pinerunner

I think I recall advice from John Deakins that at higher altitudes you should go closer to peak. I think the idea is that thinner air makes the fuel/air mixture harder to light. What was your manifold pressure? At lower power settings I just go for peak. I'm trying to keep the CHT's from dropping too low after all. It also makes it simpler.

I want me some of these!

I agree that the in-flight mag check can give you better information. But a mag check on the ground is the only kind that will save me from taking off with only one mag working. That actually happened to me when I was a kid. Had recently soloed in a Piper Cub and was doing a bunch of take offs and landings. On final take off engine sounded different and I l cleared the trees by just ten feet instead of thirty feet (guesstimate; I was mostly looking ahead after all). I didn't think I needed to keep checking mags every time. After landing I did a mag check and one was dead. So that convinced me to always check mags before taking off.

I pay $150/mo for an unheated hangar spot at Pittsfield Maine, 2B7. I also get electricity for free. The FBO there is Curtis Air and has excellent all-around mechanics who also back me up on the stuff I tackle myself. Although they are not a MSC I am satisfied that they did their homework in setting up my annual. For instance they rented the equipment for setting tensions etc. on my J-bar gear and I've had no problem with it's operation. I make them aware of things I find out on this site and I think we've got a pretty good symbiotic relationship. Very satisfied with them.

I've been looking at this compass too. Will be very interested to know the verdict and results. My current wet compass sometimes gives funny results which might be just due to my Mooney still accelerating. I was suspecting some magnetic interference. The C-planes I used to fly reached their cruise speed soon after leveling off. If this compass is really better than the old fashioned wet ones I wanna get me one. My old one started dripping fluid too once.

I got my E model for $35K and the owner jumped on it when I offered $4K less than the $39K he was asking. This one has nicer speed mods, lower time, and an older non WAAS GPS. Within a couple years you'll want the upgrade to get WAAS capability and be 2020 compliant. I've been informally quoted $20K for that. So I'd drive a very hard bargain if I were buying right now. Now if you or someone else actually pays that asking price I'll be happy to hear it. I may be able to recover more of the WAAS upgrade price than I currently anticipate.

80 mph on final is for the long runways I usually frequent. It gives me a nice easy flare with not too much float. For shorter strips (2150 shortest so far) I slow down to a little above 70 mph (my 64 E model isn't calibrated in nm/hr). I think once you're established at a constant rate of descent those tables are close to the actual G-forces. In level flight 1.06 G for 20 degrees so not much different than one. I'm aware that in an extreme angle of ascent or descent the forces can be less (i.e. in a wingover you can pull zero G in the turn so no stall even though your airspeed drops to near zero; but you pull a lot of G's when you pull up or level off) but I think the angle of descent in a standard pattern is so modest that I'd rather not take it into consideration.

There's a lot to be said for "looking out the window".

One more thing I 'd like to add to this discussion. I was reading through my operating manual not long ago and came across the table of stall speeds as a function of bank and flap setting. I found it very sobering to note the stall speeds quoted for no flaps in various banks because those speeds started to get close to my approach speeds of 90 mph and 80 mph on final. I've hadn't considered a no flap landing to be a big no-no but now I feel differently. I suppose if you keep speeds up and make very shallow turns its possible to be safe but I can't think of a reason for doing that. 2 notches of flap after reaching 90 mph and BEFORE the first turn. I'm not flying a cub anymore. I get the flaps up pretty quick after takeoff to avoid exceeding the max flap extension speed. Then I can drop the nose for better cooling. Shallow turns until over 100 mph are the order of the day there.

I'm quoting myself here because I wanted to add a bit of correction. Go to www.bruceair.com/site_map/site_map.htm and they have a bunch of vids of stall to spin scenarios from either skid or slip. They go in opposite directions depending on which wing is in the wind shadow but a slip CAN lead to flipping over into spin. I've been cautious I think (hope) when using forward slips to create drag but I'm completely disabused of the idea that you can't get into a spin from a slip. Of course the classic deadly accident is to apply extra rudder when turning to final when you see you're overshooting the runway, generating a skid at low speed and near the ground. I still feel pretty good about slipping crosswind correction because the higher angle of attack happens very close to the ground.

