Bob - S50

When my wife and I fly together, she usually prefers to sit in the back seat because she says she can see better. She's only 5'2" and even with a 4" cushion to sit on she can't see a lot over the nose. From the back seat in our J she can see quite a bit more. Being back there she can also spread out a bit more. And it helps move the CG aft which helps with more speed.

Ya, but. We LIFT the handle to adjust the seat. Positive G's will only help to keep the handle down in its proper place. We would need to pull negative G's for it to unlatch the seat and I doubt that's going to happen unless we get into turbulence bordering on severe.

Brilliant! Might do that myself after talking to my partners.

So what you really meant to say in your original post is that your fuel flows are all higher than book values. Are you also saying you run full rich if your book settings say you are above 70%? Does that include the climb? Seems like an unnecessary waste of fuel to me. Here are some thoughts: You say you are running 100 ROP but haven't told us how you find peak. If I assume you are leaning until the first cylinder peaks, that is the correct thing to do for ROP. However, unless fuel distribution is perfect, the other cylinders might still be 10, 20, 50 or more ROP. When you then richen to make that first cylinder 100 ROP, the others might be 150 ROP or maybe even worse. The extra fuel flow on those cylinders might be what is causing your fuel flows to be higher than expected. Since you don't have a FF gauge and are just computing FF based on fuel burned and time flown, that isn't accurate. At SL, FF should be about 18 GPH. It should drop about .5 GPH for every 1000' you climb, IF you lean while you climb. But it sounds like you don't do that. That means that as you climb you continue to burn 18 GPH all the way to level off. And because the mixture is too rich, your rate of climb suffers (among other evils), which increases the amount of time you spend burning gas at that high rate. Your climb speed will also affect time to level off. If we assume an average of 500 fpm climb on the way to 10,000', that's 20 minutes burning 18 GPH. That's 6 gallons just to get to altitude. If you had been level at altitude to begin with (no need to climb), you would have probably burned less than 4 gallons. That's a 2 gallon difference. Divide that by a 2 hour flight and it skews your average burn up by 1 GPH, making 11.5 seem like 12.5. I lean to a target EGT in the climb and cruise LOP around 9+/- LOP depending on altitude. However, on a 300 mile flight at 10,000' that takes me 2 hours, my total burn would be about 21 gallons. That's .5 gallons for STTO, an extra 2.5 gallons to get to altitude vs cruising at altitude, and about 18 gallons at cruise. Divide 21 by 2 and I get 10.5 GPH vs the reality of 9.0 that I'm burning.

Yes. 100 ROP. It also depends on how you are finding peak EGT and how balanced your fuel distribution is. Of course the actual flow rate will depend on what power setting you are using. 75%? 65.8%? 82%? What MP and RPM?

Not going to make it a PM, but here's one for you (sorry, this will be long winded). A combination blade VOR antenna and AOA gauge. We've learned that whisker VOR antennas are less drag than blade antennas because the blade is only streamlined at one specific AOA. Any speed that does not result in that AOA will cause the blades to create lift and induced drag. If you could mount those blade antennas on a pivot, they could rotate about the pivot and always be aligned with the relative wind. That would virtually eliminate the induced drag. You could then also use the amount of pivot, just like a mechanical AOA vane, to determine the AOA. I would suggest having each owner calibrate the indication system for their airplane. If you do that, I'd try and find a way to allow for indications Vso, 1.3 Vso, Vy, and maybe Va.

That's correct. Just like a victor route, you have to start by navigating to a fix that is on your desired T route. You can then tell your GPS to load that T route starting at that point. It will then require that you also pick an exit point.

On the GTN650, when I'm in the flight plan and I touch a waypoint, I can then touch 'load airway'. I suspect you can too. When I do that, ALL airways that pass through that fix are listed in alphabetical order. All J routes, then Q routes, then T routes, then V routes. I can think of two things that might cause the problem. 1. Did you scroll up and down the list of routes? 2. Maybe it LOOKS like a T route has that fix but it isn't really part of the airway. For example, just north east of Portland Oregon there is an intersection named AXQOX. It LOOKS like it's on both T276 and V468 but it isn't. It is not part of T276 so I could not file V468 to AXQOX and then load T276 from there. The GPS will not offer T276 at AXQOX. What was the name of the fix at which you were hoping to jump on a T route?

