AirTalk.org Aviation discussions newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots Goto page 1, 2  Next          AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Owning Airplanes View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message John Guest Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:00 pm    Post subject: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you thought about it? MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year, the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out" about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics," John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2 aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position." Back to top Mike Rapoport Guest Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:45 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot. You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's. Mike MU-2 "John" <pelchat (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote Quote: This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you thought about it? MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year, the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out" about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics," John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2 aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position." Back to top Dale Guest Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:00 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots In article <5sCxd.5209$RH4.1397 (AT) newsread1 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Mike Rapoport" <rapoportnospam (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: Quote: Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot. What does the AD require? what do they do? how does training replace it? -- Dale L. Falk There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing around with airplanes. http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html Back to top Juan Jimenez Guest Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:18 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots Training as alternate compliance to an AD? I've never heard of that before. What's the AD #? Juan "Mike Rapoport" <rapoportnospam (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote Quote: Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot. You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's. Mike MU-2 "John" <pelchat (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote in message news:1103544047.379865.96870 (AT) f14g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com... This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you thought about it? MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year, the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out" about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics," John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2 aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position." Back to top Peter MacPherson Guest Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:18 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots Mike, What are the issues that make the transition from a piston twin to the MU-2 so difficult. Are they separate issues than if I were transitioning from a piston twin to a Cheyenne or other twin turbo prop? Just curious since I've always heard the MU-2 was difficult twin turbo prop to transition to. Thanks, Pete "Mike Rapoport" <rapoportnospam (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote Quote: Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot. You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's. Mike MU-2 "John" <pelchat (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote in message news:1103544047.379865.96870 (AT) f14g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com... This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you thought about it? MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year, the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out" about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics," John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2 aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position." Back to top Mike Rapoport Guest Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:46 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots "Dale" <me (AT) myhouse (DOT) net> wrote Quote: In article <5sCxd.5209$RH4.1397 (AT) newsread1 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Mike Rapoport" <rapoportnospam (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot. What does the AD require? what do they do? how does training replace it? It actually make no sense at all. The AD requires auto ignition, tail boot drain line, an ice detector, a trim in motion sensor and a system that disconnects the autopilot if the airspeed goes below 140ktias in cruies flight. I lieu of the ice detector, trim in motion sensor and the autopilot disconnect you can get approved training once a year. The AD stems from an accident where a pilot flew though ice for a long time, presumably with the deicing equipment off and the autopilot holding altitude. They think that he was reading a newspaper. Anyway, as the ice built up, the airplane slowed until the autopilot exceeded its limits and diconnected. The FAA decided to do *something* so they came out with this AD even though you can't see the ice detector warning light if you are reading a newspaper. The whole AD was going to cost about $30K so the owners fought it and the AMOC was worked out. It is unclear to me how either the equipment or the training would have saved the pilot reading a newspaper, but perhaps that is just me. It is also unclear to me that if these things are needed in MU-2s to save pilots reading newspapers why they aren't needed in other airplanes as well? There was another accident which caused the FAA to conduct a review of the MU-2 in icing. A MU-2 took off *over gross weight* into *known severe icing conditions* with *know inoperative deice boots* (the air lines were disconnected). The plane crashed but since it had a politician on board they had to do *something* and hundreds of thousands of dollars later they concluded that if the deice boots are connected and working, that they work just as well as they did when the airpalne was certified...surprise. I suspect that if the muffler fell off a FAA car that they would spend $20K on a really powerful stereo that got louder as you pushed on the accelerator pedal. You can make things foolproof but only idiot resistant. Mike MU-2 Back to top Mike Rapoport Guest Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:35 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots "Peter MacPherson" <flying6 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote Quote: Mike, What are the issues that make the transition from a piston twin to the MU-2 so difficult. Are they separate issues than if I were transitioning from a piston twin to a Cheyenne or other twin turbo prop? Just curious since I've always heard the MU-2 was difficult twin turbo prop to transition to. Thanks, Pete I don't think that it is all that difficult. The issues are the same except perhaps that the MU-2 has a bigger performance delta from a piston twin than a Cheyenne (unless it is a 400LS) or King Air. The difference is that there are a lot more guys buying an old MU-2 and not getting training than are buying Piaggio's and not getting training just because of the price. It is interesting to note that the older cheaper MU-2s seem to have a higher accident rate than the Marquise and Solitaire, perhaps this is because the owners of the more expensive airplanes are more likely to go to expensive training? The training isn't particularly difficult to complete, it just has to be done. I don't think it is much different from a pilot transitioning from a Apache to an pressurized Aerostar or a CitationJet to a Citation X. In each case there are more tasks to be accomplished in less time and there are more emergency procedures to learn because there are more systems to fail. I suspect that the same guys who won't spend the money for specilized training also doesn't go for specialized maitenance and are more likely to have an emergency in the first place or an airplane that is harder to fly because of engine or airframe (mis)rigging. Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us? Mike MU-2 Quote: "Mike Rapoport" <rapoportnospam (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote in message news:5sCxd.5209$RH4.1397 (AT) newsread1 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net... Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot. You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's. Mike MU-2 "John" <pelchat (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote in message news:1103544047.379865.96870 (AT) f14g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com... This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you thought about it? MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year, the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out" about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics," John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2 aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position." Back to top Mike Rapoport Guest Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:37 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots I don't have it handy, you can look it up. It is the one requiring the ice detector, auto ignition, trim in motion sensor and autopilot disconnect. Mike MU-2 "Juan Jimenez" <flybd5 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote Quote: Training as alternate compliance to an AD? I've never heard of that before. What's the AD #? Juan "Mike Rapoport" <rapoportnospam (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote in message news:5sCxd.5209$RH4.1397 (AT) newsread1 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net... Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot. You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's. Mike MU-2 "John" <pelchat (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote in message news:1103544047.379865.96870 (AT) f14g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com... This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you thought about it? MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year, the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out" about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics," John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2 aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position." Back to top Peter MacPherson Guest Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:38 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots Thanks for the feedback. "Mike Rapoport" <rapoportnospam (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote Quote: "Peter MacPherson" <flying6 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message news:DXCxd.227260$V41.31999 (AT) attbi_s52 (DOT) .. Mike, What are the issues that make the transition from a piston twin to the MU-2 so difficult. Are they separate issues than if I were transitioning from a piston twin to a Cheyenne or other twin turbo prop? Just curious since I've always heard the MU-2 was difficult twin turbo prop to transition to. Thanks, Pete I don't think that it is all that difficult. The issues are the same except perhaps that the MU-2 has a bigger performance delta from a piston twin than a Cheyenne (unless it is a 400LS) or King Air. The difference is that there are a lot more guys buying an old MU-2 and not getting training than are buying Piaggio's and not getting training just because of the price. It is interesting to note that the older cheaper MU-2s seem to have a higher accident rate than the Marquise and Solitaire, perhaps this is because the owners of the more expensive airplanes are more likely to go to expensive training? The training isn't particularly difficult to complete, it just has to be done. I don't think it is much different from a pilot transitioning from a Apache to an pressurized Aerostar or a CitationJet to a Citation X. In each case there are more tasks to be accomplished in less time and there are more emergency procedures to learn because there are more systems to fail. I suspect that the same guys who won't spend the money for specilized training also doesn't go for specialized maitenance and are more likely to have an emergency in the first place or an airplane that is harder to fly because of engine or airframe (mis)rigging. Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us? Mike MU-2 "Mike Rapoport" <rapoportnospam (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote in message news:5sCxd.5209$RH4.1397 (AT) newsread1 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net... Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot. You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's. Mike MU-2 "John" <pelchat (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote in message news:1103544047.379865.96870 (AT) f14g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com... This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you thought about it? MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year, the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out" about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics," John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2 aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position." Back to top Juan Jimenez Guest Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:22 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots "Mike Rapoport" <rapoportnospam (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote Quote: Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us? Maybe he didn't -- his insurance could have made that decision for him. :) Back to top Mike Rapoport Guest Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:14 am    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots Actually, he thought that he did. Mike MU-2 "Juan Jimenez" <flybd5 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote Quote: "Mike Rapoport" <rapoportnospam (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote in message news:x3Exd.4142$9j5.3120 (AT) newsread3 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net... Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us? Maybe he didn't -- his insurance could have made that decision for him. :) Back to top john smith Guest Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:07 am    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots Mike, just how different is it flying spoilers vice ailerons? Back to top Mike Rapoport Guest Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots There is really no major difference except spoilers are more effective at low speeds and don't "stiffen up" at high speeds. Spoilers also provide effecive roll control in a stall and don't produce adverse yaw. On the MU-2 the relationship between control yoke movement and spoiler movement is such that slightly more yoke movement is required than on most aircraft for the same roll rate. It take people about 10hrs to get used to it. Also, In the event of an engine failure you want to use the roll trim so that you can neutralize the yoke because you don't want to have a spoiler sticking up. Mike MU-2 "john smith" <jsmith (AT) net (DOT) net> wrote Quote: Mike, just how different is it flying spoilers vice ailerons? Back to top Scott Skylane Guest Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:02 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots Mike Rapoport wrote: /snip/ Also, In the Quote: event of an engine failure you want to use the roll trim so that you can neutralize the yoke because you don't want to have a spoiler sticking up. Huh? Did you possibly mean *rudder* trim, or just how does the roll trim work on that thing? Happy Flying! Scott Skylane N92054 Back to top Mike Rapoport Guest Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:50 pm    Post subject: Re: A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots There are electrically controlled ailerons for roll trim. Of course, you also trim out the rudder forces too. The basic drill is feather the prop then "357": three seconds of nose up elevator trim, five seconds of roll trim and seven "handfulls" of rudder trim. There are a few more things but none of them are critical. Mike MU-2 "Scott Skylane" <scottdbNO (AT) PSAMgci (DOT) net> wrote Quote: Mike Rapoport wrote: /snip/ Also, In the event of an engine failure you want to use the roll trim so that you can neutralize the yoke because you don't want to have a spoiler sticking up. Huh? Did you possibly mean *rudder* trim, or just how does the roll trim work on that thing? Happy Flying! Scott Skylane N92054 Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Owning Airplanes All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2   Jump to: Select a forum Aviation----------------alt.aviationAviation safety EnhancementPlanes, gliders and flying in AustraliaAviation et pilotage (Français)rec.aviationAviation (Aerobatics)Hot air, gas balloons and airshipsHang-gliding, paragliding, foot-launched flightAircraft Design & BuildingInstrument Flight RulesAviation (Classifieds)Military AircraftNaval AviationAviation (Miscellaneous Topics)Owning AirplanesAviators (General Discussions)Aviation related productsAircraft RestorationHelicopters and rotary wing aircraftsFlight SimulationSailplanesAviation (Students)Light aircraftFlying related activities in the UK Airports----------------alt.airportsEdinburgh Airport Glasgow Airport Humberside Airport Luton Airport Aberdeen Airport Glasgow Prestwick Airport  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.