All Activity

Same as take off. Don't mess with the flow. As I have found in a long body I don't think there is a time to land half flaps. So you are always full flaps. In the F I landed half flaps all the time unless I biffed the approach. If you are going around because of a bounce you already have enough energy to fly the plane straight and level. So add half throttle get level, side step. Gear, Trim, power, flaps. Adding the power will make the plane climb. continue to trim. If you are going around because of a fouled deck, plane, deer, car, you really have enough energy to level out with a bit of throttle. If you are going around because of your instructor, then you bitch him out for blowing what would be a perfect landing and follow up with the words "I hate you" There will times to firewall everything and then just be ready to hold her down and trim. Even the 244HP is a lot of immediate energy. I can't imagine firewalling a 300HP.

I hate when I hear that in Mooney, same for “rotate” I know it’s standard in professional flying as the pilot can’t distinguish between “rotation” and “climb”, they have an “eye height” of 50ft even when taxiing, they call rotate and V1/V2. There is nothing wrong with, * Accelerating single engine piston in ground effect, it’s not a jet ! * Retracting gear in ground effect without using vario > 0. The aircraft fly by itself, there is no rotation involved and it’s easy to know that it has lift-off, one can accelerate in ground effect, once they are at sensible speeds they can retract gear or flaps. I think drag flaps first is required in some GA (I recall Cessna with their 40deg flaps), however, retracting drag flaps at very slow speeds under VS1 near ground under 50ft lead to disasters (even in fixed gear, lot of Cirrus accidents are botched go-arounds or balked landings where pilots jumps on flaps under 60kts as they throw 310hp in front)

There is a reason why industry wide “positive rate grear up” and flaps gear flaps is a thing I’d think a Mooney would be the same

Yes if you are landing with takeoff flaps, it's simply another takeoff where you will raise gear and then flaps... When landing full flaps, there is the question of raising "drag flaps immediately" before gear or anything, I think this apply to some underpowered aircraft with +40deg flaps but I highly doubt this applies to Mooneys...

The Slick Start lights the hot engine off even without the impulse coupling engaged firing at 20 degrees BTC, think the threshold is 120 RPM, the Slick Start solves the mags biggest problem, i.e. low energy at low rpm, best used with retard breaker mag, at cruise rpm the the ignition energy in Joule for the mag is within 10% of the electroair, weight of both systems is about the same, both have their pros and cons

My first reaction is too much trim too often. Full Nose Up for every landing?

Anyone experience this with their tail? Any idea what causes this?

At 45 knots, my wheels are firmly on the ground, whether taking off or landing. I'm usually landing around ~72 mph = 62-1/2 knots over the numbers, and almost never with full flaps, in a continuous deceleration towards the ground. Then full throttle is just another takeoff--i.e., positive rate, gear up then flaps up, except it will require more down trim than a normal takeoff due to trimming nose up on final.

A better comparison is "raising the flaps first' vs. "raising gear first" at full power say between VS0 and VS1, say between 55kts-65kts when flying above 4000ft and see what happens? At 85kts, the exact order does not matter that much, go-around at these speeds are non event. In the other hand, things are more quirky between 50kts and 70kts, this is usually associated with balked landing, or botched flare, or bounce: the main risk is raising flaps between VS0 and VS1, this guarantee infinite drag and aircraft won't climb even with full power. Once past 85kts, one can do whatever they want with pitch, controls, configs...in any order. Under VS1 under 50ft, lot of brain and precise flying is required (one has already run out of speed & altitude) Personally, I would keep the flaps where they are until I have enough speed and brain. If I can't get enough speed well past VS1 in ground effect (after raising the gear), I would pull the mixture and cut the loss. Go-around from 85kts above 100ft agl are non-event, I can raise gear, falps and nose at the same time and it works !

Another thing that happens when the gear is up is the gear doors and the wheels plug the big holes under the wing. That helps a lot with climb, which is desirable on a go-around.

A more accurate test would be to takeoff with full flaps and gear down. On one flight, retract the flaps fully while leaving the gear down, on the second retract flaps to takeoff while leaving the gear down, and on the third retract the gear while leaving the flaps full. Rotate and climb at the same typical speed. Note the altitude when crossing the end of the runway. This would be way more realistic because after all the goal in a go-around is to get away from the ground as soon as possible, particularly on a short runway, and not about speed.