Love it. Long body pilots seem to have a few more installation issues than mid-bodies. Love VNAV but still learning some quirks about it. When using IAS for climbs, it will porpoise a bit if I change the desired speed too quickly but does great once it's dialed in. Flies rock solid.

I think it was on Beechtalk, but it sold.

Congrats. Don't worry, you can still be anxious. Now instead of worrying about the cloud bases, you can worry about the freezing level and icing. I think you misunderstood gsxrpilot's comment about minimums. I don't think he was suggesting that you be able to write your personal minimums on the plate. I think he was saying your goal should be to eventually be comfortable with flying an approach to minimums. There is more than one type of minimums for approaches. Takeoff minimums. Zero zero? One mile? 300 & 1? Approach minimums at some near by airport in case something goes wrong right after takeoff? Mine are 1 mile visibility (I can see the power lines off the end of the runway) and an airport reasonably close with weather above minimums. Go no go minimums. Minimum weather at your destination at departure time. Current weather below minimums but forecast to be above minimums at arrival? Current and forecast above minimums? Something better? Mine are current and forecast 200 & 1/2 above minimums. Actual approach minimums. How low will you go before going missed approach? Mine are published minimums. Of course having an autopilot that can fly the approach while I look for the runway helps. Let me give it a try anyway minimums. There are times when the weather sounds like you won't get in but it turns out you see the runway before minimums anyway. Depending on the approach I'd probably give it one try with reported weather 100 or 200 below minimums and/or vis 1/2 of required vis. Alternate minimums. How far away? Happy with 600 & 2 or 800 & 2? I want my alternate to be almost a sure thing. I'm thinking more like 1000 & 3 at an airport with an ILS or LPV. Along with great power comes great responsibility. Enjoy your new rating.

AC91-75 let's you do one of two things: Keep your AI and replace your TC with and AI as long as they have separate power sources. The FAA considers a backup battery that is part of the unit (G5 or GI275) to be a separate source. Or keep your TC and replace your vacuum powered AI with a battery backed up electric AI. Garmin apparently has an STC for their GI275 that's allows it to replace the entire 6 pack, including the TC if you have a dual GI275 with one set to back up the other.

I'm not a CFI (thank God) but I did instruct in the Air Force. While we used to say that anyone could learn to fly, I'm of the opinion that some people should take the hint and give up. I don't know where the line should be drawn, but the Air Force only allowed a specified number of hours or missions to learn the tasks being taught. If you couldn't learn it within that time frame you washed out. Maybe the civilian world should set up something similar but I don't know what that would be. Can't solo within 30 (or 40 or 50) hours? Can't get that PPL within 75 (or 100 or..)? Some limit on how long we will let someone try to learn. Maybe an extension in allowed hours for an extensive break in training. If they can't learn within the time limit then they are done. We aren't doing anybody, including the student, any favors by allowing them to continue when they really have no business being turned loose on the world.

I was looking for the bracket and rubber piece about a month ago and found them at this MSC: 11 - D.L.K. Aviation Address 2601 Cessna Lane Kennesaw, GEORGIA 30144 United States Phone: 770.427.4954 Fax: 770.428.6180 Website: dlkaviation.com

About 660 lbs.

Before going to an airport with a high density altitude and steep IFR climb gradient I would see if I could meet the requirement at Vy but plan on 10% lower climb rate than book. If I could not meet the requirement I would do one of two things: 1. Look at the terrain and see if I could get out of there VFR with see and avoid. If so I would only depart VFR. 2. Drive.

