midlifeflyer

It will. The runway runs N-S due to terrain availability but the prevailing wind is W-E. If you look at the sectional with the peaks to the west and the ridge just to the east, you can paint a picture of what the winds will be like on final or doing on takeoff (picture water flowing). Taking off to the north, you also have the problem of being pushed toward that ridge if turning left downwind. That's among the reasons why a number of us who contributed to that AOPA article rated it one of the most difficult.

No doubt. That 5916' (when the temperature is only 3°C; check density altitude!) is in a canyon with only a 3300' runway with no good go-around options. You're getting pretty close to requiring superior technique for your takeoff in some Mooney models on a more typical spring or summer morning.. Leadville, on the other hand is in a wide valley. More straightforward so long as you have the power to handle the density altitude (about 13,000 msl when it's 70°F outside) Good description of Corona.

My online logbook says 147 distinct airport codes..

Yes.

If you were thinking I was asking about ways to exceed published aircraft limitations, you were definitely misunderstanding the question. My questions were simply: Why does the older M20J have charts for both normal and maximum performance (aka short field) takeoffs while the new M20 J has a chart only for a "normal" takeoff? Based upon pilot experience with Mooneys, is there a "short field" takeoff configuration for the later Mooney? If so, what is it and what type of increase in takeoff performance could one anticipate?* The comment about different "normal" performance at equivalent weights between the two versions of the model was more of an observation about the dangers of extrapolation, but yes, it is an interesting question all by itself. (* Aircraft performance charts are not limitations and, especially after flying in the Colorado Rockies for 20 years, I do not consider attempting to determine aircraft performance outside of those charts to be exceeding aircraft limitations)

Not necessarily. I know airports I would take a 172 into that I wouldn't take the higher weigh Mooney J. But I'm not talking over gross. The takeoff performance numbers for the 2470 MGTOW Mooney are substantially better than for the 2900 MGTOW Mooney given the identical actual weight. So I'm not sure that the maximum capable weight is itself the issue. And, as I explained in response to Hank's post, the lower 50-ft target airspeed in the 2470 Mooney's max performance takeoff chart can be substantially better than it's "normal" counterpart. I've found that to generally be true in the dozen or so different makes/models I've flown - short field takeoff configuration and target airspeed performance is generally better tha non short field configuration and target airspeed performance. btw, yes, I read the over gross "discussion" thread. Didn't see anything particularly relevant to my "why is is different" question there. Me too. That's why I'm curious about this.

Other than the fact that the POH has them both? Does a couple of hundred at sea level to about 1000' of obstacle clearance difference depending on density altitude count?

I'm in a flying club with access to 3 M20Js. Two are pre-1991 (2740 MGTOW) and one is post 1991 (2900 MGTOW). In planning a trip for this weekend, I came across something curious: The 2740 model POH has takeoff performance charts for both "normal" and for "max performance" takeoffs. The 2900 model POH only shows numbers for "normal" takeoff performance. And there doesn't seem to be a reference to an adjustment factor for the later model. Is there a reason for this? Is there a generally-accepted adjustment among experienced Mooney pilots?

I located the most recent of the FAA Chief Counsel opinion letters in my iPad links. It's from 2011 and gives a pretty good review of the principles involved. http://tinyurl.com/42qamof

I absolutely agree with your comment about not needing a landing distance chart, although there may be circumstances, such as high density altitudes where that might be a consideration. I would like a copy of the excel file if I may. If it can't be posted, let me know how to get it. Btw, what model was this based on?

A commercial certificate does not make most of the issues go away. Flying someone in your airplane where they want to go but not where you we're going to go anyway for any form of compensation requires a commercial operators certificate (Part 135) as well as a commercial pilots certificate. I am away and don't have them on hand but there are numerous FAA Chief Counsel opinion letters that say so.

I'm curious - has anyone put together a simple spreadsheet or script based on the POH numbers for calculating takeoff performance via either simple inputs or even a chart rather than the graph in the POH? I've been thinking of experimenting with one but want to avoid re-inventing the wheel.

Ah yes! I see it now. Thank you.

I see the link in each forum to mark that forum as read. Is there a way to mark all forums as read without going to each one separately?

It's the act of authorship that creates the copyright, not the notice and not the recording of the material in the Copyright Office. The notice (in theory) prevents someone form claiming infringement was unintentional; the filing gains the author procedural benefits, but neither creates the copyright. How or whether the various companies that have produced Mooney aircraft chose to enforce their copyrights is another question. Other manufacturers have included the noticed and done the filing Here's the notice from the POH for a 1979 Cessna TR182. And a link to Cessna copyright filings with the US Copyright Office: Edit: the link times out so it can't be viewed directly; there appear to be about 160 filings.

That's one of the reasons for the crosswind takeoff technique of keeping the airplane on the ground (with proper deflection) until there is enough airspeed for a "brisk" departure from the ground.

The manuals are subject to copyright protection. The "author" (manufacturer) has the right to control distribution and publication, including authorizing others to do so. Whether a specific distribution or publication is illegal, I can't say.

With 35 kts and 300', you might have been able to land perpendicular to the centerline

I've always suspected that the demonstrated crosswind component was a balance between marketing and safety concerns. The manufacturer chooses what it wants to publish and finds the day that fits the bill. Thanks for the info on what you've experienced. Makes me feel more comfortable about the airplane.

Of course it's a direct crosswind component. I said "relatively" low. Generally, Cessna singles are 15, Pipers 17; Bonanzas 17 and I've flown in stronger crosswinds than that in all of them.

Mooney newbie: I was surprised to see the relatively low (11 kt) max demonstrated crosswind component in the M20J. I know it's not a limitation so I'm wondering what kind of crosswinds experienced members of this group have handled on a regular basis. Trying to get a handle on the "real" comfortable crosswind handling capability of the airplane. Thanks.

Have you tried wide-base travel mug? As I recall, the original concept was that it was for use on boats where the rocking wouldn't tip it over. I think I first came across one at a boat shop and picked it up for flying. If you haven't seen one, they look like this and generally have a non-skid rubbery base.

It's a strange Chief Counsel opinion. One piece of speculation I heard is that the amendment of 61.55 to require the instrument rating for a safety pilot was a mistake and it was more easy to correct it with a Chief Counsel opinion than with another amendment. I don't know if that's true or not but I wouldn't read anything more into the opinion than the bare bones of what it says: the SIC qualification rules of 61.55 don't apply to safety pilots. Doesn't mean anything in terms of safety pilot logging or the other qualifications to be one.

I'm often amazed how accurate Fltplan is on nailing the real en route time. Yep, for real trips, Fltplan for me for pre-flight planning. No reason not to use it and a tablet EFB.