aviatoreb

Quote: Lionudakis I checked yesterday and the front is already 1/4", I agree on the resistance to airborne debris !! Ive repaired a few wings that took a bird strikes, amazing what a stupid bird of any size will do at 100+mph. I measured the side glass and they're .185. not sure if it's worth the $6-700 plus my time to replace them for minimal gain.

Quote: takair I went thicker on the windshield (two piece) and stayed thin on the sides. Can't say that I can tell much difference. Psychologically it makes me think I can take a slightly larger bird strike. The thicker window is also slighly more work fitting it in the existing lower sheetmetal. Takes a little extra work. That said, I think I woudl do it all the same except would get grey tint.

Quote: KSMooniac Taking the Advanced Pilot seminar is the single best thing you can do as an aircraft owner to learn all about managing engines and diagnosing issues.

Quote: rob The iPad 2 is indeed smaller than the original iPad. Buy it, you'll like it

Quote: rob The article you linked is from August, 2010...The rumor of a smaller iPad has been alive since the original iPad was introduced and it seems to crop up every now and again, but there's nothing to indicate that Apple is actually considering producing one.

Quote: fantom In my experience, that works for neither planes nor women

Quote: AustinPynes Sounds like my end solution is the same. I guess I just need to consult with you and see what you are doing first.

Quote: Bnicolette Just got done speaking with Barry from Autopilots Central in Tulsa, OK. I am in total AWE of this individual. I told him the issue I was having with my autopilot and he gave me a couple things to test and within seconds he knew exactly what was happening with it. This is a problem that I bought the airplane with and the previous owners have had a few different places troubleshoot the problem with no success. Barry hasn't even seen the airplane and just a youtube video of what it was doing and is confident he knows exactly what the problem is. I am sending out my HSI to him tomorrow and hopefully when it returns, I will have a "whole" autopilot with the ability to track a NAV. In addition to his knowledge of older autopilots, he is just a real "genuine" guy and seems eager to help. Just a public "THANK YOU" to you Barry. Brett

Quote: orangemtl Best answer? Live somewhere very flat and uninhabited. Not exactly a useful suggestion, however.

Besides being a traveling machine, my mooney is my very own special toy that I like to wax and take care of. So I like having this as my airplane. But it does not do all things. I wish there were a club around I could join. If there were one more airplane to join into sharing in a club basis - it would be something low and slow and yellow colored and tail dragger (or floats). It would be an inexpensive aside airplane. Beyond that, as much as I would like to have the several categories of other airplanes, cost aside, I would worry about staying current enough not flying them much. But the dream list includes, a six seater piston, a small twin, a large pressurized twin, a turbo prop, a jet, an aerobatic piston, a jet, a helicopter.... Oh and a glider! My green machine mooney is more than I should ever ask for so I promise to stop noticing other pretty machines.

Quote: Seth TKS just was not in the cards for this upgrade - thought it would have been nice.

Quote: Seth 4. Autopilots assist workload like you would not believe. .... ... Back to Auto Pilots - I did not have one in my M20F - well, I did - the PC wing leveler. And I flew a lot of IFR, a lot of long Cross Country flights and even the circling of the USA in 2010. From DC to NC to TX to CA to OR to MT to MN and back. I've had the plane to FL, MN, OH, TX many times. For all these flights I hand flew the plane, hand flew the instrument approaches, to minimums a few times. The AP takes a huge workload off and allows you to monitor and manage as opposed to primarily flying and correcting consistently without the step back overview. I will still hand fly approaches from time to time to keep my hand flying skills up, but boy does an auto pilot decrease the workload. If you are ever thinking of getting one - don't think twice - DO IT.

Quote: Seth When I owned my former 1967 M20F, I had made a list of potential modifications to perform in time (part of the reason I purchased the Missile). One of those modificiations would have been to put in bay windows before the paint job. I always went back and forth as to simply paint it with the same windows, or to put in the bay windows first. After flying the Missile with the bay windows (long windows in the back ala 201 style) without a doubt do it if you are thinking about it. Curb appeal, I kind of like the three window format of the F model. However, from the inside, the view for passengers, or from what I can tell as the pilot when looking over my shoulder is absolutely worth it. My opinion is when an F owner replaces windows, for whatever reason (scratches, pre-paint, tint, etc . . . ) put in the 201 style bay windows. You and your passengers will love the difference. George - I know you did this. I forget if you did it yourself or had a shop do it with you. Others who have made this modification, what is the range of cost? Thanks, and remember, this is just my opinion, but after flying with these windows, I would have made that mod. It does make a difference, shows a potnetial buyer you have upgraded your aircraft, and it really is a mod you'll use every flight. -Seth

Quote: jetdriven ... Messing with the fuel selector at low altitude (or on the ground) can get you killed. Most engine failures are fuel related.

