David Mazer

I've had three flats, all on the mains, two on landing and one sitting on a ramp. Landing with a main going flat isn't a big deal with respect to control. I'm not sure what landing with a flat nose would be like and I would prefer to stay that way. I suppose your answer can be found in the thread dealing with the new Garmin AP. If you can call that an answer. BTW, do run flat tires weigh more than regular tires?

My Arctic air is the old style, so it is a slightly different size, but it was the middle size at that time. Bigger would be too big. I recommend the 36 qt size but the dimensions aren't listed for the wheeled cooler on the Coleman website.

Since I figure my wife owns me, as opposed to the other way around, the cost of ownership would be her problem!

Despite all the correct things you have all said, certified airplanes still have a dramatically better safety record. I don't believe for a minute that using state of the art electronics only available in exp airplanes has anything do with that (seemingly to be counter intuitive) but there are factors that make certified safer. I fly both and I can tell you that exp airplanes aren't always designed, built, or maintained to the same standards as certified. The biggest problem is knowing which exp are designed, built, and maintained properly and which aren't. At least to a larger degree than with certified. Even my own exp (bought already built) had numerous, dangerous, flaws that only came out in flight.

The divorce would cost a lot more than the OH. If you can't afford the usual cost of ownership (meaning way more than you expect and always at the worst possible time), maybe you should look at something a little less high maintenance.

Actually, the design before (231) was better and it was the "improvement" that was a problem. The 252 arrangement can't even be easily converted to the 231 model because parts required for bracing aren't there on the 252. We'll talk more when you are ready.

Gancalo, For the record, my problem is still not fixed. I have a workable solution but it isn't what I would like. The damage you note may be the exact damage I have been told can't be fixed. There are two or three places that will repair these depending on the manufacturer of the motor which, apparently, can vary. Replacing the motor, if you can get one, will not guarantee that the problem won't happen again immediately. If you have found one for $1,300 it is 30% higher than Mooney quoted me but they also said they didn't have any in stock and didn't know when they could get one. This was a very poor design and the removal and installation is a real pain on my Rocket. It may be easier on a 252. I have tried converting to a cable system with limited success. The forces are just too great at cruise speeds. As far as is ti safe, I sure hope so. I've been flying for a few years with no control over the cowl flaps and haven't had a temperature issue. I do believe it is costing me a couple kts but I'm not certain. Before you go through everything I have, PM a time when we can talk. It will be much more efficient.

A guy across from my hangar has a Trinidad and he purchased the "real A/C". It works, it is nice, but he went through a lot of installation issues to make it right. Maybe just his experience but they do let on to the installation issue and the not so completely portable when they talk about the exhaust air being vented through the rear cargo wall.

I think you mean the "real a/c". Your link took me to the coolers. Yes, there are. It is a permanent installation so you carry the weight around all the time (it isn't as easy to install and remove as they imply). It is supposed to be off during takeoff and landing. There is a significant amount of installation cost. Most airplanes require a second alternator or a much larger alternator installed. The ducting is the same as for the cooler but the unit is installed in the tail cone making it necessary to cut a hole for it (I know some one that tried to tie it into the planes overhead air vents with very bad results). I think you also need a hot air exhaust through the plane.

I've tried the frozen water bottle idea. Seemed logical but the bottles just don't work nearly as well and then, if your traveling, your stuck with the bottles of water for the return trip taking up useful space.

You'd be surprised how little humidity this adds. The air isn't picking up too much water since there is a heat exchanger involved. This isn't a mister or even a swamp cooler. The cold water runs through a heat exchanger and the air blows over that. The same idea as the radiator or oil cooler. You can dress cool or go naked for that matter, it is still hot here in the summer as I'm sure it is in Atlanta.

I don't find pre-cooling to be necessary. The unit cools the plane almost immediately. It isn't anything like pre-heating. You don't really need to plug it in and lug cords. I do leave the unit in the plane all the time unless I know I'll need the space. Empty it doesn't weigh much at all. I load ice and water and drain it while it is in the plane. My concern with the battery isn't in putting it in and out but the weight and balance effect. Granted, a battery isn't a big deal but things do add up if you don't pay attention along the way. It really is something of a hassle when all is said and done but, for me in Florida, it is very worthwhile.

This is a very interesting list. I especially like the multiple handles since it can be difficult to manipulate. I'm concerned with the idea of a rechargeable battery because of the additional weight that might add. My unit is already about 40 lbs full and another 5 - 10 for a battery (more, less?) . The draining of water was an option on the ArcticAir that I had to dismantle because that was the reason they used the much smaller tubing through out the system and it just reduced the cooling strength too much. I just siphon out the water. I've been thinking about the shape of the box a little as I've been PMing with Phil. My current unit is longer and wider than tall but I wonder if a taller rather than longer unit wouldn't be easier to get through the baggage door and take up less floor space than the current unit. The downside is the greater tipping potential I suppose. I also resist taking ice for later use as 32 degree ice is far less effective than 0 degree ice and ice sitting in your cooler all day will be warming up regardless of the cooler's insulating power especially with the water already added that will, by definition, be greater than 32 degrees. You might want to add to your wish list a good directable vent. The ArcticAir's is pretty good and the B-cool vent looks a little sub-par.

I'll load baggage and put fuel in but the rest I'll do in the morning, even if I've done it the night before. I just do. I also like to allow the fuel to sit a little while to allow the water to settle if there is any, and water is extremely rare. For really long flights, I fill the tanks the night before and then top them off in the morning. No matter what I do, I can always add about 5 gal more fuel in the morning. To reduce the time, I'll sometimes put the extra 5 gal in a gas can and have it ready to pour in the tanks. There seems to be a lot of administrative overhead in getting the fuel going from the pump (authorizing the credit card, grounding the plane, pulling out the hose, putting the hose back, putting the ground cable back, etc.).