Many years ago when I was flying the DC9, I decided that I never wanted to climb at the 'book' speed which was essentially Vy in order to get best rate of climb. Here was my reasoning. Vy occurs at a specific speed that is at the top of the excess thrust curve. That would be great IF I can stay exactly at that point. I can't because I'm not perfect and winds change as I change altitude. If I happen to be at the exact point and either due to inattention or a change in wind causes me to get below Vy, I now have more drag and I'm in that region where decreasing speed increases drag and increasing speed decreases drag. I have to lower my nose to accelerate back up to Vy. My climb rate suffers. If I plan to climb at a speed just a little bit faster than Vy (I used 10 knots in the DC9), since the curve is pretty flat at that point, my rate of climb will be almost as good as it would be at Vy. Now if I have a moment of inattention or there is a wind change that causes me to lose a few knots, I have actually reduced my drag (rather than increased it) and the plane will accelerate back up to speed on it's own (assuming I had it trimmed properly). My rate of climb will not suffer due to the speed loss.

Speed vs Altitude LOP vs ROP Trottle or Elevator for speed control Throttle or Elevator for altitude control All debates that will never be settled.

I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure the VNAV calculations come from the GPS. The GFC just uses that guidance to fly it for us. If your GPS does not have a VNAV option, then I'd say he's (or she's) right.

Since you are talking about speed, while it may not strictly apply to our Mooney aircraft, in the F15 (and other fighters) we had two sayings about speed: 1. Speed is life. Speed gives you options, and in the fighter it also reduces exposure time to someone trying to shoot you. 2. The faster you go, the faster you go faster. At any speed below Vy we are in a part of the drag curve where an increase in speed actually reduces drag. Also, as speed increases (to a point) the prop becomes more efficient and helps offset the increase in drag. At a speed just above the speed that takes 100% power, acceleration to climb speed will be very slow. As the speed increases, the drag decreases and the acceleration increases. That high speed reduces drag even more meaning you can accelerate even quicker, etc., up to some reasonable speed above Vy. I'd like to think (but can't prove) that that speed is around 100 to 120 KIAS in my J. In the 727 I once flew (wrenched) with a captain who always wanted to climb at a slow speed to maximize altitude gain. We tried to convince him to fly a bit faster. No use. His answer was, "if an engine quits you'll need the altitude to get the airspeed you need." He just didn't get that if he climbed out just a bit faster he would already have that speed and wouldn't have to put the plane in a nose low attitude to get the speed back.

You might consider retracting the flaps based on speed rather than altitude. I use 80 KIAS in our J. At that speed in a very shallow climb, the lift from increasing speed just about perfectly offsets the loss of lift from flap retraction. Your results may vary.

The 400' has to do with obstacle clearance for IFR departures. Here's a quote from the AIM 5-2-9-e.1: "Unless specified otherwise, required obstacle clearance for all departures, including diverse, is based on the pilot crossing the departure end of the runway at least 35 feet above the departure end of runway elevation, climbing to 400 feet above the departure end of runway elevation before making the initial turn, and maintaining a minimum climb gradient of 200 feet per nautical mile (FPNM), unless required to level off by a crossing restriction, until the minimum IFR altitude." Except for a very short runway (which probably doesn't have a SID or ODP) I think every Mooney on here could easily be at 35' AGL by the end of the runway. Even at 120 K GS, 200'/NM is only 400 FPM which I also think we can all do except at pretty high density altitudes. Fly at Vy which is closer to 90 and we only need 300 FPM rate of climb. And the difference in speed between Vx and Vy is less than 20 knots so we are talking a savings in climb rate of less than 50 FPM by flying at Vx. However, flying at Vy may allow us to maintain a rate of climb more than 50 FPM greater than we could do at Vx. Since it appears we can easily comply with the standard climb gradient even at Vy, the extra speed will make an engine failure a little less dangerous than one flown at Vx. However, some departures specify steeper climb gradients. My opinion would be that if we can't meet that gradient at Vy, maybe we should wait for a VFR day. When VFR, we are see and avoid so the 400' restriction does not apply.

Although, once it's on fire it belongs to the insurance company. All I care about is that nobody is injured.

On the other hand, an inflight fire will definitely kill me and be very painful. I'll take it might damage my plane and possibly my lungs over death by fire. And while I don't believe everything I read/see on the internet they also say that you can have a confined space as small as 1.5 cubic meters and still breathe. Assuming the cabin is 42" wide and 30" high, that's roughly the size of our cabin.

Same is true with my airport, S50, Auburn Washington.