201er

I agree completely. I like some of the new features but I'm disappointed they dropped some of the old ones. The last version of the site kept the legacy charts if you wanted them. I really liked the prog chart thumbnails view where you could see about a dozen prog chart forecasts for the next few days all at once.

Looks like Dallas Airpark doesn’t have any lighting. Is that so? Is it a thing to land at an unlit airport at night? Unfortunately it looks like @mike_elliottis going to get involved with this one.

Hearing Dan share his story at Mooney Summit made me aware and prepared when I had a CO leak after maintenance. Dan Bass saved my ass.

Taking Off released a video interview about this accident:

Mooney M20E N6807V https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/94761/pdf http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/02/aerostar-mooney-m20e-chaparral-n6807v.html

Preliminary FAA Statement- A twin-engine Hawker H25B departed without permission from Runway 22 Hobby Airport at 4 PM when it collided with a twin-engine Cessna C510 that was landing on Runway 13 Right. No injuries have been reported. https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/10/24/ground-stop-issued-at-hobby-airport-following-minor-incident-between-2-private-jets/

Don’t forget the dog in the baggage compartment

Assuming both pilots are appropriately rated, the one flying logs all the time when under hood and without. The pilot acting as PIC and not handling controls can only log the time the pilot at the controls is under the hood requiring the PIC to act as safety pilot. Cross country time can only be logged by the sole manipulator of the controls assuming he does all the flying and is appropriately rated. Safety pilot does not log cross country time.

Private pilot, rated in category/class, medical or basic med. Does not require complex/hp endorsements, bfr, or currency to be safety pilot. However, to act as PIC while being safety pilot, one must be qualified. § 61.55 Second-in-command qualifications. (a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds: (1) At least a private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating;

A safety pilot has no legal safety responsibility besides looking out for traffic. Anything else is just advice as friends or “for entertainment purposes only.” If the pilot under the hood is so bad that the safety pilot needs to say much besides pointing out traffic, he may need an IPC or some help from a CFII

No, it’s not. Safety pilot pilot is only required for maintaining visual traffic separation per 91.113b and 91.109(c) No person may operate a civil aircraftin simulated instrument flight unless— (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least: (i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratingsappropriate to the aircraft being flown; or (ii) For purposes of providing training for a solo cross-country endorsement under § 61.93 of this chapter, a flight instructor certificate with an appropriate sport pilot rating and meets the requirements of § 61.412of this chapter. (2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraftadequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and (3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls.

I don’t know if you want to be responsible for introducing someone to instrument operations if you aren’t an instructor. But here’s a good video to share.

Not to say that extra training isn’t beneficial for most people, a lot of deliberate VFR into IMC flights come from people with “some instrument training.”

Yes. But just on that cylinder. No way of knowing where the others are without an engine monitor. So the guessing method is to either stay well rich or well lean of peak and hope the other cylinders fall in line. 20-50 rich of peak usually correlates to the highest cylinder head temperatures and highest pressures as well.

That’s peak

I may be wrong but to me it just sounds like a pilot that was overwhelmed because his iPad died so he couldn’t see the approach plate. I didn’t hear him say he was using the iPad as his source of navigation but the controller interpreted it that way.

Why did you downgrade?

