cujet

I would have to agree. We operate one and it's incredible. It's even capable of intercontinental travel. We recently flew ours from South Florida to Bremen, Germany. 2 stops. West Palm Beach, FL to Goose Bay, Labrador to Reykjavik, Iceland to Bremen, Germany.

Incorrect. It's levied against a user, that's the "etc" part. A toll road, also known as a turnpike or tollway, is a public or private roadway for which a fee (or toll) is assessed for passage. It is a form of road pricing typically implemented to help recuperate the cost of road construction and maintenance, which (on public roads) amounts to a form of taxation. One can, in fact, deduct such toll or road user "fees" from income taxes. It seems that the privatization of ATC, coupled with "fees" is a simply an attempt to avoid the "unconstitutional" double taxation. I'm not fooled.

Fact: words matter. Fact: a government "fee" is still a tax Definition: TAX, a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. 2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand. 3. to demand a tax from (a person, business, etc.). Fact: we have a system that works. Fact: I won't continue to fly if we implement a European or Canadian "user fee coupled with fuel tax" structure. Neither will most GA pilots. Fact: to implement such fees requires a large staff of individuals to monitor movement and accurately assess fees. Fact: government is horribly wasteful. Fact: government contractors are even more wasteful.

Ryoder Daver328 Please review your position. Quote Rep. Schuster: "The corporation will be governed by a board of pubic users The users will be fairly represented Steps will be taken to prevent any conflicts of interest We will establish a stable, self sustaining, and fair USER FEE FUNDING STRUCTURE for ATC Free from funding uncertainty, political meddling, bureaucratic red tape that have plagued the FAA and ATC services for years... " This sounds like government double speak if I've ever heard it. The fact is, we pay a fuel tax. It's not my fault if the fuel tax is suddenly insufficient to fund the FAA's requirements. However, since the aviation fund has had a surplus for years, those taxes built and maintained the current system quite effectively. The fact that we can't operate with current levels of taxation is also not my fault. Double taxation is not the answer. It's also unconstitutional.

Just thinking back a few years. I was weathered in TN. I had flown to a private strip with one or two homes on it. I tied down and went on my way planning a few days in the cabin. By the time I was ready to leave, the fog had moved in. I ended up staying a number of unplanned days. It was absolutely horrible, hahahaha, NOT. My boss was calling me on a hourly basis trying to get me to come home. I politely declined. I then enjoyed a few days of 4 wheeling, exploring, hiking, and so on. By the time I left, I was quite satisfied with the trip Oh, and the 700 mile trip home was remarkably clear. I guess I waited long enough. My point is this, quite often, it's OK to have a weather delay if you stop at the right location and make sure to enjoy the time there.

I've done so many VFR cross country trips, I've lost count. I'm just a private pilot, non instrument rated. And, I only fly in near perfect conditions. I'll gladly wait out weather. Maybe I'm just lucky, but the vast majority of the time, it's been smooth sailing. I only get weathered about 2 times per year. Of course, my "luck" includes good planning and waiting for good weather. At a quick glance, tomorrow looks like I could fly from Florida to California without much trouble.

It's been many years, but I have used them with good results.

I'm 51 and now need glasses. My prescription is +1.75 in both eyes (for distance) and +3.00 in both for reading. Up until my mid 40's, focus was not a problem at any distance as I had enough focus accommodation. I'm hyperopic. I am also an avid amateur astronomer, so I have a basic understanding of optics, and especially understand what good optics can do for you. Here is my solution: (It works wonderfully at my age) I use +2.25 contact lenses. At my age, my eyes have about 1+ diopter of accommodation. I use this "overcorrection" to my advantage. I can focus close and far without any issues. It simply took about 2 weeks to be fully adapted to the strong contact lenses. This won't work when I get older, as my eyes will soon lose the little ability they now have to focus. I've been doing this for 6 years now with great results. I've suggested this to a couple friends, and some have had good results with it. Simply use daily contact lenses (they are thinner and for me, more optically accurate) that are +.25 to .5 diopter "higher" than your prescription. Note: I started out with 2.0's and moved up to 2.25's over time. I also have prescription sunglasses with readers and conventional bifocals. My landings are far better with contacts.... And, better still, I can more easily transition from instruments to outside with the contacts.

