Z W

It is a lot heavier. Compare the gross weights. Getting stopped takes longer, no way around it. You will use more runway. The other thing I noticed going from a C to a K is the higher approach speeds for IFR. The heavier planes do better at higher speeds - usually 120 or 140 KIAS until the FAF. The short bodies don't go that fast and are happier at 100 KIAS or so.

We are very happy to have passed 11N on to you, Joe. I don't think anybody ever starts out looking for a C model, but they're a great value, and a lot of bang for your buck in GA. If you ever decide to sell, look me up, I might want it back someday .

You have six months until the end of the year. At the dollar numbers you are talking about spending, you can afford to buy a plane ticket back to the U.S. to personally inspect your purchase. Most purchases involve a plane ticket to look at it anyways; yours will just be from farther away. Choose the basic features your plane will or will not have: Short / mid / long body, turbo, IFR GPS, 2-axis autopilot, quality of paint and interior, etc. At a budget of 70-80k you will be looking at a very nice F, a cheaper J, or a nice K model 231. Find the best deal on the market for the model of your choice. Call and negotiate a price. Have the seller email you the logs in PDF form. Sign a contract contingent upon inspection. Have the plane flown to your A&P for inspection. Buy a ticket to come look at the plane, after the inspection has passed. If you like it, buy it, and fly it to your new hangar, or have somebody else do it for you. One caution - you seem to be justifying this financially because of the tax implications. That is not wise. Your accountant must not be familiar with the costs of airplane ownership. You will spend a large chunk of your tax "savings" just on the pre-buy, first annual, and the cost of the plane ticket involved with the purchase. This plane will cost you a lot of money, more than it saves you. There are much better ways to reduce your taxable income (IRAs, employee health insurance, moving from W-2 income to 1099 income if you own the business, purchase your facility and lease it back to your business, etc). A consult with a business / tax attorney or CPA can fill you in on the rest. I don't mean to discourage you from buying a plane, but just want to make sure you understand the financial consequences. You buy planes because flying is the most amazing thing you can do on any given day, and for the lifestyle change they bring. Any other rationale is just a fiction that helps you sleep at night.

My 262 gets 165 kts at 11.5 GPH all day long, or better at higher altitudes. With 105 gallon capacity, that is 9.2 hours of endurance, which produces about 1518 NM, no wind, no reserve. With a 1 hour reserve (which is my personal minimum) it's a range of 1353 NM, plus or minus the wind. I seriously hope I never spend 8.2 hours in the plane non-stop. I've done some 5.5 hour flights and found them miserable, even with a relief bottle. But, if I want to, I can do it I will say, when you're taking off against a headwind, with questionable weather (low IFR) beneath you, and you're solo, it's a comforting feeling to have 9.2 hours of fuel on board. If you don't like the weather below you, or have to deviate, or hit an extra 30 kts of unforecasted headwinds, you can just suck it up and keep flying until things look better. That's the best use I've found for the long range tanks.

Comparing planes for sale can be difficult. There is always a reason a given plane is so cheap. Engine time, missing logs, damage history, non-waas. You have to really know what you are looking at, which is difficult for a student pilot, no offense intended. If you post and identify individual planes for sale the experts here are always happy to help spend your money, or warn you not to. Sometimes the cheapest list price for a model is the most expensive one, if you include the hidden costs.

I have them, 105 gallons, with speed brakes. I did not do the install, so I cannot comment on that. The ability to choose to put that much fuel on board is nice. I once flew from mid-Missouri to Key West without buying any fuel. I did stop on the way. On mine the tanks are set up so the outboard tanks are connected to the inboard tanks. They will drain into each other. The one thing I do not like is it becomes very difficult to tell how much fuel is on board. If you fill just the main tanks that is 75 gallons. 5 minutes later, about 10-15 gallons of that has flowed out into the outboard tanks. Makes it difficult or impossible to visually verify the line guy got your order right. Over time I have come to recognize what that looks like but it is not as easy as verifying "tanks full". They have been great on a few occasions. It is pretty rare though that I need more than the 75 gallon mains on any flight. It causes useful load problems pretty quick unless you are solo.

Parker: I'm curious, how far LOP are you at that setting, and do you measure it by TIT or by the last EGT to peak? That's better performance than I get at the same fuel flow, I think, by 5 or 10 knots. You have the -SB engine instead of my -MB but I think in cruise they are essentially the same engine.

I have stalled a Mooney. It was a non-event. Had a very obvious buffet. Makes me feel much better knowing that.

I think you are looking for this thread; http://www.mooneyspace.com/index.php?/topic/9231-Anyone-seen-this-yet?

Very cool. Cabo just got added to my "someday" destination list. I didn't realize it was so close to El Paso.

Posting this from my Verizon 4g connection. I think you have it fixed. Thank you very much. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

An interesting turn of events - putting 198.74.57.200 into the address bar on the browser on my phone also leads to the "Apache is functioning normally" page. I had thought it must be a DNS issue but the failure of the hard IP to get here suggests its something else. Any ideas? Jared - All URLs involving Mooneyspace in any way, shape or form fail. Also can't get it loaded from a search result link. I can't seem to run a cmd window on my phone. It's actually the first phone I've had in 4 or 5 years that I have not rooted yet, so I have limited access to those types of things. When I get home tonight I'll connect my PC to the phone's WiFi and do a ping / tracert and post it.