I read somewhere that while skids were very dangerous and tended to throw you into a spin, slips tended to be safer and throw you into recovery if you should stall. I use forward slips to lose altitude quick if I'm too high and they work fine but I keep 85-90 mph indicated. I don't want to mess with a stall close to the ground (well a foot off the ground then I do). Side slip correction to landing is pretty much standard operating procedure. I've found that near the end of the flare I don't seem to need the slip anyway, as if the crosswind poops out two feet off the ground. I haven't needed to touch down one wheel first yet, even when I expected to.

I wonder about this. I found I had forgotten to put my pitot tube cover back on twice in a row. I'm 60. I think I've always had a tendency to let down a little when a flight was done and not do as good a job putting the plane to bed as I did preflighting it. I'm learning IFR now at a late age and getting clearances straight seems a challenge. I don't think my actual flying skills have declined and they may even be better now that I have my own plane and fly it more regularly. Not a fair comparison to when I was renting. I know there are lots of stories about older people turning the wrong way down a one-way street. One older friend of an uncle of mine ran threw a stop sign in a strange place and got hit and killed.

I think the Cirrus is terribly overpriced for what it is. If I had that kind of money I'd keep my Mooney and get a seaplane (58' C-180 on 2870A's) along with a camp on a remote lake to fly it to. I can't honestly say if I'd trade in my M20E for a J or whether I'd trick it out big time. I'm having a lot of fun with my E.

VFR working on IFR. I've passed the written and hope to take the flight test in the late spring. I've learned enough now that some things are becoming clear. Simply keeping the plane right side up and flying a reasonable procedure is the easy part. If they would just clear out the sky for me and let me come down through the clouds following an ILS to a reasonable landing while everyone else is kept out of my way it would only take a bit more training than what I went through getting my private and then commercial. In the real world you have to declare an emergency to get that kind of hand holding. The big trick in IFR, as far as I can see, is what I call the office management. I can easily see where a pilot can get himself into a situation where he is overwhelmed by the combination of flying, communication, planning, etc. I was raised on a seaplane base where bush flying, maximum performance takeoff and landing, VFR navigation far from civilization were the order of the day. IFR did almost nothing for that. These days there are a few GPS approaches to lakes in Alaska I guess. What IFR gives you is a more complete understanding of the whole aviation system and more options to fit into and use it. I think it makes you a more complete pilot and look forward to lower insurance rates and very, very simple IFR flight plans.

I wouldn't be afraid to remove the panel. Just be ready for lots of screws as noted above. I would try to enlist an A and P to assist, inspect, and sign off on the final solution once you get access to the real mechanism. If a future buyer inspects your logs and sees that this kind of stuff has been attended to it will look good. This sort of thing is the big reason I'm saving up for Jaeger's spatial interior. Easy access in an older plane like my 64 M20E is priceless.

OK, for me this is the great debate. Just go Garmin or give Avidyne a good look and consider whether I might really prefer an IFD 440 in my M20E. In favor of Garmin. Many people will just go for the Garmin and so resale will be easier if you have Garmin in your plane. Garmin may be easier to install. In favor of Avidyne They're actually giving us an alternative. The interface may be better designed. They have some knobs (I still like the idea of some knobs) and the interactive graphics might be a little better. Anything I get will be an upgrade of course, but I only get to do this once. It will probably be a year before I take the plunge and commit. For now I have old fashioned VOR/DME capability so I can do an ILS approach. I'm going for my IFR rating and plan on doing the simplest possible IFR flight plans. I don't have an autopilot and won't get one so I'll have to be very careful not to get myself into situations where fatigue and workload get me into trouble.

I just spoke with my current favored shop for avionics. They told me to expect just under $20K for installation of both a GTN 650 and the Garmin transponder that would read its WAAS GPS signal from it. He can sell any of the other companies like the King 770 or Avidyne IDF 440 but has found the Garmin installation to be more trouble-free and straightforward. He confided to me that no one has purchased the King and the few Avidynes he has sold and installed had problems out of the box that required a replacement unit to be sent. He's booked out a half year in advance and considers Garmin to be most trouble free installation. Even though I like much of what I read about the others I'm probably going with Garmin. Glowing testimonials for Avidyne might sway me. If King paid me to be the guinea pig I might give them a try. No one is making what I really want, a WAAS approach capable GPS with minimum footprint, like an updated WASS capable King 89b.

