Chris K

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Chris K

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Model

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I just went through the TCDS as well and what is published there does not match the AFM for my first Mooney which was a '77 J model, serial number 24-0306. The AFM indicates both the Vfe limitation and normal operations for full flaps as 115 KIAS. For a moment I thought maybe due to differences of KCAS vs. KIAS on that specific J, however looking at the TCDS, it refers only to IAS, not CAS. Only thing I could think of that differed with the early J's vs. later J's was that mine had the fully variable flap switch (not sure if motor was different as well). Somewhere I once heard that documentation standards during the busy GA boom from the 50's through early 80's was not what it is today, especially since the advent of electronic word processing makes updating and tracking changes easier. That could possibly explain some minor variations and difficulty of keeping AFM and TCDS consistent/updated, however that higher published partial flap extension in the TCDS is unique for the 3000-3078 series of J's. Why would Mooney publish for those particular aircraft and not others? Surely if the V model is now limited to 110 KIAS for all flap settings and if Mooney intended to limit partial flap extension for older models as well, are they not obligated to publish AFM revisions for the applicable models?
  2. Skip - this is a great conversation and really appreciate the brainstorming here to find an answer that is not obvious. I definitely agree that doing something just because an AFM / POH does not expressly say you can't could potentially be unsafe. Further, sage advice is that if you do something outside of what the AFM / POH states the aircraft is certified to perform, not only could you possibly bust Regs. but you are also acting as your own test pilot and risk not only your own life but others as well. That being said, for my S model specifically, the approach checklist expressly states gear down below 140 KIAS followed by Flaps set to T/O. I've spent some years as a technical writer and if it was not Mooney's intent for pilots to follow along and set Flaps to T/O after gear is down, then that is a huge blunder on the part of Mooney and the FAA that approved the AFM. As I noted above, I called Mooney directly to ensure that the AFM for my serial number has not been revised to which they affirmatively stated that my AFM is current. For us owners that are not privy to the flight tests that Mooney may have completed for partial Flap use, what speed is safe is a very good question. As you noted in your prior post, it appears that Mooney is not obligated to publish limitations for partial flap extension for type certification, yet the AFM / POH for my model states partial below 140 KIAS is a normal procedure. Since we don't know unless someone privy to Mooney's test flights could chime in here, seemingly good advice is to use caution if you choose to operate in that range. Personally, though 139 KIAS is inferred to be a safe and normal operation according to the AFM, I set my personal limit to 1) Not do it often (certain instrument approach only); 2) Limit to smooth air only; 3) Limit to no abrupt maneuvers (no g loading as per full flap load limits); and 4) Max 120 KIAS. As others also noted, the parts on our planes do wear and are costly to replace and maintain, therefore operating moving parts at higher loads should factor into your decision making - just because the AFM says we could fly in an emergency with speed brakes and landing gear extended at the top of the yellow arc does not mean you should do it routinely. Obviously if we are to receive information that the AFM as published and approved for this specific model was an error regarding the normal procedures then that would be very welcome information.
  3. Look in the POH - Section IV, Normal Procedures, Approach for Landing - Landing Gear extend below 140 KIAS....followed shortly afterwards by Wing Flaps - T/O Position; Full Down once airspeed below 110 KIAS. Every pilot should know primary purpose of flaps are not to slow the airplane down - It is a question on the FAA Airman Knowledge Test: One of the main functions of flaps during approach and landing is to A) decrease the angle of descent without increasing the airspeed. permit a touchdown at a higher indicated airspeed. C) increase the angle of descent without increasing the airspeed Correct answer is C. PS - not sure why the emoji is appearing up there maybe a moderator can help??? when I hit enter it is "B)"
  4. That is a pretty good explanation - much appreciated. Kind of the same point I was trying to make - you can use partial above the maximum flap Vfe limitation, however you must fully understand and be cognizant of the added risk and adjust your flying accordingly while in that configuration and above Vfe. For me, I do not use that configuration to slow down per se, instead the partial extension helps to keep your descent on the glide path especially when ATC requests that you keep your speed up which is not uncommon at airports with busy jet traffic. Though it's your perogative to tell ATC "unable", there are occasions that we can accept that request - for me personally I tell them 120 KIAS is my limit in smooth air. The partial extension also helps with visibility over the tall panel. Though I have speed brakes, I reserve their use for quick descents from cruise flight, not for the purpose of flying a stabilized approach - I rarely if ever see the pros flying with spoilers out once they are on the final approach course.
