aviatoreb

Quote: Lionudakis That was a good one. I remember it and chuckle now every time I pull my airplane by the prop.

Quote: Lionudakis This forum does stir up some entertaining debates. My favorite was the pulling by the prop debate...

Quote: gregwatts All of you "experts" used whatever info you chose to use. in your own purchases of an airplane. If you want to buy an airplane with........damge, maintenance,or repair history......then do so. If you want to use particular info to disqualify a purchase....then do so! Stop trying to convince others that your own opinion is fact and that everyone else should subscribe to your opinions. Just sayin'..........

Quote: mooneygirl Mitch and I plan on attending Reno this year too! It will be our first time there. Maybe we could have a Mooney contingent going!

Quote: jetdriven

Quote: mschmuff I have been searching for an M20F and a friend asked if I had looked at a 177RG Cardinal. I did all my commercial and CFI work in a 182RG but never flew or even heard of a 177. Any thoughts/issues? No leaking wings? Two doors, not as fast...Fuel burn? performance?

Quote: ToddDPT I'm sure they will resolve the issue shortly. I'm sticking with my iPad 2. No reason to upgrade from a 2 to the new one for what was offered IMO. From a iPad 1 to a new one, I can see, but not from an iPad 2.

Quote: jetdriven the AD refers to a service bulletin, which is a onetime check that takes maybe an hour.

Quote: OR75 Really not a big deal. The FAA gives you 10 hours to be able to check in with your A&P and get a log entry. What can bring down the value of an aircraft would be a recurring ADs with no way of getting rid of it.

Quote: Mitch Got Betty in my Ovation. She is VERY annoying, at the right time!

On distractions and it can happen to anyone - up here we had a 14,000hr pilot who is the local DPE gear up his twin several years ago, and in the other seat was a fellow CFI. I think that must be a case of ambiguous pilot in command scenario. But anyway two super pilots and still a bummer. Nothing but scraped metal and scraped egos that day. I had a bitchin' Betty installed, P2 Audio, as soon as I got my Mooney as required by my wife - who's name is...Elizabeth! I call the deep male voice that says "Gear is Down!" Bruce. I love Bruce. One trick my CFI taught me is to not make the gear your last bit of drag to slow you down. I.e., I never let myself deploy flaps before I have deployed and checked gear. No matter what. That helps I think. No matter how smug and excellent our procedures, it still can happen so stay humble folks and keep diligent. Mitch - yeah that look of a Mooney on its belly - yuk - my hangar neighbor had a gear failure on landing in October last year and I was at the airport when it happened. I immediately jumped in my car to get out there as they had just climbed out. Such a sad sight.

Quote: RJBrown The Rocket burns more fuel and goes faster. In the long run operating expenses are a bit closer than they initially look. The engine cost are about the same and you go further per hour in the Rocket. The useful in my old Rocket was over 1100. The Rocket setup gets 100% power clear up to 24000'. I have seen 1500FPM at 26K. It is impossible to load out of CG. The airframe changes are an 8 point attachment for the engine mount instead of the stock 4 and the addition of a battery shelf in the tail cone. Initially the Rocket had a gross weight increase to 3040#. Later Rocket got approval for the 3200# gross take off weight. The landing weight remains at 3040# for all Rockets. The weight increase was just under 200# with the conversion. The conversion added just over 100# to the conversions useful. Unless additional equipment was added the useful could be as high as 1132#. Most non TKS Rockets have over 1000# gross. The change from 3040 to 3200 gross weight is a re-labeled ASI and paperwork, similar to the J gross weight increase. A stock 231 with stock tanks filled has 32# more useful than a Rocket with Monroy tanks filled (101gal). 1000 Nautical range is easily achieved in the Rocket. The weight limit on a Rocket is based on what it can land with not what it can take off with. The theoretical 400# overgross Rocket ,tanked for Hawaii for example, would still outclimb the 231. Mooney changed the gear to allow the later models gross weight increase to 3368#. Same wing, same tail, less horsepower.

