aviatoreb

I was mountain biking....

How "Steve Jobs'ish" of them. Maybe it will be an iGarmin iNavigator with built in iSiri for an iMooney with an iAutopilot and .... a titanium wrist band upcharge for $200.

A new line of Garmin watches? With titanium wrist bands? Or maybe Garmin earings, nose rings and other piercing accessories with built in GPS, WiFii, ADS-B, and lots more acronyms? All in rubber but titanium for an upcharge.

If you look closely in the solicitation in the magazine, the picture that goes with the call for M20J reviews, the picture is of Peter-Garmin's airplane.

This is my idea of a multi-engine airplane that I could handle an engine out (or two) in:

Oh goodie. I figure if I were owning a twin - I would want to know the loaded weight I could carry and still climb out at 500fpm and then i would want to use that as my own personal max loading. So that this would be greater than my own body mass, I figure many light twins would require a pair of big bores. Between this part, and the fact that many twins are driven by owners who are not sufficiently current to handle the quick emergency handling (feather) for an engine out upon take off - I figure that most twins in most owners hands are worse than a single in most owners hands. Not to revive ye ol' debate.

Twinkie's make me nervous. Sure they are efficient as twins for the cruise speed because they have those little IO320's, and sure if I were flying over rocks at night I would want that second engine just in case. But they make me very nervous for the failure on take off scenario, especially if fully loaded since I wonder if there is any climb with a single little engine. I know I know its supposed to be tested but in a twin I would think excess power on each engine is a must because of the engine out on take off scenario and twinkie is the opposite of excess power even with one concept - because they were shooting for efficiency. I have 4.4 hrs of twinie time in my logbook. So I am no expert but I have been in them anyway to have thought about it.

That is interesting - how much horse power is 14gph on that engine? I say interesting because that is pretty close to the rocket on 15gph, at 55% power, and I would expect a little bit less efficiency given we drag around bigger cylinders. But otherwise similar airframe. (Note mine is 5+kts slower on the burn rate-speed than that and I blame the tks).

yay Math!

Yes - the answer is no.

We wouldn't even need an airplane since the gap would be rather small:

So the super continent Pangea could have been held together with a few small end rod bushings of modern design? http://geology.com/pangea.htm

What about the Lycoming drift?

Chris - for sure there was a good dose of luck, but it is clear from your radio and your statements here that you did a fantastic job optimizing your luck. Glad to hear from you, and especially that you are healthy and well to do tell us all about it.

Hi Alex - welcome aboard! i have used the avionics shop at heretage at Burlington Vermont airport - kbtv which you see is very close to you. (As am I - look up kptd!). They have had no problem identifying and servicing my various avionics issues and repairs including for my kfc200.

G3x is the ultimate. If all goes well there may be one in my mooney rocket by a year from now.

This is a CLASSIC aviation thread at its best. Meandering from LED lights and winglets, to STC and 337 issues, to urinary issues and adult-diapers, and grease pens. Saturday afternoon fun on Mooneyspace.

Honestly, I wouldn't want the relief tube. To much solution and too invasive to my nice machine for such a simple problem. If depends are good enough for the astronauts, then good enough for me. ...never used depends...but I have the gatorade "trick" - once. But if I started using the gatorade trick often, then yeah - I would just go depends. It reminds me of the NASA solution to writing in space - they spend xx mega dollars developing a weightless space ink pen, but the Russian cosmonaut program just used grease pencils.

Bennett kindly sent me a copy of his 337 for this a few years ago, and that is the message I got locally from FISDO - no way. But that was before what seems to be a bit of lightening on blocking certain kinds of upgrades.

That never works for me - I just go faster.

I find it interesting this one keeps rolling. I am STRONGLY in the don't do touch and goes in MY airplane. That's my operation. I think it is a legit operation to do so, but I feel like in the long run for my own operation its asking for it. Its not paticularly dangerous to gear up while rolling down the runway, so I am not worried if that's what you want to do....haha - anyway not kidding around Ill do what I want and you guys do what you want and this is one where we really don't need to agree but it is interesting hearing each others opinions - and we do seem to hold them strongly.

You should just show up in Kerryville, wearing one of your t-shirts - and say - I am M20FanJesse and I am here to sell Mooneys! If I were the CEO I would hire you right there where you stand.

I hope they sell it. My opinion - with a diesel engine, retractable gear, and a parachute, that thing would sell.

Hah - and a super model girl friend to drive around with you in your Bugatti on the way to the airport to visit your Mooney. your string of logic is like the old adage about not cleaning a pizza stain off the rug since then that spot is too clean!

Indeed!