aviatoreb

Quote: Shadrach I think that vid is bogus. While an RV7A will certainly outrun an M20E by 15-20kts, the closure rate of the RV in that vid was more like 40 to 50kts.

Quote: jetdriven You probably can buy an Aspen and the DFC-90 for the cost of an S-TEC 30 which has limited capability, and a bad reputation for customer service. This is the first exciting thing I have seen, that and the iFD540.

Quote: jetdriven A Baron is the ultimate airplane. The principal problem is its ability to burn through 2% of its value (1100$) per day in avgas, or 1/3rd of its value in a single annual with repairs.

Quote: Hank Usually by the time I'm that close, I can pick up automated weather [AWOS, ATIS, etc] from somewhere in the vicinity of my destination. If it's a long-duration flight with unsettled weather, you better believe my Stormscope and I chat up Flightwatch. Sometimes I call in a pirep when the briefer mentions "there are no pireps along your route of flight." Seems like they are always interested, and someone else may actually want to know, too. P.S.--My IA checkride was 23 months ago. Staying current is more difficult than I expected. Right now, I'm good through Saturday, then will need 2 more approaches. I'm not quite hitting my target of at least one every month.

Quote: jackn The Rocket is a lot of airplane for the money. An Encore with a high time engine, no TKS, older panel goes for around $200K, add those options and you're looking at spending much more(if you can find one). Never flew a rocket, so I have no opinion on their actual performance.

Quote: N601RX The Sam James cowl is a popular speed and looks upgrade for the RV's. Kind of the equivelent of our lopresti for less than 1K! http://www.jamesaircraft.com/

Quote: N4352H I have lived and flown this area my entire flying career (based 18nm north of GAI). Yesterday was windy, I think winds aloft at 8,000 were in excess of 60 nmph. While you were seemingly in flatland, you really weren't. At Westminster, you were only 25 miles east of terrain. You were only 30-60 miles down range of the mountains most of your trip until you either flew out of the the building high pressure or you were clear of terrain. You flew abeam and slightly down range of the mountains most of the way. Well, you know the rest. In our area, even moderately windy days are rought with mechanical turbulence at low levels, usually over flown at about 3500 ft. But with steep gradient and building high pressure over the hills, you end up riding the wave much higher up. Closer in, waves precede rotors and you really get thumped. With conditions present 30 miles down range of the last foothills. Ross (Shadrach) and Seth are often on Mooneyspace. They could offer insight as well.

Quote: co2bruce Had mine checked, all OK. Took all of 10 minutes. Peace of mind is a wonderful thing. I sometimes have to wonder about the penny pinching around here. This is our lives and our loved ones lives on the line. If you can’t afford a half hour of service maybe flying isn't the best the best hobby for you?? OK I have my flame retardant suit on.

Quote: Skybrd I was at Porterville last Saturday and saw a clean RV-6 airplane. I asked the pilot what engine it had and speed it ran. He had a Lycoming 0320 that was producing 160 hp and I think he said it would do 160 knots. I noticed that it didn't have retractable gear but did have wheel pants. My question is: can that airplane outrun a Mooney 201 that has higher horsepower and retractable gear. Do you know if there has been a race to vertify who is faster? I would think the Mooney would go faster.

Quote: N4352H Christian.... read Richard Collins "Flying IFR". It is a clinic in the thought process, logical reasoning and how to be armed in manned with the facts, prior to making a go, no-go. It will coalesce your new found knowlege. Great read for a newly minted IFR rating. A defacto mentor until you find one. Always leave yourself two back doors.

Quote: FlyDave Ummm, I think what he's saying is that MAC did what's right to ensure the safety of the Mooney fleet - soup (M20a) to nuts (Acclaim) and has acted as a responsibe corporate citizen. I agree.

Quote: drmarkflies Please do. How much is this problem only Bravo specific?

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!!