Quote: allsmiles I thought Mooney's are girls! I call mine "she" and "my other woman." My wife even thinks I have a girlfriend! I don't think we'll get any little moonsters but it sure will be a hot show putting these two babes together!!

Quote: Cruiser >I sure would like to know what they are allocating to GA to come up with 16%? If I recall there are only about 250k instrument rated pilots of the 600k total. I just cannot imagine GA is anywhere near 16% it is probably closer to 1% or 2% in actual usage of the FAA system. >In fact I woould be willing to say that if the FAA were to not provide any service to GA at all their costs would not be any less than they currently are. >Don't get sucked in by this "pay your fair share" the administration is trying to brainwash us into. The truth be known we are already paying more than that. I agree it is false economy to charge 250k people to hope to cover 16% - if it ends up chasing off many of these 250k into unsafe practices it becomes dangerous for the airlines too. How much does a major NTSB investigation cost? Maybe it too can be paid with the boondoggle of extra funds built $100 at a time with the few still participating GA? Seems penny wise and dollar foolish. As far as I see it, ALL airplanes should be encouraged to participate since it is safer for all if as many participate as possible. They shouldn't be encouraged not to participate with a tax. Also, will fewer controllers be needed if a small fraction of the traffic stops participating but they have to divert airlines around nonparticipating traffic where they see ski contact radar hits? Seems like cost will be constant.

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

Quote: 201-FLYER Ahhh, the old Rocket useful load question. Once you see what the answer is you will see why I didnt find much value in a Rocket and went with a "regular K". My useful load is 950 lbs. with full fuel I could fly longer then my bladder would allow and still have 500 lbs of people and stuff in the cabin. Although the Rocket would get me to my destination quicker it would be at the expense of more fuel and a reduced useful load. Not sure why the conversion never allowed a higher useful load?

Quote: Bnicolette There is supposed to be a pretty good app out for the Droid: I just wish they offered the georeferencing. There are no plans on that just yet with this app.

Quote: Bnicolette Now this would be a dream come true: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_rumored_to_use_slim_bezel_on_future_7.85-inch_ipad/ If only droid ran foreflight the same as the ipad this would not even be an issue. Does anybody know if Foreflight or WingX for that matter have any plans on jumping into the droid market?

Quote: Mazerbase My previous A&P commented on the tightness of the cowl on a Rocket. Unfortunately, only my engines get the, "OMGOSH ! That is HUGE ! !" type of comments. Ah that it would be otherwise.

Quote: DaV8or As if there is any extra room in a Mooney cowling. Sounds like a mechanic's nightmare.

Quote: M016576 OK, I'm off my soap box now... Oh, and for Eric- I have a N.A. M20J... because N.A. M20J's are better (oh, and I can't afford a turbo!!! hah!)

Quote: jetdriven When I got a job flying the 1900D, I thought, man! 25,000 ft ceiling we can get above almost any weather! Turns out, it really didnt. When I got to the CRJ, I thought, man! FL360 gets above most any weather! Wrong again. The 747 has a certified altitude of 45,100'. Guess what, there are still some bumpy clouds that go much higher than that. I give up.

Quote: N4352H I have poured a life time of resources into a normally aspirated plane. Don't mind it, but Mooney turbos are the way to go IMHO and I think the discussion of "if" should become "which one". You have all kinds of options. Ray Jay's on older F models with great pricing, 231, 252, Encore, Bravo, M20 Turbos. Just never go near a Bullet conversion. There are still a few left out there.

Quote: DonMuncy I doubt you will be able to find an economic justification, but you may also be hard pressed to economically justify a Mooney or any other airplane either. with that said, it is really nice to be able to fly at higher altitudes even in non-mountainous areas. On several flights I have gone up to 13 or 14,000 to be able to see the weather, and found the clouds continuing to build up. It is nice under those circumstances to be able to effortlessly go up to 16 or 17,000, without having to deviate in order to get over them. Bottom line, I doubt you need a turbo, but they are nice.

Quote: jetdriven A new O-360-A1D is already 37K. A suitable replacement might be north of 60-70K, like those Centurion 2.0S engines, which are flat-rated to 155 HP. They also have a 1200 HR TBO.