wishboneash

That's a good point. My airframe definitely needs to be looked at with all the antennas and gaps that need checking as well. Attached picture is the best I can find. Perhaps the left main shows something awry. To Bob S-50's point, I have checked ground speeds in various directions, calibrated against known winds, as well as flown formation and know that my plane is definitely slow. 5 or more knots is quite a bit and I hope to get to the bottom of this. I can check with Top Gun to see if they can find something in the rigging or otherwise. Engine parameters look to be normal so I don't think the engine is tired. Thanks.

There was a thread a while ago which talked about "Slow Js" and I had included some of my numbers in that thread. My '78J is comparatively slow seeing the numbers being posted on MS. Somebody has to be on other side of the bell curve I guess!

One thing I couldn't figure out is if I put in a item like open "IFR clearance" CRAFT page and go to that page, there is no way to go back to the checklist from the CRAFT page. It would be nice to have a "Back" button there. Same for return from ATIS page. Did I miss something? Also like the ability to add in items like "Switch to Ground" or "Tower" and have those numerical values displayed on the checklist and not having to go searching for them. One can also add items "Get local altimeter" and have that displayed within the checklist. Especially useful as part of Landing checklist in IFR conditions. Nice features.

I gave up on GP for Android more than a year ago, it just lags in features far too much to be useful. Moreover, I prefer the iPad Mini hardware platform, connects easily to my GDL39 without issues.

I was able to load a plan from AOPA flight planner by sending the plan via email and loading it on my iPad Mini2 running GP. Worked seamlessly. However, the same thing didn't work from Skyvector. There is a blue "button" in the email which was unresponsive on my tablet. I will stick to AOPA.

I was watching a program on forensics and it was mentioned that the WTC were designed to handle direct hit by aircraft Boeing 707 aircraft at "approach speeds". What happened on 9/11 was the planes (757s) were diving into the towers at over 500mph. Big difference in energy. Plus the fuel ignited and weakened the steel locally which eventually gave way causing the buildings to pancake downwards. The second tower that got hit lower, came down first as a result of the weight above it was much bigger. The builders didn't account for this scenario.

If I understand aerodynamics, static max RPM will be less than when the aircraft is moving forward since the airflow resistance has now decreased. Also the MP probably increases due to increased impact pressure as plane moves forward. I usually have to dial back from ~2730 down to 2600 or whatever I need for that take off.

Probably wait for hurricane Matthew to pass as well.

I switched from a Nexus 7 to an iPad Mini 2. The Android version of Garmin pilot lacked a lot of features (I haven't checked in about a year), but I didn't have terrain, weather etc.. There have been a lot of upgrades to Pilot since then and I am not sure if the Android versions have kept up.

Mine is closer to 18.5. I posted a while ago the exact numbers. But close enough.

There have been unfamiliar strips where I have come in and realized I am not set up correctly and gone around. For example, Cameron Park (O61) and Harris Ranch (3O8). Harris Ranch was at night. Second time around, I was much better established and landed uneventfully. If I am over 5kts over speed and looks like I am not going to hit the numbers or slightly beyond, I am going around. Livermore (25L) is 2,700ft and Palo Alto is around 2,400 ft. I usually land on 25L to get to my hangar quicker. It is good practice. Usually, if I am on the top of my game, I can land within 1/2 the runway length without much braking.

There could be situations where traffic operating in the pattern are at lower altitude and close in to the field than straight-in traffic. Essentially aren't you cutting them off? If there are three or four aircraft converging on a Saturday morning into a popular breakfast airport ranging from a C152 to a Mooney (not uncommon), I don't see any organized way of landing straight-in without a major foul up. With a standard pattern it is possible to adjust leg distances to ensure separation. There are times of course that a field has little or no traffic and a straight in is perfectly OK. I have heard on checkrides, DEs can get anal about proper pattern entry as advised by FAR/AIM so they don't look kindly on straight-ins into uncontrolled fields, whether or not they are busy (esp on commercial checkrides).

Straight-ins might violate FAR 91.113. Try that on a check-ride and you are likely to fail.

It is not about regulation, more about currency and judgment for that particular flight (in all phases of the flight). We have got away with mistakes and I have my share of "never again" stories. Each flight is different, and there are pilots who kill themselves whether they be 100 hr private or 6000 hr CFI/IIs. Most times we get away with a bruised ego, at worst a damaged plane and live to fly another day. I guess when get-there-it-is, over-confidence or poor planning/judgment comes into the picture all the regulation in the world won't save you when several things break down in the chain. Without the facts in for this particular incident, these are general comments. Many times, the instructor evaluating a renter has his/her limitations as well. I prefer to get instruction from an instructor who has the fundamentals of flight down (and is also willing to be challenged by the student) and has experienced a lot of real world situations in different types of aircraft (I don't care if they are Mooney specific or not). I am fortunate that I have such an instructor.

