mooniac15u

There's a little more room for the pilot in the M20J but it probably only matters for those well over 6'. In my M20D I didn't have even an inch to spare for my knees with the seat all the way back. In my M20J I can fly it one stop forward from the back. I'm 6'5".

It seems like power loss in any phase of flight except takeoff is highly survivable. They key is to have a plan. Make the critical decisions before you encounter the situation. Willingness to sacrifice the aircraft seems like a good key to survival.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that you are right and TIAS is TAS... If that's the case then all the other airspeeds in that chart are also TAS. So I take my hypothetical M20F out for a spin and decide to land at KFNL in Colorado with a field elevation of 5016' and its a hot day (80 deg F). I'm at pattern altitude (~6000') and I've slowed to my gear speed of 120 mph. But wait, I'm at 120 mph indicated and my limitation is 120 mph true. I do a quick calculation and find that I'm really doing 137 mph TAS. Uh oh! So another quick calclulation and I see that I need to slow to 105 mph IAS to put my gear down. Now I'm in the pattern at 105 mph and I'd like to put my flaps down. Can't do it yet because I'm still at 120 mph TAS. I have to slow to 88 mph in order to be below my 105mph TAS limitation. So, can we all agree that the gear and flap speeds are always IAS? Since they are labeled as TIAS in this table it is clear that TIAS is a form of IAS.

You can see how TIAS was used in the old CAR: http://www.navioneer.org/riprelay/Yet%20More%20Navion%20Files/car_part3.pdf Take a look at 3.757 to see how TIAS was used to describe Indicated Airspeed for markings on the ASI. Particularly the items that we all know to be IAS.

Just look at that table. All of those airspeeds are published as indicated in your POH and labeled as indicated on your ASI. TIAS is an outdated term that unfortunately sounds like TAS but you really can't just ignore the presence of the term "indicated". True just means actual. In TAS it is your actual airspeed and in TIAS it is your actual indicated airspeed. TIAS is effectively CAS. Since this term isn't really commonly used it is difficult to find a good definition. If you search around a bit online you see some good discussions about it such as this one: http://www.cessna120-140.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11247

TIAS is effectively CAS. CAS is specific to a particular airplane because it includes installation and instrument errors so it is not used to describe airspeeds in the TCDS. It is the airspeed that would be indicated if there were no measurement error.

Please show documentation that the Vne has been published as a TAS.

Flutter speed is TAS. Agreed. Vne would also be TAS if it were derived from flutter speed. It is not. Please provide a link to the portion of the certification process where flutter speed is used to establish Vne. Please provide the mathematical relationship between flutter speed and Vne.

TIAS is not TAS.

Not really. They have to demonstrate that the indicated airspeed limitations are safe across the flight envelope. They don't have to flight test for actual structural limitations. That would result in a lot of destroyed prototype airframes. I imagine they know the flutter speed from wind tunnel testing but that may not be anywhere near Vne. Flutter speed is what Kruger was pointing out as being a TAS.

That's just an ASI that has the ability to convert to TAS for a small section of the cruise speed. The Vne is in the IAS section above that. You may also note that there are four ASI options. Two with TAS and two without.

I didn't say it wasn't based on anything. I said it is not necessarily related to flutter. Even Krueger said it can be based on different things. What I said was that as a published limitation it is an IAS. As such it builds in a margin of error to compensate for the limits of the envelope. There is no requirement for the Vne of a given airframe to be anywhere near its actual aerodynamic limitations. If it isn't based on an aerodynamic limitation and both the FAA and the POH label it IAS then it is IAS. I agree that true aerodynamic limitations are TAS. It's just that there is no requirement that the Vne be near the limit.

CAS is just IAS corrected for installation and instrument errors.

If you need more evidence that Vne is not necessarily an aerodynamic issue (i.e. Not Flutter) take a look at this Mooney SB: http://www.mooney.com/wp-content/themes/mooney2014/force-download.php?file=http://www.mooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/sbm20-198.pdf Just modify the prop and Vne went up 25 mph.

