cujet

I live in S. FL and found a 7 week old Norwegian Elkhound pup in Ohio. Flew up to purchase the pup. I brought along a small cardboard box, a couple of dog blankets, my airplane cover and a piece of one and a half inch SCAT tubing for airflow. (I brought along other doggie requirements too) On the flight up to Ohio, I put my iphone in the box, recording a video to check sound levels. I then placed various blankets, towels and found a position for the box that was quietest. I ended up putting the airplane cover over the box too! The multiple layers helped and kept the inside more than quiet enough. While I did not bring along my sound level meter, I did use the iPhone to carefully record noise as I added layers. The box was quite a well insulated bundle after I was done. I cut 2ea. 1 and 1/2 inch holes in the box. The top one for "air in" the side one for "air out". I jammed the tubing in the top, positioned the other tube end by the vent and made sure my side hole was clear. On the 5 hour flight home, I'd stick my finger in the box and the pup would lick my finger. I kept the altitude change rate to a careful minimum, and I did not go up all that high, 5500 if I recall correctly. Dogs are sensitive to altitude. Maybe more so than people. Anyway, she did just fine, and now loves the airplane!!!! She is completely at home flying in the back seat.

As an A+P, DOM of a corporate flight department and operator of multiple aircraft, aircraft owner and all around "interior guy" I can state, clearly, a well designed insulation package works wonderfully. With subsequent reduction in noise levels and vibrations. However, the added weight of a properly engineered, and effective package will shock you. For example, we added well over 1000 pounds on our Gulfstream GV when we chose to insulate the aft section of the cabin against engine noise and vibration. Damping material was applied to every available fuselage skin. But, that simply reduced the vibrations transmitted. Then multiple weighted layers were required. It's a nomex/weighted layer sandwich that has varying densities. Our helicopter is very weight sensitive. So we did something similar. Without the weighted layers (nomex and fiberglass). It's a lightweight package and noise is not significantly reduced. Headsets are a must. On light aircraft, one can target certain noise sources with weighted layers or damping material. Such as the belly skin near the exhaust system. But, don't kid yourself, without properly weighted layers, (such as nomex or fiberglass alone) noise is not reduced to the point where headsets are unnecessary. In fact, I'd say noise is not significantly reduced at all. SD40 ALPSA (an EAR product designed for damping) weighs 0.44 pounds per square foot! MDL 125 and other similar weighted layer products are even heavier. http://www.earsc.com/HOME/products/DampingandIsolation/DampingMaterials/SD/index.asp?SID=153 http://www.earsc.com/HOME/products/BarriersandAbsorbers/Barriers/index.asp?SID=186 So, when it came to my personal aircraft, I removed all insulation. Do I notice a difference? Not at all.

My absolute favorite: "I want to die in my sleep, like my father did. Not screaming in fear like his passengers"

We departed Juneau, AK on a solid IMC day in our Gulfstream G550 with synthetic vision. On that day, it was helpful. Sure, the aircraft can automatically follow the flight plan between the mountains. And we can always manually follow the magenta line on the moving map. However, forming a mental image of the mountains ahead, using the lines on a moving map, is not the same as actually seeing them on the big display. Necessary, no. Really nice to have, you bet. We made sure to climb at 5000+ FPM to be clear of the mountains rapidly. However, "if" we had an engine loss, a flight through the valley would have been required. The Syn-Vis would have been a very powerful tool in that situation. My point: I'm a fan. It may not be necessary, right up until it is.

Many props have 5 or 6 year suggested overhaul periods. Also, sometimes as short as 600 hour suggested increments. But, that depends greatly on the prop in question. 2 blade props generally cost less than 3 blade props. $1600-$2200 for 2 blade props is the norm around here. $2000-$3000 is the local norm for 3 blades. Here are a few thoughts: I'm not a fan of overhauling props needlessly. At each overhaul, there is often a requirement to remove a certain amount of surface material. Sometimes it's as much as thirty thousandths of an inch. (about double an aviation spark plug gap). Once this is done a few times, sometimes as few as 3 times, the prob blade can be "too thin" and gets rejected. Sometimes, a prop can get a "re-seal" where just the O-Rings and seals are changed, and a general inspection is performed. Note, some prop shops won't perform a re-seal on props more than 6 years from last overhaul. Some shops go 10 years. I don't know of any who will perform a re-seal on a prop that has an overhaul older than 10 years. As you might guess, a proper re-seal can go a long way towards extending the life of your prop. My prop was built in 1974, overhauled once since then, and resealed twice. I just recently sent it in for it's 2nd overhaul. It was in great shape, and good lord willing, it will make it's 3rd overhaul sometime in the distant future. Had it been overhauled every 6 years as suggested, the prop would long ago have been scrapped. Also note: depending on prop model, there may be some other reasons to overhaul. Such as known crack risk in the hub, corrosion problems, leaks, and internal parts that need updating due to age or design.