Cherokee owner explains 10 reasons flying a slower airplane is better. Or at least tries to rationalize it. For the most part he has good points. But they don't exactly apply the same way to flying a Mooney and here's why: 1) Price of Avgas vs Time Flying Craig says his Cherokee gets 7.5gph for 108knots on a good day. That works out to 14.4nmpg M20J will get 135ktas on same 7.5gph (18nmpg) and 155ktas on 9.5gph (16.3nmpg). It uses less fuel to go faster on a calm day. Factor in some headwind and that extra speed makes an even bigger difference. 20knot headwind: Cherokee - 7.5gph for 88 knots is 11.7nmpg Mooney - 9.5gph for 135ktas is 14.2nmpg That's over 50% faster while also consuming less fuel in total. On a 500nm flight, Mooney would get there 2 hours faster while consuming 10 gallons less. 2) Relaxation Craig says that faster airplanes are more work and stress. This is true. However, arriving 2 hours sooner means there's plenty of time to relax after the flight. 3) Cost of acquisition and maintenance Craig is quite right that the faster planes are more expensive to buy and upkeep. I would only say that it's less drastic than it sounds because you can travel the same distance in a year using less time. Less time means less wear and tear on components. This and the fuel savings slightly offset the higher costs making them more but not as much more. 4) Cost of insurance Craig says he insures his Cherokee for $800. It's over $2000 to insure most Mooneys. Most of this is due to higher hull value. I bet cost difference between insuring a $200k retractable vs a $200k fixed gear would be less significant than the fact that most retractables are significantly more to begin with. But overall, this is a fair point. I'll go further to say that activities that are deemed more costly to insure also carry great risk of death or injury so that is something to consider as well. 5) Safety of simple systems He says that simpler systems are safer because they do not provide the same opportunities to get into as dangerous of situations. This is largely a personal choice as it is possible to fly a fast airplane only in the same "good" weather as well. The simpler airplanes lack the choice. But, I do agree that having the capability to make that choice may carry those extra risks of failure. 6) More money for avionics/paint Craig says that for a similar budget, you can get newer avionics or paint by flying a slower airplane. I would say that a fully array of modern avionics makes an airplane no more capable than simply adding an ipad to a WAAS equipped airplane. Except not having panel GPS, newer avionics don't play any role in the utility of that airplane getting you places. 7) Good paint job makes it look faster Craig says that a new paint job can make a slow plane look faster. A Mooney with any paint still looks and actually is faster 8) Lower performance margins might make you a better aviator He says if an airplane has less capability, pilot has to be sharper to make up for it. I suppose you can do reduced power takeoffs or fly slower in a faster plane to get the same benefits? I don't really know the purpose of this point. 9) 90 kts gets as much respect as 160 kts Craig says that slower flying planes get same amount of respect from ATC as faster ones. While largely true, I can say first hand that I've had much better accommodation from ATC in busy situations in Mooney than back when I flew slower planes. I can't say for sure if it's from having more experience and being able to ask things the right way or the plane. But, I hear far less of "too busy to take on VFR or remain outside the Bravo" than Cessnas and Cherokees in the same area. 10) You just might have more fun I agree that any airplane is fun regardless of how fast it goes! Ultimately it comes down to mission and budget and any airplane is better than no airplane. If you don't use it to travel much or far, for local flying they are all just as good. I would say the #1 biggest benefit to the Mooney's speed advantage is the kind of range it opens up for the same amount of time flying! There's only so many hours in a day that you can spend in the air going some place. That extra speed extends the range so much that it makes the plane beneficial for many more trips! So, the plane gets used for more travel instead of being sidelined by airline tickets because the distance becomes impractical.

You can cheat more than intended amount of fuel into them but it isn't required. You should easily be able to make rated capacity just by topping inboards and then outboards rapidly without any more back and forth. Be careful overfilling like this because on a hot day, the fuel can expand and start pouring out the vent. Not to mention more weight than expected.

I have the Monroy tanks on my 201. From a fueling perspective, they are separate. Top the inboard tank first, then the outboard. If the outboard tank is topped and your remove the inboard cap, you will have a gas-geyser so don't do that. The outboard is gravity fed into the inboard so there is no additional fuel management in the cockpit. However, the fuel gauges are totally inaccurate as they read the inboard tank except when full and empty. The inboard tank maintains mid-level for most of the time as the outboard keeps replenishing the inboard. Easily managed using fuel flow and totalizator instead. This may be slightly different on long bodies with factory long range tanks. I think they only have one fuel cap per wing. Never had a single drop of water from condensation regardless of fill level despite being parked outside over a decade. However, one time the fuel cap o-ring failed and I pulled 6 cups of water out of the sump at night. The increased range is tremendous not to mention fuel savings by ferrying your own gas when visiting expensive places. 64g standard vs 98g long range may not sound like that much of an increase but in practice it is due to reserves. On an IFR flight you may well be planning to arrive to destination with 24+ gallons to have fuel remaining for diversion plus reserves. That's 64g - 24 = 40g usable (about 4 hours/600nm range) vs 98g - 24 = 74g usable (about 7.4 hours/1110nm) So, 34 extra gallons nearly doubles your real-world range with comfortable reserves.

Whatever you do, don't try the @jetdriven tried and tested film canister method!

If I may offer an opinion being based in the area, I don't recommend you do instrument training here unless you have a particularly strong reason to. Totally go for a flight lesson and enjoy the landmarks and airspace. Getting under the hood, you won't know or see any of it. It would be more intense due to airspace but not necessarily a more valuable lesson (unless you're instrument rated and just looking for a challenge). Most likely they would take you away from the city and airspace for instrument practice.

Not to mention spending half an hour waiting to takeoff…

Not familiar. I have a legacy red dragon.