Vne is IAS per the FARs. Aerodynamic flutter is related to the TAS. The two are not necessarily related. On a certificated aircraft the Vne is an arbitrary fixed value. If you believe that something bad happens aerodynamically to the M20J above the published Vne please tell me how the M20K and the Missile/Rocket conversions are able to operate above that airspeed with the same airframe. The bottom line is that Vne is a regulatory requirement not a speed at which something has necessarily been shown to fail. It is an IAS and it builds in a safety margin to account for the fact that their are bad aerodynamic effects related to certain TAS.

From the Krueger article: "Vne can be established based on a number of factors. One consideration is the speed at which the airframe design limit will not be exceeded when encountering a sharp edge vertical gust of 25 fps. Another is the maximum safe speed at which the airplane can be flown without encountering aerodynamic flutter. The RV-9A Vne was set based on flutter considerations. But in cruising flight, gust loads are the limiting factor. If an engine capable of producing 75% power speeds of over 180 mph is used, design strength could be exceeded."

That whole article is related to flutter speeds in experimental aircraft. In a certificated aircraft like our Mooneys there is no way to know what the flutter speed is. The Vne on our airspeed indicators is absolutely in IAS and is effectively a placarded limitation. In some certificated aircraft it may be related to flutter speeds and in others it may not. If you stay within the flight envelope defined by the certification limitations the indicated Vne will always keep you in a safe operating range. In some conditions (e.g. higher altitude) you will be closer to the edge of the envelope when you are near Vne. The problem here is that you are considering the Vne of a certificated aircraft to be based upon actual aerodynamic factors. That is not necessarily a good assumption. Vne in a certificated aircraft is a legal statement not a performance limitation. The fact that the M20F has a different Vne than the M20J is really the only evidence you need that Vne is not an actual aerodynamic limitation for our aircraft. Flutter speeds in these aircraft would be nearly identical since they are the same airframe.

Vne is definitely IAS. All markings on the airspeed indicator are required to be in IAS per the FARs: Sec. 23.1545 Airspeed indicator. (a) Each airspeed indicator must be marked as specified in paragraph (b ) of this section, with the marks located at the corresponding indicated airspeeds. (b ) The following markings must be made: (1) For the never-exceed speed VNE, a radial red line. The rules for calculating Vne are detailed in 23.1505 if you are interested.

I assume that those people on 121.5 who keep saying, "en garde" are getting ready for a duel.

The type of flying you do makes a big difference in terms of needs. If I need something from an FBO (e.g. rental car) I usually know many days ahead of time and I usually call ahead to arrange that. I don't send any trip info to my passengers because they are in the next room. The destinations where I usually fly don't have arrival procedures and I almost always get routed direct. More often than not I prefer to fly VFR so I don't even file a flight plan. I don't know what records they keep for fltplan.com but I still like to get a DUATS briefing and TFR check just as a CYA. I can see why you might put up with some of the UI issues since you seem to use a lot more of the tools. For me it doesn't offer enough value to make it worth the trouble. It is unlikely to become part of my SOP any time soon. Different tools for different needs.

Agreed! The custom checklists are a nice feature.

The clunkiness doesn't really go away. You just develop a level of familiarity that allows you to derive enough value in spite of the clunkiness. If I want to do a W&B calculation I have to navigate to the main page, login, click on tools, click on Weight & Balance, and then select my plane. That's 5 steps before I can start entering numbers. With a spreadsheet I just open it up and start entering. You posed the question: "Why not use the one in "Tools" at Fltplan.com?" At least one reason is that it isn't very user friendly. I agree, there is lots of good information there. I have had an account for a while now but I don't find myself using it much because of the interface.

The W&B tool is good but no real advantage over a good spreadsheet. In general the UI design on Fltplan.com is terrible. It is very clunky to use and the pages are cluttered with extraneous information.

You'd probably be surprised about what gets financed. High net worth is often tied up in other investments. Financing is as much about managing cash flow as purchasing beyond your means. I have enough assets to pay for my J but I still have it financed.

One other thing to consider is that an auction like this is for cash buyers. That's going to be a pretty limited group. A "regular" Acclaim buyer is likely to finance the purchase for 20 years and probably has a trade-in.