I have had a consistent error trying to access this site from my Verizon mobile connection ever since the new site went online. I get a message of "404 file not found" if I try to go to a specific page. If I try to load the Mooneyspace main page, I get a page that simply says "Apache is functioning normally." This has persisted for a long time now. It also persists through Tapatalk, Chrome, and the standard Android browser on my phone. I know it is the connection because if I connect my phone to WiFi, it accesses the page no problem. Likewise, if I connect my iPad or my PC to my phone's connection through its WiFi, the iPad and PC cannot access this page. I have no other pages I have difficulty accessing. I have tried manually changing the DNS server to Google's OpenDNS but it makes no difference. It seems likely that for some reason my Verizon connection keeps finding the old server instead of the new server. From my networking experience, the easiest solution would probably be to "Forward" all incoming traffic on the old server to the new server. I would lurk and post here a lot more often if my phone could access the site. Whether that's a good thing or not might be debatable, but there could be a significant portion of the internet that cannot access Mooneyspace.

I'm an attorney familiar with these issues. If anybody wants my cell phone number to put in their phone, send me a PM. I don't want to post it in the public search-able forum, but I'm happy to give it out to fellow pilots. If you ever find yourself accosted by Homeland Security, the FBI, Border Patrol, or anybody else, ask to call an attorney, and call me. No charge. Attorneys, including me and those hired by the AOPA, cannot post general guidance for what to do. It's not smart or even legal to give generalized legal advice like that. But if you get me on the phone, I can advise you for your current situation, and I would be happy to. If it results in a few more pilots exercising their constitutional rights in a smart, respectful manner, it will be time well spent.

I have no experience with an AOA indicator. I like the idea of having one and may add one in sometime when the plane is in for panel work. That being said, I find it easy enough to keep my airspeed up and my bank angles shallow in the pattern, like I was taught. I know of no similar training that can keep me out of convective activity when I'm in IMC, short of not flying into IMC. I fly from a 4,000 ft paved runway usually to a longer paved runway, then back home. A lot of the time I am flying into towered airports where I get a straight-in final just like the big boys, so there is no pattern to be flown. AOA I imagine would be extremely useful for short field and high altitude ops. Not intending to bash the AOA, and not saying you're wrong about which should be chosen. Just my perspective.

Pretty sure this is just the next great business idea from these guys: That link may not be safe for work, depending on who you work for...

I really like my Stormscope. When you're in IMC and about to fly into some yellow or yellow/orange on the XM, it's nice to get confirmation from the scope that there are no strikes, in real time, and it's actually just moderate precipitation.

I sent you an email with contact info for a couple CFI's not too far away.

From Wikipedia: Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling – where the rate of deception is high – many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation

I have landed with a 20G30 direct crosswind in the Mooney. I would not recommend it. I now will not dispatch if it is forecast to be that high. It almost always dies down if you wait a few hours. 15G25 is standard operating procedure for me. I have landed at Amarillo, TX in 45-knot winds, but only about 20 degrees off runway heading. It was a non-event.

201er - way too harsh, in my opinion. His attitude appears to be that he's scared himself so badly he may not fly again. No need to kick the man while he's down after he came here to confess. He's seeking additional training and trying to learn from his mistakes.

178 seconds to live makes no sense to me. What part of "straight and level" is so hard to accomplish with an attitude indicator staring at you from the center of your panel? If you can find that video on Youtube, you can understand that your sense of balance is completely destroyed by the motions and G-forces in an aircraft, and so you must trust your instruments. VFR into IMC is a very serious situation and should be avoided, but it should not cause panic.

Traffic stops or "checkpoints" are presumed unconstitutional violations of the 4th amendment. The State (or in this case the Feds) would have the burden to prove that they 1) Had a valid, safety-oriented reason to conduct the stop at this particular location, 2) took all possible measures to minimize the burden or inconvenience of the motorists (they can't search every car), and 3) stopped every single car, as opposed to randomly selecting a few that passed by. These are just a few requirements, and the law is always changing. There are probably more. The health department inspections are another matter. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a restaurant where you invite in the public to eat your food. The same is true for part 135 flight operations. The argument could very easily be made we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our privately-owned part 91 aircraft, just like we do in our motor vehicles. This is why the FAA does not claim to have the right to enter your aircraft during a ramp check, and why their policy states they have to let you go if you claim to have an "appointment." It's all geared so someday they can argue you weren't stopped, and were free to go, and so it's not a search or seizure. Therefore you don't get 4th amendment protections and they don't need any reason to ramp check you. Someday, some unfortunate pilot will get caught without his documents and face a sanction. He'll appeal it up, and we'll get the answer.

FAA ramp checks are quite possibly unconstitutional. It's been held that drivers on the roads cannot be stopped randomly just to check and see if their license and registration are current. The LEOs on the roads must have some safety reason to be performing the checkpoint at that particular location - they usually use a history of recent DUI arrests on that street. If somebody has challenged a FAA ramp check on 4th amendment grounds I would very much like to see the opinion, whichever way it was decided. Nothing is more un-American than the government stopping you for no reason and saying, "Show me your papers." Allowing it just because driving is a "privilege" has failed the constitutional test. If it's ever challenged for an airplane the result might be the same. I'm talking here about just an FAA ramp check where they have no authority to enter your plane and just check your required documentation. DHS ripping it apart and searching the inside without probable cause or a warrant is a blatant 4th amendment violation.

I would think DHS would have trouble establishing it was a border search when your flight did not cross any international borders.