Quote: Hank Annual automobile trips in the US: 100's of millions, perhaps Billions Swimming/diving trips throughout the country: 10's of millions, maybe less Annual GA trips: 10's of thousands Guess which one leads the pack in fatalities/100 million hours [the NTSB standard unit of comparison]? I will grant you that any aircraft accident, no matter how minor, gets far too much publicity with nonsense quotes like "an airplane crash without injuries is a miracle," while the only auto accidents that make the news are the really large or especially gruesome ones simply because there's not enough time or paper to record and distribute them all, even in small towns. Car wrecks and deaths are simply too commonplace for notice, but how many accidents were there at your local airport this year? There are 4 airports in my local area; 2009 = 2 fatals; 2010 = none, I think; 2011 = 3 non-fatals and counting. There were >3 car wrecks in town last week, I'm sure.

Quote: Hank Grass is great! It's just more difficult cleaning wet grass and dirt from the bottom of the wing than it is on a Cessna. The joy of [dewy] morning landings . . .

Quote: WardHolbrook There are some caveats associated with the operation of singles and twins. The big thing to remember when it comes to singles is that when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of dumb luck or good judgment, you will be VFR over survivable terrain because you'll be “up close and personal” with it shortly. The big caveat when it comes to flying a twin is that when an engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill to avoid turning the airplane into little more than a lawn dart. A properly flown twin operated by a proficient pilot within its limitations is inherently safer than a single; but that's the kicker - most aren't. I'd guess that the majority of the non-professional light twin drivers and many of the "pros" would be safer in a single. It takes a lot of effort to gain the necessary proficiency and even more to maintain it. That's dang tough to do when your recurrent training involves little more than a flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you’re only flying a 100 - 200 hours a year. That is simply not enough and the accident record proves it. Our airline and corporate pilot brothers fly up to about 1000 hours a year and they get frequent recurrent training. I guess we really are better than they are, because evidently we don't need as much recurrent training as they do to stay sharp. In my mind, the issue boils down to knowledge, skill, discipline, and judgement. You need to have a thorough understanding of what the airplane you're flying is capable of and not capable of doing in any given set of conditions. You also need to know how to achieve maximum performance. You need to have the skill and proficiency necessary to achieve that performance level. Finally, you need to have the discipline to avoid flying your light twin in those conditions/situations where the outcome would be questionable or worse. A review of the accident records clearly demonstrates the folly of those light twin pilots who fail to do what is required to achieve and then maintain the required levels of knowledge, skill and proficiency to fly a light twin.

Quote: jelswick Would people feel any different about flying at night with synthetic vision onboard? I'm not sure if that would do it for me, but there's another version that includes a night vision from a camera, not infrared, but something similar that would show actual ground objects like buildings, etc. If they make that price make sense in Mooneys, that might up the comfort level for me. But, I won't rule out night flight without it either, just in my case have to have appropriate weather minimums, etc. to determine whether worth it for a given flight.

Quote: GeorgePerry

Quote: jetdriven

Quote: WardHolbrook Single vs twin and piston vs turbine arguements are starting to get boring. It seems as though everyone has made up their minds on the subject and converting a devotee from one camp into the other is pretty much a futile exercise. ... "I've been doing it this way for umpteen hundreds or thousands of hours and it's never happened before, it won't happen this time either therefore it must be safe." But engines can and do quit or lose power - for many reasons - and if you allow yourself to operate "outside the box" sooner or later you run the risk of getting bit.

Quote: jetdriven here, the fatal accident rate in a twin is 4 times the rate of singles. A piston twin is 88 times or more likely to have a fatal accident than a turboprop single. Facts folks. Not feelings. http://www.avemco.com/information/blogs/twin-engine-temptation.aspx

Quote: DaV8or

Quote: GeorgePerry The question here isn't wether or not one is prepared, but rather is one is prepared to take the risk. Flying an aircraft with a single piston powerplant at night (over land or water) increases the risk for an unsucsessful forced landing exponentially. In fact the odds of a fatal forced landing at night are anywhere from 5-10 times higher than day time, depending which safety study you quote. As a navy pilot my job involves flying on and off the carrier, day, night, in bad weather etc...For the most part we do this safely largely because we have backups, redundant systems and our own full time SAR on call. I willingly accept the risks associated with carrier aviation because there are enough mitigators that reduce the risk to acceptable levels. I've been in the flying game for a long time and for me (others milage will vary), Flying a piston powered single engine aircraft at night is an unacceptible risk and one that I do not take. I mitigate my risk by flying in the day only and plan land times no later than 10 minutes prior to sunset.

Turboprops can have engine failures too. They are MUCH more reliable than pistons but nothing has a 100% impossible to fail. Whether it be engine reasons or fuel flow reasons, or what not. The twin versus single issue is still there for turbo props but perhaps less serious since single turbo props are just that much more reliable.