David Mazer

Quote: jlunseth Dette er Dansk.

I assume it was Danish. Actually, Google picked the language.

Not entirely surprisingly, as a local, I don't use the FBOs much. However, the choice of airports in the Orlando area would also include which part of Orlando to which you are going. There are at least two other airports you might consider. First is KSFB, north of Orlando. Long runways, lots of instrument approaches, good facilities, lots of maintenance issues, and fuel won't be worse than ORL. Second is Orlando Apopka, X04, to the north west. Non-toward, long enough runway for just about anything (4,000), less expensive fuel, some maintenance available. I'm not sure about the car rental but a phone call would answer that quickly enough (407-886-4030). Both are a good 30 min from downtown but if you are going to the northern portions of Orlando, they make lots of sense.

Makes no sense to me why it would be on this blog.

According to Google Translate. the post in English is: Tax on rental property is considered as an independent company, whether you are registered as employed or not. This makes it possible that by letting the property will be able to use the same favorable rules as if they had a really registered company. For rent house only part of the year, the owner or lessor of each room in your home to other rental income will be tax free if it is the miracle certain amount. Income from rental of a dwelling for residential purposes is interference generally taxable. There are various methods of taxation from aflejeindtægter respectively. Permanent residence and holiday home, and rules to be learned depending on your needs and property type. Corporation tax system gives brief opportunity for a personal landlord may be taxed similar to that of private and public companies should use. For all landlords are therefore able to deduct interest payments from fully taxable income. Are there any further need for more concrete information and vejledningom tax and rent, all contact with the treasure in their home community? If the property used exclusively for rental, taxable income under the rules that apply to rental properties. The same applies if you have started the commercial rental throughout the year.

Not a lot more expensive? My two lights cost $450. I was quoted over $1800 to install ($900 each) the HIDs. The HIDs last longer than incandescents but not as long as LEDs. They are clearly brighter than either LED or incandescents though. What is the vibration resistance of the HIDs vs the LEDs?

I don't think they are but the difference is very acceptable to me and the reliability makes up for it. Maybe a better way to say it is they aren't as bright when the incandescents work and way brighter when they don't!

Without trying to derail this thread or seriously irritate pilots who are clearly more experienced than I, the vast, vast number of problems with flying are pilot related and not airplane related. One engine, two engines, turbo, or piston, the pilot is so much more likely to create the problem that the plane itself could be ignored and if the pilots were fixed we probably would never even talk about the incredibly rare accident. Flying only during the day or with at least 1,000 ft ceilings is such a restrictive set of limitations for something an IFR pilot should be able to do with one hand tied behind his back, metaphorically. If you are uncomfortable at night or in VFR (1,000 ft ceilings) I suppose you should restrict your flying to Arizona. The rest of us will have to accept that our very capable and reliable machines will be there for us till we make a mistake that it can't fix despite us.

IF you don't like it, don't do it. I for one love to fly at night. In general, I prefer night to day. Less traffic, less weather, smoother. The only times I prefer day is when I am in IMC (can't tell you why not being able to see during the day is better than not being able to see in the dark) and when I am flying into a strange airport for the first time.

One of each.

How much weight do the bladders add?

I put in two Whelen LED lights in my Rocket to replace the incandescent. I leave them on all the time.

From my airspeed indicator. Then again, it wasn't at the end of a long flight but rather from the beginning of a local practice flight and I hold 109 gal (104 usable). I would expect that Aviatoreb's numbers were from local flight as well but it may have been an hour into a BFR.

Quote: aviatoreb Two pilot's on board stall btw is just south of 55kts (I did my BFR a few weeks ago - come to think of it I wish I recorded the number, but I can say it was 54 or 55 or better).

Stall solo is 59 kts dirty. Stall horn blares in flare. With the loss of elevator authority and that big engine out front, if you don't put the nose down it falls down on its own very hard. The Bravo is 10 in longer than the Rocket and I have been told, but can't confirm, the reason was to increase the leverage of the elevator for just this situation. I have tried to come in slower and hold the nose up to shorten the landing run and damn near struck the prop when the nose fell like a ton of bricks. Scared me half to death. I won't do that again unless it is for an emergency landing and I'm not concerned about the damage to the plane. I plane on 2000 ft as a goal for the landing run and often go to 2200 even in good conditions (day, light winds, no approach obstructions, airport known to me).

Stall solo is 59 kts dirty. Stall horn blares in flare. With the loss of elevator authority and that big engine out front, if you don't put the nose down it falls down on its own very hard. The Bravo is 10 in longer than the Rocket and I have been told, but can't confirm, the reason was to increase the leverage of the elevator for just this situation. I have tried to come in slower and hold the nose up to shorten the landing run and damn near struck the prop when the nose fell like a ton of bricks. Scared me half to death. I won't do that again unless it is for an emergency landing and I'm not concerned about the damage to the plane. I plane on 2000 ft as a goal for the landing run and often go to 2200 even in good conditions (day, light winds, no approach obstructions, airport known to me).

Ron, Like Aviatoreb, I have no such issues. Please have it looked at soon as this is not typical and I believe there is a problem that needs to be addressed mechanically rather than a change in your procedures. I'm over the fence at 72-75 kts solo or 75-80 kts with passengers or significant crosswinds or gusts. Below 72 kts my nose tends to fall too fast and land too hard for me. Isn't worth the potential prop strike.

I gave my skis away and just carry boots. Problem solved!

I have an Aspen 2000, except it wasn't called that when I got it. I think the STC requires the PFD to be left of the MFD but if I could reverse them, I would. I have to reach across the yoke to make adjustments to the PFD, which I do way more often than I do for the MFD. Even if they were the same amount of adjustments, the PFD adjustments are more time critical (heading bug, altitude bug, altimeter).

Thank you Craig. I very much appreciate MooneySpace.

Rockets are very versatile. Want to go fast, burn 20 gph. Want to save some money, true out at 145-150 kts at 12 - 13 gph. Want to go up, and up, and up? Point the nose that way and put on the oxygen soon because you will need it soon. Want to clear that tree line at the end of the runway? Hot day? High altitude? Who cares? Push in the throttle and takeoff. Easy. About the only thing I can't do well in a Rocket is short landings without risking the nose gear and carrying 4 people, bags, and lots of fuel (but if I cut back to 80 gal I can do pretty well). It costs more to buy and very little more to operate on a mile:mile basis but there are always trade offs. Oh, half an hour isn't nearly enough to understand what this plane can do.

My recollection of Brownian is more along the lines of random rather than Star Trek transport travel but it would make lots of other things make sense.

Okay, so I'm just a stupid chemical engineer who hasn't practiced as and engineer for many years and has no particular knowledge of these systems but it would seem appropriate that there would be a simple valve between the pump and the gyros to prevent any back flow. Assuming there is an unobstructed inlet, and I believe there must be for the gyros to spin at all, then the pressure would equalize from the inlet side rather than the vacuum side. And, assuming the dust is damaging, why wouldn't they install the valve from the beginning. Also, if the pump is any distance at all from the gyros, the carbon dust probably wouldn't make it that far back as the pressure would equalize from both sides with the predominance coming from the inlet side since the pump would act as a resistor. Again, from nothing but a theoretical perspective.

As is often heard, but bears repeating, the FAA isn't happy until you aren't happy.

No PM was sent to me.