Yes, that's generally correct. However, it's possible the ATIS has not been updated and a pressure front is moving through. Therefore, it's possible to have a small difference. It's also possible the ATIS, AWOS or other broadcast is not dead-on accurate. (I've seen this occasionally) Also, many of the above posts are correct, but a bit misleading. The transponders encoder is ALWAYS equivalent to a setting of 29.92. They DO NOT compensate/adjust or change output via input from the "Kollsman window" or other baro input. For example, your current baro setting is 30.15 and you are flying at exactly 6500 feet and you know this is exactly right, because the 6499 foot mountain top is right under your belly. Q) What is your transponder reporting? A) 6300. Let's answer this question by saying that one inch of Hg is equal to about 1000 feet. So, the difference between 29.92 and 30.15 is 0.22 in/HG or about 220 feet. The answer is that your transponder will be reporting, and ATC will be receiving 6300 feet. To complicate matters a touch, due to system hysteresis, inaccuracy and a slight delay in response, I suspect you could be reporting 6200 feet. As transponders generally "toggle" every 100 feet and are designed not to go back and forth constantly between 100 foot increments.

Do you know that your radio is one of the series that is prone to capacitor failure? Also, can you be sure the circuit board is ruined. I suggest finding a shop that actually repairs these radio's regularly, send it in and let them evaluate it. Also, since it's broken anyway, why not take a look inside to see if you can determine it's actual condition. The KX155 is a great radio. I'll differ with your avionics shop and say that most of them are repairable for a modest cost. I'll also differ with the post above. The KX155 is often worth fixing. As they have top notch transmit power, excellent reception, and among the very best audio in both transmit and receive. Other radio options are often not repairable at local avionics shops either. My 430, for example, needs a screen repair. $4500 minimum charge, as mine is non WAAS, and must be upgraded. My point being that other options are not always better or cheaper in the long run.

True professionals work out differences in a professional manner. I certainly have been guilty of being non professional. However, I've been "schooled" by the best. Now, I make every attempt to handle situations correctly. My doctor referred me to a doc he has a dispute with. Both are great docs. Both have made the "professional" effort. It's clear why they behave this way, each helps out the other and everyone's life is better. They don't have to like each other to work together towards the common goal of success.

You asked for flight following, correct? If so, shortly after the request, you should have had conformation of "radar contact" and at some point you probably said your altitude. If you had "radar contact" conformation, there is a record of that, and you probably experienced an in flight failure.

The "Aircraft Spruce" teflon anti chafe tape does not remain in place all that well. The glue used is not sufficient for many applications and if the tape is not mechanically held in place, it will peel off. Generally within a few days here in Florida. However, I've had success with the tape and 3M adhesion promoter/primer. It's a brush on product designed for 3M tapes. If I don't use the adhesion promoter/primer, my helicopter blade "leading edge" tape repairs won't remain in place. At the moment, I can't recall the 3M part number for the product. Edit: Here is is. This stuff works wonders! http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/cs/3m_tapes_specialtyTapes/protectiveLeadinga3.php Also I've had better success with 3M's 8674 polyurethane "leading edge" tape. It's the non yellowing stuff, and when used with the above primer, sticks properly.

Oh, no, you are wrong about that. We have a bridge or two that exhibit some elevation. The Blue Heron bridge comes to mind... I actually start breathing hard when bicycling over that bridge...

Of course that's true. But many of us know the above is not a valid reason to avoid such technology. In fact, I'll bet a dollar "non approved", advanced technology, experimentally proven, well configured, inexpensive EFIS/Autopilot/ADSB equipment will save far more lives than via it's omission. Especially when configured with a "save me" button. (yes, this exists, yes it works) And, yes the FAA is the entity at fault. If they employed "risk based analysis" properly, it's clear that many lives would be saved. However, the FAA would instead, gladly pull your ticket and fight to the bitter end to screw you, for your installation of unapproved equipment. To make matters worse, they make it exceedingly difficult to do the testing required in your aircraft. And they specifically disallow any form of experimental EFIS. I'm sorry but this is beyond absurd.