I've never had any problem getting ice from an FBO. They have it available, deliver it to the plane, and they have never charged me. Even if they did, what does 20 lbs of ice cost? $4? Unfortunately, that is less than a gallon of 100LL now. I don't understand the second part of this comment at all. Even when I've left the plane on a hot ramp (especially when I've left the plane on a hot ramp), it makes the plane bearable. My 86 has decent ventilation but is still really hot air coming in. What I do is immediately close the door, turn on the master and let the cooling begin while I do everything else, Works like a charm.

Don't forget the really long extension cord.

When I asked my A&P he said they were both fine so I use the cheaper one, Tempest. No problems so far.

I have an Arctic-Air. I have modified it by increasing the pump size from 500 gph to 800 gph and increased the tubing size from 1/4 in to 3/8 in (or 1/2 in, I can't remember). I have also put in an cigarette lighter power source with a 24 to 12 V converter on the hat shelf, removed the switch based control, and put on an RF transmitter control so I don't have the cord coming to the front of the plane. Why have I done all this? Because I live in FL., the temperature in the plane can easily exceed 100 degrees very quickly, and this reduces the interior temperature at least 20 degrees and makes it very comfortable. As far as ice goes, I have a freezer in my hangar and had a special aluminum box built to make blocks of ice just the right size. When I stop at an FBO I just ask for 20 lbs of ice and they bring it to the plane. No hassles and never a charge. With the higher flow rate, I still get about an hour of relief and that makes all the difference on taxi, climb, and long approaches at low altitudes. I can't see flying around FL without it anymore and I strongly recommend these for people in hot climates for more than just comfort. I believe the reduced heat makes it easier to make decisions based on what is happening outside the plane rather than rushing to get in the air to cool down. That doesn't even take into consideration the fatigue contribution and dehydration. Be sure you get the kind with a heat exchanger. The kind that just blow air over the ice just don't have the oomph to cool the cabin down. Even though they are much less expensive, they just don't work.

I had a lift reserve model in another airplane and it worked great. The only problem I had is the indicator didn't make sense or look cool enough for the Mooney.

A 252 is a marvelous airplane. You might consider it rather than a Rocket. Some consider it the best compromise of attributes in the Mooney line up. A little slower and less fuel than the Rocket, A little faster, more fuel, and lots more altitude capable than the non-turbo models. I would have considered a 252 but my mission at the time better suited a Rocket or Bravo.

I can't tell you the comparison, only having a Rocket, but I can tell you that my maintenance costs have been reasonable. Annuals are under $3,000 except when the engine needed to be rebuilt due to damage from Mooney Mart and Coy Jacobs and isn't a reflection on the airplane. Performance is exceptional with climbs at 140 kts and 1,000 ft/min alone and 900 ft/min with a passenger. If I want to go up fast, 1,200 - 1,400 ft/min at 110 kts is easy. Fuel flows are from 14.5 gph at minimal power settings 25/2300 to 28 gph for a couple min during climb. I typically fly at 29/2300 with fuel flows in the 18.4 gph range. Even at low altitudes of 8,000, something ATC demands here in FL all the time, I see about 180 TAS. Altitude makes a huge difference. At 18000 ft I would be close to 200 kts and at 25000 ft about 205-210. I think all the Rockets have long range tanks and speed brakes and you really need them. With this over sized engine it is very easy to build up speed very fast and it is a slow process to power down due to the turbo. Weight management is easy if you manage your fuel. I usually only fill the mains to 80 gal (about 4 hrs without reserve) and that gives me another 180 lbs of stuff. I don't go over gross weight but I often fly at gross and I can't even tell the difference. Hot weather, cold weather, full, empty, the plane jumps off the ground and flies like a bat out of hell. Some have TKS but none have FIKI. I don't and wish I did. They are traveling machines and not for puttering around the patch, IMHO. The F or J would be much more reasonable at 8-10 gph for short flights for $100 hamburgers if you could get one for that cheap after starting your engine. Rocket has been very supportive with answers and others have been able to get parts as needed. Fortunately, in the 6 years I've had her she hasn't needed any from them.

So glad everything has worked out well. Fly safe and happy!

Not to start a bidding war but I might be interested also, 305h@mazergroup.net

First, I am very opposed to user fees. ESPECIALLY for landings. Why would we want to discourage proficiency by penalizing the act of practicing. Second, taxes should be either as a general tax for comprehensive costs, like the fuel tax or use specific, like a user fee. But, as I said first, user fees are likely a safety risk. Duplicating one form of tax on another is just a way to hide the true cost from the tax payers. It is just duplicitous and assumes the taxpayers are idiots that can be cheated. Oh, wait, maybe the government is right about that part. I can't understand why only contract towers are being closed considering the FAA's own statistics show that contract towers are safer and less costly/more efficient. Maybe a way to reduce the number of tower closures is to make all the towers contract towers and save enough money to keep some of the current hit list open. Finally, we probably don't need all these towers. I've looked through the list of towers in my area and think most of the closings won't create a problem. How often does KLEE or KEVB really warrant a tower. I'm sure other airports are equally undeserving.

I looked into this a few years ago with Rocket and they advised me that the engine/propeller combination is the STC and there are no alternative propellers available. Has this changed? Maybe but I doubt it.