Found a plane!

Absolutely. the XM helps you avoid problems through good planning. Strikefinders are for when the problem pops up near you.

If I HAD to choose, I'd take the strikefinder, and use flight watch and good briefings to substitute for the XM WX. But I'd much rather have both (and I'd take onboard radar too!).
 
TMetzinger said:
Absolutely. the XM helps you avoid problems through good planning. Strikefinders are for when the problem pops up near you.

If I HAD to choose, I'd take the strikefinder, and use flight watch and good briefings to substitute for the XM WX. But I'd much rather have both (and I'd take onboard radar too!).
Click to expand...

Oh yeah don't get me wrong I think for safety it is all great. I am just saying that I would not use of all this stuff to try and make a flight by weaving through the crud. If it was that close I just would not fly, I am no Scott Crossfield and even he got bit by the Thor!

I do like my storm scope though it really helps to stay way out of trouble.
 
TMetzinger said:
Strange... I found operating my J to be a step "up" in complexity from the 182, which is a pretty simple airplane, just with a big engine. The J (or at least my '98 J) had the controllable prop, and cowl flaps, and added speed brakes, gear speeds (kind of low Vle actually), and such.

All the rental 182s here (1999 and newer) have had their engines go to TBO with no problems, even the old ones with the single-probe EGT/CHT gauge.

I tend to agree with scott - the common thread seems to be your club population. Either they REALLY don't know how to operate the airplane, or the maintenance isn't quite right.
Click to expand...

I just put 1.0 on our club's 182 yesterday. First time flying in 89 days (but who's counting?). 10 trips around the pattern. Wanted one of the 172s, but one was spoken for and the person who had that begged me to let her have the other one as the 172N had a dead battery and she had a friend she had promised a ride.

We just put a new set of jugs on the 182. Ran like a top. Of course, in the pattern what little extra complexity there is over a 172 goes away. Prop forward, mixture forward, leave the cowl flaps open and fly it in circles like a bigger, heavier 172. Still lands better. :D

That Mooney sounds nice. I hear pros and cons about the cabin for folks my size, but I'll withold judgement until I get to try one on first hand. Hope it works out. Have fun!
 
Ghery said:
That Mooney sounds nice. I hear pros and cons about the cabin for folks my size, but I'll withold judgement until I get to try one on first hand.
Click to expand...

I'm 6'4" and about 285 and I think the Mooney 201 is one of the most comfortable 4-place singles I've flown. It's not as wide/tall as the 182, but there's a ton of leg room and I still wasn't banging my head on anything (which I do even in "comfy" airplanes like the Beeches...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top