midlifeflyer

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.

I agree about the downwind, mikefox. I would move to that 14" setting clean just about the time of being given that final "three miles from ABCDE, fly heading..." final intercept vector. Thanks for the info. I hope to put it to use soon.

New member here. I plan to transition into a Mooney J next month and this thread was exactly what I was looking for. Other than the 1" difference in MP, mikefox and N4352H seemm to be talking the same language - a configuration that produces a comfortable approach configuration without flaps - a preference I have had since my initial instrument training and followed me through flying Bonanzas. Follow-up question: Like the two of you I live a vectoring speed of 120 but prefer to get to my precision approach speed before glideslope intercept. mikefox, using your numbers, if I reduce MP from 16" to 14" in level flight, will that produce the 100kts, leaving me to simply drop the gear and do nothing else to produce the ILS descent? Thank you. Edit: OK, where'd the avatar photo come from? It's definitely mine; have used it on other forums. It's the airport cat at Steamboat Springs sitting on the wing of the Comanche I used to fly. But I did not add it to this forum!