I work as a DOM for a high end corporate flight department. We have a Gulfstream G550, Pilatus PC-12, EC-135 (heli) Extra 300L (stunt plane) , Stemme S10 glider, small Cessna and DG gliders. Over the last 30 years, I've come to a very specific conclusion about factory service centers. If you have a major amount of maintenance to perform, such as a particularly detailed inspection, only the largest factory service center will do. Anything less will lead to delays, cost overruns and quality issues. This applies to small, simple aircraft as well as the big ones. I could go on for days with examples. One extreme example that comes to mind is for a Gulfstream G550. Flight controls must be removed at 9 years. This exposes certain "known" repair issues. If I were to choose a smaller, factory service center, or DIY, I'm taking a huge risk. As the bushing bores are known to corrode. Repair is a simple matter at the Savannah, GA service center. As "Mike" simply walks upstairs, gets "Ian" to approve an engineering disposition and in about 1/2 hour, Mike simply brings out a cart with all the tools necessary to bore out the corrosion, press in oversized bushings and everybody is happy. Total cost, about $200. You can clearly understand that if I were to DIY or go to a "non expert" center, I might not even know that the bores corrode. So I would never press out the bushings to find the issue. (leading to very difficult to repair future issues) Or, if I did notice the problem, I'd need to send pictures, get remote engineering approval, involve the FAA and come up with a methodology, tools and parts to repair the problem. Total cost could run wild. Not to mention the unavoidable extensive delay. I'm not saying small shops are poor. Far from it. I've found that small shops are great for the majority of conventional projects. But when specialization is necessary, only the best will do. As we know, Mooney aircraft are unique, with a specific set of known issues. As a conscientious owner, when it comes time for a big project, I'd suggest going to those who do that work on a regular basis. No need to pay someone to "learn how" on your aircraft.

This is my guess. A nav radio is providing audible information. This can happen when the audio panel has nav audio selected. But, to confuse the issue, it's not unusual for an audio panel to allow audio from unselected source through as a mode of failure. (in other words, the audio panel can fail-safe to the "selected" position) Try turning nav radio's off and/or changing nav freq's if this happens again.

If you have a small neon bulb, sometimes they can be excited by RF. Simply wrap one leg of the neon bulb (not both) around the antenna near the top. It will illuminate on transmit.

I don't care what SCOTUS thinks. They are very often wrong. And utterly unconstitutional decisions have been the norm since the Civil War.

To answer the OP's question. Yes, it bothers me. I'm not at all sure the government has the Constitutional authority to do much of what it does. This specific example included. But to make it clear as to why I believe this is so, we need to look at some actual numbers. First, we are living in a time where fewer people are killed due to war (mil and civilian) than since the ancient roman times. Likewise, terrorism, while it makes the news, kills very few people worldwide or nationwide. 911 was catastrophic, certainly. However, 911, from a risk assessment standpoint, was largely ineffective. Let's put that in perspective. On September 11, 2001 (14 years ago, by the way) 0.0000084 percent of the population was killed. And, a large terrorist attack has not happened since. So, we MUST consider the following years as part of the actual "risk" factor. Including the 911 attacks, a late 20th and 21'st Century individual American's chance of being a victim of terrorism can be quantified. The number is.... One in Four Million over the last 40 years. Or, One in 1.6 Billion annually. It's so small a number, it's "almost" not worthy of consideration using "risk based assessment" methodology!!!! We are safe. Period. End of story. Safer than we've ever been. And, it's not due to the FBI's recent unconstitutional actions. It's due to our grandfather's sacrifices during WWII.

That exact aircraft was based out of my home airport, F45, about 2 years ago. It's a well equipped Cessna 182 with a fully articulated FLIR camera mounted on the LH rear fuselage. I met the pilots daily at the FBO and they were total, complete, and utter (you fill in the bad word) . I'm not an anti government guy and I want our boys to have the very best equipment necessary to do their jobs. However, when those in authority behave in such a manner, they lose all credibility with me. This is not East Germany and they are not the Stazi secret police. I don't appreciate being threatened by our government agents. Back then, I did look up the registration and try to find out a little about the company it was registered to. All of it was "make believe". Our government is not behaving well. My hangar is at the approach end of 26L, so I get a very good view of airport operations. These guys were making multiple daily flights of a few hours each. One day, I took off just after them on my way to my TN property. They remained low and I prefer to go way up (for my aircraft, that's over 10,500 feet) . We both headed North up near the Florida coast. Since they were low, and slightly faster (since they were not climbing) , I was able to keep them in view below me, for quite some time. They flew from F45, to Port Saint Lucie and then flew in circles over the neighborhood. At which time, I lost them due to overflying them. I'd speculate they were looking for grow houses using the FLIR and installed software/hardware. It was a setup mounted like this one below. However the FLIR was much larger on the particular aircraft at F45.