Super! I wonder how these compare to the L3 Lynx ADSB in/out transponder. The thing that drives me nuts is that both of these companies are providing WAAS GPS at affordable prices but you can't use it for IFR flight! What's the regulatory hurdle/roadblock? Is there some answer other than lobbyist's from Garmin protecting their cash cow? I can buy a lower quality GPS chip to put in a little robot for under $100.00 (I like to play with Arduino programing). I'm sure we're being milked somehow and this cow wants to kick over the bucket!

One thing about airways; anyone going the opposite direction should be 1000 feet above or below you, or at least 500 ft if one of you is IFR and the other VFR. At VOR's with converging airways look out (if you're VFR and don't have ATC looking out for you) but at least you know where to be looking, which is out the front window for looking for someone directly ahead who you'll be passing on the right. There should never be head-on collisions in airways. This leads me to a new VFR airway rule; never change altitude right in the middle of an airway where there more likely to be other planes above or below. Use the off-ramp. If you're IFR do what they tell you of course.

A friend of mine at work had an aunt who died in WW II. Mary H. Howson died near the end of her training to be a ferry pilot. The accident is illustrative of our problem though at an earlier stage. Miss Howson was returning from a training cross country and had a head-on collision with a pilot doing pattern work. She was on a right base-leg while the other was on a left base leg for the same runway. (I had to read that twice) Somehow they failed to see each other in time. There were a lot of training accidents with the male pilots in WW II as well. Clearly the safety of the big sky that had been fine for pilots leading up to that time and had served Lindburg well fell down when you tried to run a crash course for thousands of new pilots in the big war. I think they had radios and controllers but they were all new and learning on the job too. They had to invent some of the rules and procedures we take for granted by finding things out the hard way. I was raised on an seaplane base and we hardly ever saw another plane. So the big sky theory got us by. Now I'm flying an old but sweet Mooney and working on my IFR rating and life is completely different. Proper communication is the single hardest thing I'm having to learn. If they'd just clear everyone else out of the sky IFR would be easy. I've also noticed that I'm often not the first to spot other traffic. That bugs me. I'm competing against younger eyes (I'm 60) but still. There are a few articles out there about the problems with see and avoid. Planes can get into each others blind spot, a plane on a collision course will appear to not move relative to yours so its harder to pick out. Most pilots aren't doing as much deer hunting as they used to so they're less practiced at picking out stationary objects against a background. I think this thread is very important. How best to see and avoid and how and when to arrange the office work when flying our efficient old planes while using the radio like pros makes for a great debate. Where are the choke points up there where other traffic becomes more likely? Obviously near airports, but where else? What's the best way to approach an airport so as not to surprise or be surprised? Will ADSB really make it easier in 2020 when it becomes required almost everywhere expect way out in the boonies? Maybe they'll be a whole new category of accident where pilots used to it fly to Alaska and run afoul of pilots who take it for granted you're looking out the window.

I don't think they were being deliberately rude. They'd have been just as dead as you if there had been a collision. I just read an article that said 'see and avoid' is much harder than we appreciate. And of course it gets worse at airports where we get bunched up. If we could just stay away from active airports.

I wonder if there's a business opportunity here for semi-retired Mooney pilots.

My airport in Pittsfield Maine just did a bunch of repaving. This is a small town with a contracting company, Cianbro, that does large road projects. Some corporate planes and LOTS of GA activity so they're first in line for upgrades and aviation is not declining there. I think it's the Beechcraft capital of Maine. But I've flown into one older small airport, in particular, where I felt every patched seam in the runway and vowed never to go back.

I use 100 in the summer and 50-15 in the winter. If I have 100 in I preheat even if it's just a little cold, let's say if it's less than 55 F. I use camguard if I have the Aeroshell version without additves and if I get W100Plus I just use it straight. I checked a Busch article and he said they use the same additives anyway. So far so good.

Its still a buyers market isn't it. Time to move on.