Done :-)

ADS-B and WX-900 Stormscope. Sufficient for the kind of flying I do. WX-900 doesn't do much for me here on the West coast.

Any site that puts up a pilot's review should be obliged to contact the mechanic (pilot to disclose name/contact info) so that the mechanic knows about the review and could respond if necessary. Otherwise, a one way review could end up being biased. Uber for example has reviews done both ways (from driver and passenger), so an unruly, rude passenger may not get a ride in the future.

Handled about 30-35 kts direct x-wind at North Bend, OR in a PA-28 (Archer) with an angled approach. Probably around 15 kts in my M20J. I feel it handles x-winds better than the PA-28.

iPad Mini 2 Retina with cellular/gps 32G. More than adequate for my Oshkosh trip this year with all relevant charts loaded. Unfortunately the standard USB chargers will not maintain the charge during flight but better than nothing. Has worked well for me for last year or so. Also have a Garmin 696 panel mount and GTN 650. Works well so far. Will plan on getting the Garmin 510 sometime later this year.

Was flying back from Albany, NY to California on Sunday afternoon commercially. Southwest flight from Baltimore which was to be our aircraft out of Albany was sitting on the ground at BWI for an hour due to the weather. I guess it must have been really bad. I was looking at the radar it had a lot of yellow and red. Luckily my connection from (Midway) MDW to OAK was delayed (probably done deliberately, as all flights to the West coast were) to avoid a major hassle for everyone with connecting flights from the East. MDW weather was fine. Glad this one turned out OK for everyone.

My ammeter readings disappeared (bad ammeter shunt probe error) on my way back from Oshkosh. I was monitoring the battery voltage for the rest of the flight (stayed around 14V) and it was just that the sensor information was lost. Shop discovered a blown fuse in the sensor wire leading out of the shunt. Good thing those wires are protected, otherwise it could be a cockpit fire behind the panel! Seems like a one time event and can't find reason for it like bare wire chafing, but will keep an eye out out and check wiring again if it happens again.

Yves, To echo Flash, thanks for organizing the Mooneyspace and Caravan events. It was nice meeting you!

Paul has shown exactly where I mounted my sticky mount for the GoPro. Thanks!

Hi I have posted a video of my flight from Madison to Oshkosh. I was in the middle of the pack somewhere (Golf element). Sorry for the jarring abrupt cutoff at the end. I used Videoblend and couldn't smoothly transition out the sound... I left on Wednesday to beat the weather so couldn't make the Thursday get together as I originally planned. Flew out with Mike "Flash" Knobler who was great company. We flew in loose formation for about 70% of the journey back home. Flight out of Oshkosh was fine up to Valentine, NE. After that, Wyoming was miserable with up/down drafts and the auto-pilot struggling (so I decided to hand fly the plane). Landed at Ogden where it was 100F, but dry! Next day flight to California was smooth and wonderful!

Hopefully this system makes it to the Mooneys soon! http://www.avweb.com/podcast/Podcast-With-New-Autopilot-TruTrak-Aims-at-Certified-Market-226720-1.html Taken from Avweb: TruTrak is a mainstay in the experimental market with its well-regarded, sophisticated autopilots at affordable prices. Now, following the lead of EAA and Garmin, TruTrak aims to make its new Vizion autopilot available for certified airplanes, starting with the Cessna 172. And this is no stripped-down wing leveler, but a full-featured three-axis autopilot that even includes some envelope protection with minimum and maximum airspeed protection and an emergency wings-level button. In this exclusive AVweb podcast, TruTrak's Andrew Barker explained that the Vizion has track mode, the ability to follow a flight plan defined by GPS, altitude hold, vertical speed selection and altitude select. The Vizion has a variation of high-torque servos developed for the Virgin Atlantic Global Flyer project more than a decade ago that have slip and disconnect clutches without integrated software. Barker believes these are safer than typical autopilot servos. They've been specifically configured to accommodate the heavier control loads of certified aircraft. "Obviously, the 172 is important, there are still about 20,000 of those flying in the states today. Piper is equally important out there with about the same numbers in the Cherokee line. These are going to be the main focus. But the market tends to choose what it wants to have," Barker said. That means heavier and faster aircraft such as Bonanzas and Mooneys might eventually be considered. The target price range of the Vizion is about $5000, plus a couple of days of shop time to install. Barker said no schedule on approval--which will be done under AML-STC similar to the EAA and Garmin EFIS projects--is promised, but the company is hoping for a six- to eight-month time line.