the E a lot better. For everything else cheaply, the J is it. The only thing better than a Mooney is a turbo Mooney!

Docket already has an air conditioner too, Jose.

if you have seen the yoke mount that comes with the aera it is a huge unit. plus the wires going to it. Put your approach plate on the yoke, and your aera in a panel dock.

only thing back there is the jackscrew. it is greased though.

yes, along with GPS-based TAWS, GPWS and a bunch of other stuff.

It appears the factory 3" pedal extension kit geometry makes the pedals stand up verticasl even with the adjustment all the way down

that is a nice looking, well equipped aircraft.

Because stall speed varies with weight. Also thew 55 KIAS assumes zero instrument error, forward CG, and power idle. At lighter weights or at different conditions (aft CG, power applied, instrument error), the aircraft will stall at a speed lower than 55 KIAS thus the reason for 1.2 Vso. The 1.2 Vso is the speed at which the AOA wil be the same, regardless of weight. This is the same technique used in turboprops and jets as well.

To me is sounds like quadruple overkill. However, a backup AI is nice, but you can get a nice used one for 800$.

Where do you typically like your rudder pedal angle? We installed extensions and they sit quite vertical. So much in fact all 3 of us pilots have managed to get swervy on landing due to inadvertantly using the brake on landing. They can be adjusted. But how far? what angle?

if you are havingh trouble stopping, consider you were likely too fast when landing.

that is an excellent explanation, Ross. I do that as well, demonstrate that if you can lift the airplane off after touchdown, it wasnt fully stalled to land. Also, I also hold the nosewheel off until I can't anymore, and aero brake after that. All the weight is on the mains, No need to use brakes most times.

The Baron was VFR, we were IFR, both in VMC. He was just handed off to the controller working our sector.

Once we were flying the CRJ-900 from Vegas to Ontario, CA one hazy summer afternoon. We were cleared to 8K and passing 11K on the descent into Ontari, just north of Big Bear. Just as our TCAS went off, we were told of a Baron climbing VFR to 10 or 12K. We were perhaps closing at 500 knots, but by the time I saw him, I clicked off the autopilot and did an abrubt 2G pull up, and he went right by us, Im not sure how close, but close enough we didnt know what happened till it was over. Sometimes you have to trust its a big sky out there.

Shadrach, +10

Depending on who you ask the Air Gizmo mount is illegal. Avionics Unlimited in Conroe has done 400 of them. None of them with a 337. Ours has no 337 either. Minor change.

SWA pilots are covered by an in-house union and contract. The company also is generous with their handling of employees EG they not so quick to fire someone unless it was an egregious or safety related error. pilot unions lay off based strictly on seniority. that said, SWA hasn't had a furlough since its inception, except 3 pilots laid off a for month back in 1970.

OK how about basing it on another STC or kit for other aircraft such as a Cardinal RG or 182. They use similar screws, likely the same size.

All the boost pump is supply positive presure to the fuel injection. We did a hot start today and it would not maintain green band fuel pressure from the engine driven fuel pump as soon as we gave it mixture. Likely because all the fuel in the lines under the cowl were partially vapor. The fuel pump delivers a constant steady 21 PSI to the injector. When you "1000 RPM touch nothing" start it, the only thing different is when you give it the mixture, steady fuel is there.

I think changing cowl fasteners to Dzus would be a minor change, at most a 337 filed without field approval. People do this with XeVision landing lights and AirGizmos panel docks.

Ours started in 10-15 blades at 25 degrees with no prime. Maybe we should just skip priming altogether.

You will pay when you sell it. Around 14$ an hour deduction for every hour of engine and airframe time

we just repaired ourt KN-61 DME and added a KLN-89B (VFR) and an aera 500 in an airgizmos dock. Great setup.

I think weatherpak connectors would be fine as well. These have a locking tab and the ribbed rubber seal on the female plug.