  5. I'm reopening this thread because I was looking for the same answer about partial flap operational limits. The answer is in the POH however it is not specified as clearly as you may expect, therefore you really need to read carefully. For my S model (air frame identical to legacy Ovation models): 1) Section II, Limitations - Vfe specifies "maximum" flap extended speed is 110 KIAS. It does not specify that partial flap extended speed is a limitation placed on the aircraft. When I called Mooney a few months ago with an unrelated question, they stated my POH for my serial number aircraft is complete and no changes need to be added. 2) Section IV, Normal Procedures - Approach for Landing - Landing Gear extend below 140 KIAS....followed shortly afterwards by Wing Flaps - T/O Position, and in parentheses (Full Down below 110 KIAS). Before you conclude the POH sections above mean 139 KIAS is therefore the maximum safe operating speed for flaps in the T/O position for the R and S models, I want to share some more food for thought: 1) As someone above noted, most J models set to partial flaps (about 15/16 degrees depending on your flap switch) specify a higher limitation than for full flaps. My J model POH was odd in that it further specified max speed with full flaps and max speed for operating flaps separately (max speed to operate was 115 KIAS - my personal takeaway is that this could occur while retracting from Vfe of 110 KIAS). 2) R/S model T/O flaps are 10 degrees (vs. 15 for medium length models) - deducing there are a few likely reasons for this design change and I'm not claiming expertise here, but weight and length of the long body models seem obvious reasons. 3) The POH specifies a much lower negative and positive max. load factor for full flaps, but none for partial flaps, however since the flaps are only attached by hinged points, definitely not the strongest part of the wing, designed to help go downhill for approaches, and because of the airspeed and load factor limitations, it would be prudent to use the published full flap load factor limitation when using partial flaps. Therefore I recommend extra caution if you choose to operate using partial flaps (T/O setting) in excess of 110 KIAS and below 139 KIAS. For these reasons, I personally would not ever toy with the idea of operating above 130KIAS since turbulence could happen any time, especially if you are flying approaches at busy airports in IMC. Thus as listed above, I have found that when flying approaches, it has been helpful to use flaps in the T/O setting on my S model for instrument approaches up to about the 120 KIAS range if there is no turbulence and maneuvering is limited to ones that do not exceed load factor limitations. I'll see if my mechanic finds any unusual wear on my plane due to this use - on my J model he never did find an issue and I routinely flew approaches with Flaps set to T/O up to 125 KIAS. If anyone does find something published that otherwise specifically places a limitation on the partial flap on the R/S model, please do let us know. In the meantime - safe flying to all.
  6. Good point to double check, though seems ridiculous that whomever mounted would have skipped that step. Would my regular mechanic be able to perform this or must it be removed and sent to a prop shop?
  7. My engine does not move as much as the demo video for the new airplanes, probably different style mounts. My compass is fine in flight.
  8. Thanks - I have GAMIs and prop is relatively new which is why I'm looking at the mounts.
  9. Don't mean to bring up an old thread but it is a very good and useful post. Just wondering if the new mounts helped reduce any vibrations or otherwise helped make for a smoother flight? I'm planning to check my mounts soon since they appear to be originals - though not much sagging, there is a bit of play. My mechanic mentioned sag is common but usually don't want to change unless a mount is actually "bad". Guessing he'll be doing the same test you mention above. If the engine also ran smoother after the change, would be a no brainer for me since I do seem to get a bit of vibration compared to other IO-550s I've flown.
  10. Here are some shots from yesterday's flight. Could not get above 5,500 on the short flight but these 3 settings were flowing between 13.9 and 14.8 GPH. Was flying through some light chop, so the IAS on the Dynon was off a couple knots from my ASI (the TAS reading was not quite set correctly either - ignore the faulty #3 cylinder reading as well). This was good for mid to high 170's KTAS down low depending on whether you look at the Dynon or the ASI. Higher altitude should be 180+ KTAS which is better than POH book values. This was with the 2 blade McCauley prop. I'm finding that burning more than 14 GPH seems to only gain a knot or two per extra gallon of fuel burned and unless saving a minute of time counts, not worth burning that much fuel.
  11. Subscribing to this thread since I also own a 2000. Interested in what is found to be the issue.
  12. The MP reported above was indeed incorrect due to the inaccurate MP gauge. My MP gauge has since been adjusted and I will post corrected numbers once well away from Bravo airspace...
  13. Follow up - I was indeed able to adjust the Mortiz Manifold Pressure Gauge as described above. Took about 3 full turns out to about the limit of adjustment but was able to get the pressure to read within a 0.1" of the actual pressure. It also reads correctly on takeoff as well, thus the Moritz guages have survived for now in my airplane.
  14. 200 mph at 15.5 with a NA plane is quite nice. I've flown a 252 that can match that speed at 15.5 but burned more fuel. Too bad Mooney still does not build a stripped down version of the Ovation.
  15. What do you typically see for IAS at 15k?