I think this is a flawed experiment because the speed at which it was done is not representative of the speed in the initial moments of a go-around. At go around speeds you are likely dealing with a greater amount of induced drag caused by the change in wing camber because of the flaps in addition to the parasitic drag. Or perhaps it’s just the conclusion that is flawed. If parasitic drag between wing flap or gear retraction at higher speeds is determined to be comparable, then it is best to retract flaps first because they will have a greater contribution of total drag at lower speed when you factor in higher induced drag in addition to the parasitic. Plus flaps first is a better habit if ever switching to most other airplanes.

If you don't quote his 4 year old post, like I just did your post, or ping him @CaptRJM, he will never know you asked a question.

90 hours? Jeesh

If you have the stock fuel senders cleaned up and IRAN'd, it's just as accurate as the CIES senders. they are infinitely variable 0-32ohm resistance, but in series, so 0-64. Ours rounds to the nearest gallon but the ipad shows .1 gallon resolution.

It's very tanasient and hardly measurable, it falls under "too small to bother or notice"... I wonder if it's aerodynamic that relates to the relative angle over which main wheels and front wheel move? or layout of doors? all 3 wheels are connected to same piece, they go in sync but move in 3 different directions I would have blamed some mysterious gyroscopic mouvement (from high spinning wheels), however, we usually press the breaks before retracting...

There is one seal I have for the Mooney original and silicone version SHOWN i have no idea of what you have installed

Your thickness is not correct We have silicone foam .250 ams3195 sponge We die cut it I won't use or sell Epdm rubber

The gear in my C moves too quickly for me to notice anything. But I do feel a small thump as they lock Down.

Question for Guy- @Gee Bee Aeroproducts- How would I know which would apply to me? The only thing I can tell about my current door seal is that in some places, it’s very tight but in others there’s a fairly big gap. Is there a way to “trial fit” the seal so that I don’t glue it wrong? Thanks!

It’s got to be aerodynamic. The only CG change would be the forward movement of the nose gear and that cannot be very significant. Also, I would think that a CG change would cause a need to retrim and this just seems to be a transient effect while the gear is in motion.

And it’s Knots Calibrated Air Speed , not KIAS. KCAS is approximately 2 knots lower in clean configuration at those speeds than KIAS. This tripped up my interpretation of the new regs. all the stall charts and the green line marking on air speed are in KIAS because that’s what you measure and see while flying.

I have the Slick start unit also, and a Skytec starter… not sure whether it turns over that fast, never considered it. Anyway, the Slick start is great for hot starts… I do wonder if it’s somehow involved, in that you can get the engine to start catching when ordinarily it wouldn’t (and therefore you can have the impulse engaged, then unengaged, then engaged again in succession if it’s a bit unstable before it finally gets going fully)

Well fortunately a few engine shops responded quickly and the prices weren’t as bad as feared. Western Skyways is going to handle the IRAN this time.

Since the discussion is about antenna suitability for an application, it's the BW of the antenna that matters, not the signal, and whether the carrier frequency of the signals of interest fall within the usable BW of the antenna. We know that all of the relevant signals are relatively narrowband compared to the carrier frequency and antenna passband, so the signal bandwidths aren't really relevant other than they're narrow enough to fit in their assigned channels and not interfere with each other and therefore fit in the antenna bandwidth. e.g., transponders listen on 1030 MHz and transmit on 1090 MHz. ADS-B uses 978 MHz (only about 8% off the center of the 1030-1090 pair, and only about 5% from the 1030 MHz interrogating signal). ADS-B also uses 1090 MHz, which is right in the band of interest for the transponder antenna. The antenna would have to have a fairly (unexpectedly) high Q to attenuate the 978MHz signal very much, so it should work pretty well for listening to either ADS-B frequency. The bandwidths of any of those signals don't really matter, just their carrier frequencies. DME uses 960-1215 MHz, which covers all of the ADS-B and transponder frequencies, so a DME antenna should be suitable for listening to any of it. Many suitable antennas with TSOs are shown as being interchangable as either transponder or DME antennas. Again, the signal BW doesn't really matter, just that the antenna response BW is wide enough to cover the desired applications.