Much of it should never be a requirement! However, we should also not prevent installation of proven and inexpensive systems. The certification monster needs to be tamed.

Oh boy, this is my kind of thread! Clearly, aviation technology is not mature. With that in mind, technology alone has the potential to address a number of GA fatality causes. 1) VFR into IMC should never be a death sentence. There is no dispute that pilot skill is necessary, however, I see that as a separate issue. Clearly the FAA has created an environment where the best modern technology is prohibited from GA aircraft. We need to address the continuing loss of life due to VFR to IMC. One major component is technology. You can never train 100% of the pilot population to behave properly due to well known human factors. a) With that in mind a "save me" button should be encouraged. Dynon already has something like that in the well proven, yet prohibited, Skyview system. 2) CFIT is another area where not only can technology "help", it can absolutely prevent disaster, if given limited emergency authority to address the issue. 3) Weather minimums can also be aircraft/pilot specific and can be displayed "live" as "no go" areas. Something as simple as a dashed yellow band around an area of a storm that clearly exceeds an aircraft's capabilities. A normally aspirated "J" can't outclimb a towering storm, for example. Yet our Gulfstream G550 can easily do so. Even something as simple as running out of fuel can be addressed properly with technology. Through incredibly accurate indication and through the possibility of reserve fuel systems. Our Twin Engine Eurocopter EC-135 has a unique set up that has saved lives, possibly even my own! Each engine pulls fuel from a "hopper". That hopper is fed by gravity and by other systems. When the main tank is finally dry, each hopper is a different size. There is 15 minutes of RH engine "reserve" fuel once the LH engine flames out. AND, man-o-man does that thing let you know that fuel is low. (I was a passenger in the back, my pilot chose to cross the water in spite of the low fuel indication. He was determined to "press on" Right up until the RH engine started acting up. Then it was an emergency course back to land and a premature landing)

As a fabricator, engineer and mechanic, the most difficult task is to make a system simple. A hs125 Hawker 700 landing gear is a most absurdly complex system. A Pilatus PC12 has a remarkably simple gear retraction system. Both accomplish exactly the same task. If I had a preference, it's a hydraulic gear with a direct acting actuator per leg, including integrated locking mechanisms.

Note: a restriction in the injectors will reduce fuel flow. However, a restriction will also increase system working pressure. So, if you use the pressure method to double check fuel flow, make absolutely sure the injectors are the correct ones, not worn out (yes, they erode) and not dirty/clogged. Also, it's not unusual to have a floating piece of debris in the injector lines. Causing intermittent problems. With that in mind, a quick way to check fuel flow is to hook up a pressure gauge on the spider. You should see about 10 PSI at full power, sea level, cool day. Don't forget to check your fuel flow with the boost pump on and off. There is no simple adjustment for fuel flow at full power. The internals consist of a metered orifice that is fully open (unrestricted) at full rich mixture, full power.

Bottom line, if you can maintain a Gulfstream, the Mooney is an absolute cinch, it would be child's play. There is nothing particularly difficult, complex or inaccessible on a Mooney. In fact, a well maintained Mooney won't consume much of your time each year. You will hear many pilots say "nothing before it's time". Meaning that you should not expect to be able to fly a Gulfstream GIV shortly after getting your private pilot's certificate. There are many steps required before you step into a very high performance aircraft. The 4 cylinder Mooney, while slightly faster than a typical Cessna Trainer (about 40 Kts faster in cruise), is still a single engine, piston powered, General Aviation aircraft. It's subject to the exact same rules and requirements and the same standards of certification. The Mooney is not a jet, and it's performance is not out of the realm of a well trained Private Pilot. A capable Private Pilot, with proper instruction in the Mooney will not have any difficulties in it's operation. Stepping up from a Cessna trainer to a Mooney is far less of a step up than, say, WW-II fighter pilots were required to perform. Even today's military pilots often move rapidly into aircraft that far outperform a Mooney. I simply don't want you to be dissuaded by the typical naysayers.

I'm in Florida, so not much need for pre-heating. However, in my corporate jet travels North, I've seen all sorts of heating methods. Some successful, some not so much. I always take an interest in what people do and why. One popular method seems to be the EU1000 Honda generator running a Tannis system or a small electric heater. I've considered purchasing one of these little generators for preheating my Lycoming. However, it's hard to think about cold weather when I'm still in Short Pants, mid December. I also wondered if the fan and exhaust output of the Honda EU1000 could be restricted somewhat, then ducted up into the engine compartment. Car exhaust does not work well, but the little generator has sufficient airflow to dilute the exhaust and prevent condensation. Now that I think about it, a heating element in the outlet duct could add considerable heat too.