I don't believe the 3rd class medical elimination/or drivers license medical will ever happen. The FAA, being a civil administration has limited authority to penalize airmen. For example, if one decides to drive drunk twice, get caught and convicted, the FAA can/will revoke the medical. They don't suspend one's pilots license for drunk driving, as there was no aviation violation. However, the FAA considers "alcohol addiction" or other alcohol related problem a medical problem. In fact, it's quite probable that the revocation of the medical will happen immediately. Whereas, suspension of a drivers license may or may not occur, and may be rather short in duration. It's not uncommon to have the drivers license remain unsuspended but limitations imposed, such as work/shopping drives only.

210 turbo PERFORMANCE Cruise speed (kts.): 75% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 157/192 65% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 150/175 45% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 135/154 Range (w/45-min. reserve) (nm): 75% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 1000/1075 65% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 1200/1125 45% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 1350/1200 Fuel consumption (est. @ .44 lbs./hp/hr. sfc gph): 75% power: 17 65% power: 15 45% power: 12

1) I have been led to believe that pilots who have been denied a medical will not be able to fly under the proposed rules. In much the same way as the "light sport" rules today. I'm special issuance and the very first FAA letter I received clearly stated that I am not eligible for a 3rd class medical. Followed shortly thereafter by a "special issuance". This supposedly automatically prevents me from ever flying light sport without a medical. 2) I'm probably not going to purchase ADSB. My 45 year old airplane will fly just fine without it. I simply won't be able to go where a transponder is required. Furthermore, I believe we should be grandfathered in. The electronic tracking does not sit well with me on private, VFR flights.

I was always under the impression that the turbo 210 was the natural upgrade for Mooney pilots. Later models are over 190Kts and have plenty of room. A friend operates his 210N turbo at non oxygen altitudes and pulls the power back to 14GPH and claims 165KTS. Not bad for an airplane that has a 1600 pound useful load.

There is an iPhone app called IO360. It might suit your needs.

I've worked in general aviation for nearly 30 years. In that time, only a handful of partnerships were truly good ones. Most were troublesome. In particular, it's common for existing partners to want more than the share is worth, and to be rather unwilling to negotiate. A local Cessna 177RG partnership was advertised/sold at $25K 1/4 share. The aircraft "might" have been worth $60K. More likely in the mid 50's. To make matters worse, the partnership charged $70/hour dry, to cover various expenses. The maintenance was coordinated by a founding member of the partnership and was performed at the local (most expensive, by far) shop. OK, fine, it's too expensive, we understand.... What happened is that the members also ignored a faulty gear warning horn. Eventually leading to one of the members cutting the wire on that annoying horn. Unknown to another member, the gear warning system was inoperative and the aircraft was landed "gear up", ruining the prop/engine and leading to a "total" insurance claim. The payout was enough to pay for Cherokee. So, all members paid too much, one member lost his FAA certs for cutting the wire, another is in trouble for failing to lower the gear, and all members eventually ended up with a less capable, less valuable plane. This story is not at all uncommon. Netjets is another great example of a partnership. 1/4 share costs 1/3 of the "list price", and after a few years the aircraft have so many hours they are worthless. Our Citation 10's 1/8 share actually cost per hour, as much as operating our G550. I'd argue that one is better off owning a slightly less capable aircraft, outright. Knowing his aircraft well, performing prev mx himself (if mechanically inclined) and buying/selling well before the aircraft becomes worthless. Or simply joining a quality flying club.

I love the way they cut the video before too much of the prop is seen! It's a 50HP, ultralite. Hahahahaha.

No longer true. It seems STP now has significantly reduced ZDDP levels. VOA testing done over at bobistheoilguy dot com shows ZDDP in a can of STP at well below 600PPM. Adding 1 can of STP (remember it's about a pint) to an 8 quart aircraft system would result in less than 40PPM ZDDP. Not enough to be helpful or harmful in real world use. However, it will increase viscosity somewhat. Again, not enough to make much difference.

The Harley owner is doing this intentionally. He thinks it's funny to fog the street. He makes quite a show of it. I followed him on the highway one day. It was trailing white-ish smoke for miles. But the heavy traffic broke up the "cloud" fairly rapidly. I'll admit, I laughed...

There is a local harley rider at the airport, who intentionally puts a small quantity of jet fuel into his harley. It smokes like crazy as he drives down the road. Exhaust smoke is one indicator of jet fuel in Avgas. However, like most airplanes, on this harley bike, it takes some time for the jet fuel to make it to the engine. So, he makes it all the way around the perimeter road and on to the main road before the thing starts fogging the street.

I have significant experience with electronic ignitions. They do seem to be the proper answer. Smoother running, more efficient, easier starts.... However, they really don't result in massive fuel savings. The claims of 10% are off the mark. More like 5%. There is no gain during climb, or during low altitude, higher power cruise. But, when over 10,000 feet or with throttle pulled back, and leaned significantly, there can be savings. Just don't expect it to pay for itself.