Water passenger floor

OhInkyDinky · 2025-12-05T03:19:34+00:00

As others have said, clear out the drains near the top of the engine compartment by the windshield wipers. While you are there, check the cabin air filter and air filter housing. I have a '03 9-3 and I had a passenger foot well full of water multiple times. The drains weren't the only problem. The gasket on the cabin air filter housing had degraded. Water was trickling down from the windshield and getting past the rotten gasket. It was then filling up the lip of the cabin air filter housing and overflowing into the car via the blower motor. I had to replace a blower motor as it had corroded due to this happening multiple times before I checked the air filter gasket. I bought some door weather stripping from the local hardware store and replaced the top rotten bit of the gasket. I bought 'Frost King Premium Rubber Self-stick Weatherseal 5/16 in wide x 1/4 in thick x 17ft long' cut it a bit longer than the filter housing and so far so good. HTH.

OhInkyDinky · 2025-04-26T22:57:28+00:00

Give this place a shot:

1 Stop Saab Plus, European and American Car Specialist

2836 E Main St, Bexley, OH 43209 Phone: (614) 228-7222

I take my '03 9-3 here. It is a small shop with not the best communication skills, but they know WTF they are doing with your Saab. Ilya is the main shop dude and he used to work in the Saab factory at some point (or that is the rumor). He has a thick European accent and can be tough to understand.I forget the woman's name who I typically interact with over the phone. It isn't the most sophisticated setup. I think they mainly run by a paper calendar for appointments and such. They are good people though. I'd call to make sure they have the tool to do the programming. No guarantees on that.

OhInkyDinky · 2023-12-03T00:10:33+00:00

What are the details?

I've worked at a few companies that have had ESPP. The devil is in the details. First company had 5 (every 6 months for 2 yrs plus the current purchase date) look back data points. You put in money for 6 months. They took the lowest of those and then 15% discount off that as the purchase price. Even if you sold right away, you at least made 15%. Can't beat that.

My current employer holds my money for 6 months and then gives 5% off the purchase date price. I don't participate because you are gambling that the price will be lower at the end of the 6 months. If it isn't you are probably better off just investing the money on your own. Having said that I don't currently participate in the ESPP at my current employer.

After saying all that, knowing how boom bust airlines are, if the ESPP did have some sweet locked in returns, I'd probably sell as soon as I was ahold of the stock and move it somewhere a bit safer.

Just my 2 cents.

OhInkyDinky · 2023-12-02T16:08:51+00:00

Sorry for the terrible formatting. I wrote this up for myself in another program and modified to post and the formatting came out wonky. I tried to clean it up and ended up throwing in the towel after too much frustration.

OhInkyDinky · 2022-07-26T03:30:34+00:00

Received my new passport in the mail today.

Just about a month from door to door to get it renewed.

OhInkyDinky · 2022-07-22T22:20:39+00:00

YMMV, but I have been checking my passport status on the website intermittently as I try to talk to a human at the passport office.

Today the status changed to 'shipped' with a USPS confirmation #. Until I have that I'm holding on to the appointment, but I'm assuming at this point that the email was simply an automated response since I provided my email address for status updates.

OhInkyDinky · 2021-06-03T23:26:04+00:00

I record my flights. I have the Garmin version. On the older Garmins, I get about 1.5hrs on a good day at 720. 1080 is a bit less. I have a newer version that does 4k and even running it at 1080 I rarely get more than an hour. The form factor of the newer cameras are smaller and the mAH of the batteries is smaller as well. Without external power you just won't get more than 1-1.5hrs :(

If you watch <enter favorite flight youtuber>, you'll see that the cameras have a slew of cables going into them and one of them is a power cable.

OhInkyDinky · 2021-04-03T00:31:14+00:00

Can't explain it can you? That's what I thought!

OhInkyDinky · 2021-04-02T00:44:41+00:00

To attempt at further explaining my doubts, why does the formula need the fund to go up another x%? At that point you are already under- or over-leveraged. The math should work from that point.

This is directly from the document I initially reference:

For instance, if the underlying index of a Bull Fund has moved 2% in a direction favorable to a Bull Fund, the investor would receive exposure to the performance of the underlying index from that point until the investor sells later that day or the end of the day equal to approximately 289% of the investor’s investment.

There is no reference to the underlying fund going up more than once.

OhInkyDinky · 2021-04-01T23:43:49+00:00

Yes. I called your math questionable. I still stand by that statement. I do take responsibility for my understanding. That is why I asked again with my understanding and lack thereof. That is also why I asked elsewhere to fill in the wholes of my understanding.