If I fly at night, it's nearly always a pattern climb to a safe cruising altitude. High enough to glide to an airport. I avoid as much as possible, locations and altitudes that are out of safe glide distance.

The truth about Lycoming case cracks: Some of the cylinders studs pass completely through the crankcase. They are foot long studs with a nut on each side. They are stretched in tension and are very fatigue tolerant. Any Lycoming mechanic knows how to torque these. Because they don't rely on case strength for cylinder retention, these are trouble free. Some of the cylinder studs are very short (about 2 inches) and simply thread into the case under the cylinder. These do not pass through the case, due to potential interference issues. They simply rely on case strength for structural integrity. This is where the case cracks form. It's a terrible design from an engineering point of view. Look at the lower left stud, vs. the lower right "through" stud. The stress placed on the case is non symmetrical. Interestingly, engineers knew about short cylinder stud failures just after WW-1. As there is not enough stretch in the studs to prevent fatigue failure, no matter how large they were made. In this example, the case simply flexes until failure.

Nope, And a friend just had 2 "infant mortality" magneto failures on his Lycoming factory new engine. I agree with staggering magneto repairs for safety, when ever possible. I do this.

I like both construction methods, and our flight department has both composite and aluminum aircraft. However, I must admit that in certain conditions, composites fall short, far short. Our Eurocopter EC-135 is a composite helicopter. We've lost 2 sets of composite blades so far (due to cracks, delamination and outright structural failure) (in 965 hours total time) total cost about $500K each time. The airframe is relatively trouble free, and it's the aluminum components joining the composites that typically fail. Our Extra 300L has composite wings, spars and tail surfaces. These are very robust and hold up will, as long as you keep the thing out of the sun. It has a thermal indicator that says "RISK" when spar temperatures reach somewhere over 100 degrees F. That always worried me. As we see the "RISK" indicator if left in the sun for some time. Our Gulfstream G550 is mostly aluminum. The composite parts (cowls, flight controls, fairings) are nothing but trouble. From lightning strikes, to hail damage, to expanding ice (internal water) between layers and of course, erosion. We spend more unnecessary money repairing composites. The aluminum surfaces are 100% trouble free. And, I can't see a reason for Carbon Fiber ailerons, rudder or elevators on this bird. They are not "more sleek" or lighter. But they are significantly more fragile to certain types of damage. The cowls, I understand, as the shape would be difficult with sheet metal. AND, the G650 avoids structural composites too. Gulfstream was able to achieve all aerodynamic goals with aluminum.

I am a bit surprised that the entire skin needs to be replaced. Why not a 337/major repair and properly engineered patch/doubler? Or, simply procure a replacement wing?

Watch the video for something really interesting. A DeltaHawk Diesel in a Cirrus, running at power towards the end of the video. Maybe Mooney should consider a 200HP+ DeltaHawk Diesel in a resurrected J model. It would look great, and be a very good high altitude performer at 7 gallons per hour. Overall trip efficiency is nearly 40% better than a gasoline engine at the same speeds and altitudes. This is due to the much lower fuel flow during taxi, takeoff, climb and cruise. 200HP=11gph. And, I love the look of the cowl !! For those who don't know about the DeltaHawk Diesel, it's a 2 stroke, piston ported directly mechanically injected V-4 turbodiesel. This is important because the engine has 4 power events per revolution, typical 4 cyl engines only have 2 power events per revolution (whether gas or diesel) . Diesels are tough on props due to the violent nature of the combustion event. The DeltaHawk design reduces the "combustion event" related stress on the prop. SMA diesels (and others) must use MT wooden props (or similar) for fatigue reasons. It's also a direct drive engine, unlike the Austro/Thielert taxicab Mercedes diesel. The claim is rated power to 28,000 feet.

Be aware that an engine can have a beautiful patina of rust on the connecting rods, crankshaft, accessory drive gear set, and other internal parts, yet still operate perfectly. And, it even may last for 30 additional years. Or that rusted connecting rod could snap on the next flight..... Put another way, how an engine runs is not an indicator of internal corrosion, with the exception of a completely worn out cam lobe or lifter. Lack of valve lift will reduce power! However, my engine with the cam lobe pictured below ran fairly well and performed darned close to normal at altitude.