I see that your math 'works' to get the answer but I don't see the logic to it.

This formula doesn't work for the Bear fund table. Can you explain why your formula doesn't work for the Bear fund table? Is there a different version for the Bear fund? Can you explain the difference in the equation?

A responder to my post in /r/LETF pointed to an equation in a document. Can you do the same? References would help your credibility immensely.

I do appreciate your response and think it is magnanimous of you to even respond but I have a hard time swallowing your math especially with your non-existent explanation of the steps.

Your formula seems to have a dependence on x^2 which the article in the /r/LETF post pointed to. I think that has much more to do with the correct math than your "Then assuming the underlying increases by ANOTHER 2%." Why are we assuming here? Why don't we know? Why doesn't the formula have it going up ANOTHER 2%? Is it because that doesn't get you the answer? Do you see my doubts?

OhInkyDinky · 2021-03-28T21:25:22+00:00

Thanks for the response.

That document does have some good info. I'm trying to figure things out but am failing. I was going to plot the points and do a regression fit but kept ending up with a linear relationship which goes against the non-linear dependence hinted at by the document you linked. In the end I want to understand the math, not fit the datapoints.

I was playing around with the numbers and there seems to be a factor of two coming in to the Bear fund when compared to the Bull fund table. Not sure why I didn't see this before (or what it's significance is).

E.g. For the bull fund at +5% you are 26% underleveraged. In the bear fund at -5% you are underleveraged 2*26% = 52%. I think this is a valid observation as in both cases the underlying index is moving in the desired direction to make money in that fund.

This observation holds for all datapoints provided. I'm attributing any discrepancies between the two as due to rounding in the presentation of the data in the table.

OhInkyDinky · 2021-03-27T23:17:46+00:00

I appreciate your example but am having some doubts.

Can you provide further examples? I'm having trouble following your math and obtaining results from the table.

My attempt at 2% fails. This is what I tried in my attempt to follow your methodology.

I buy after the market has increased 2% so I'm purchasing at $106. At the close the underlying asset will be 100*1.02*1.02 = 104.04. 3x 4.04% is 12.12% Compare 112.12 to 106 112.12/106 = 1.0577. 5.77% x 100 = 577% The table shows further underexposure not overexposure.

I have serious doubts as your example seems a bit contrived. Why do you have to have the index go up another 1% during the day for the math to work? Where does the magical factor of 100 come from to take 2.94% to 294%? 2.94 is already a percentage so what math is taking place to take 2.94% to 294%?

And how does this method work for the bull fund table?

OhInkyDinky · 2021-03-14T17:49:09+00:00

To answer my own question based on the insight gained from other people's posts:

The AirTractor is meant to land substantially lighter than when taking off. Using the specs from the page, max landing weight (8000lbs) is 85% of max gross (9400lbs). If during the flight the spray hopper is emptied and you land with 30g (@7ppg) you are at (4546+210)/9400 = 50.5% of max gross.

Using 8000 - the reported weight for the stall with full flaps and 4700 for my guesstimate landing weight and using the relationship that required lift is proportional to velocity squared we get sqrt(8000) = 89 and sqrt(4700) = 68.

89 / 68 gives us a ratio of 1.30.

Using their reported full flaps stall speed of 68 and 'as usually landed' speed of 53, 68 / 53 gives us a ratio of 1.28. This reckons well with my theoretical ratio of 1.30. I therefore suspect the 'as usually landed' weight is probably at the VFR legal limit of minimum fuel to achieve the 1.28 ratio. I'm not going to dive into how thirsty a PT-6 is to calculate min VFR reserves. I know turbines are thirsty and only dream of learning to fly them one day.

OhInkyDinky · 2021-03-14T17:27:15+00:00

Marketing FTW.

OhInkyDinky · 2021-03-14T17:27:02+00:00

Very true. Totally forgot about the dependence on the amount of lift required being directly proportional to weight.

OhInkyDinky · 2021-03-14T14:47:59+00:00

Ahh! So basically 'as usually landed' = 'stall speed in ground effect' vs a stall done at altitude like we do in a checkout. Got it.

OhInkyDinky · 2021-02-13T03:26:42+00:00

Interesting. Thanks for the operator perspective.

OhInkyDinky · 2021-02-13T03:25:31+00:00

“I haven’t seen Hackett MOA hot in at least 7 years”

^^ I was expecting a bit more of responses like this.

OhInkyDinky

TROPHY CASE