Austintatious

Supporter
  • Content Count

    528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

366 Excellent

About Austintatious

  • Rank
    Won't Leave!

Profile Information

  • Reg #
    N305RK
  • Model
    305 Rocket

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I was going to give him a little credit and say "that would make a great single-place airplane" but a drone is probably more appropriate. If Cirrus can do it with a larger fuse and carry more weight, then so could Mooney. May have to keep the aluminum wing or make it a bit smaller, but it could be done, especially with carbon fiber. I dont know why people keep saying "composites are heavier than aluminum"... this is just NOT true. (ok, fiberglass is but "composite" includes more than fiberglass, even S glass is superior by 40-70 percent to E glass) http://www.dexcraft.com/articles/carbon-fiber-composites/aluminium-vs-carbon-fiber-comparison-of-materials/ Here is an excerpt Remembering the weight limit of 10 kg, the design engineer may choose: Steel slab about 1.5 mm thick. Aluminium slab about 4 mm thick. Carbon fiber slab about 7 mm thick. Carbon fiber provides 2 essential benefits. Carbon fiber offers more stiffness (as described above) at lower density and consequently the product of the same weight may be thicker, that will result in stiffness improved by increased thickness alone. To put it simply, material thickness increased x 2 provides rigidity of 23 – so about 8 times more. This provides many opportunities with regard to weight reduction thanks to the use of carbon fiber.
  2. Hate to be debbie downer... But from what I understand, we pretty much KNOW the best combo of chemicals for storing/producing electricity. THe problem is, we cannot use just those chemicals because they are too unstable. And even if we COULD figure out how to do it, the increase in energy density would not be significan enough to make electric aircraft able to compete with dino fueled aircraft. Edit" I said chemicals... I meant elements.... So until we discover NEW naturally occurring elements, we are likely at 90% or better of the best battery density possible on earth.
  3. I see the thread is title "Ultimate mooney" That would be a pressurized long body Composite version with a 300+ HP turbo-diesel and 105 gallon tanks. I bet there is 10% more speed to be had with everything being perfectly smooth/faired and composite would allow that. You would have a 220 knot aircraft that could probably go 2000 miles and no O2 mask required.
  4. From what I understand, the bold is no longer the case. You may have a point with ESD... I would hope these things are shielded for that very reason. I mean there are a plethora of jets flying around on FADEC. You may also be correct about starting being the only major benefit, Especially in a TCed aircraft.
  5. 4 years have passed since that article... are we any closer to being allowed DUEL E mags?
  6. This is my plan... Although since my mags are probably a year or two away from needing it, I am hoping that they will begin to allow both mags to be replaced with the E mags. I really don't understand the logic in keeping 1 old school... I get the reason, that being "tried and true" but the thing is, they are NOT that tried and true. They are a very important device with a mechanical means of failure and a high wear rate. The whole POINT of having 2 is in case 1 fails. Is the FAA that scared that an E-mag might fail that they think 2 of them may fail at the SAME TIME? Crazy
  7. I recently did a trip from FTW to Savannah and back (fuel stops on the way back, fighting headwinds) We had plenty of time to play with different cruise settings at low altitudes while we stayed below the strong winds. What I found is that while I could increase speed and reduce flying time by quite a lot, The penalty for doing so in fuel burn was actually pretty low. I dont remember exactly, but I did decided to leave the power up and shave off the time because it was WELL worth it. Especially when you factor in the hourly maintenance cost of running the engine.
  8. Just an FYI... Turns out people smarter than me know about what I have been saying and even have a name for it... Carsons speed TIL https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2010/december/01/technique-cheap-speed http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/perfspds/perfspds.htm In short, take your best glide speed and multiply it time 1.316
  9. Good article. I was just mentioning in another thread how overall, what speed you climb at will not drastically change the fuel burn for the trip. Reason being that if you climb at a slower speed, you cover less ground and run the engine longer (thus burn fuel longer) which offsets the better climb rate. Point being that the difference between climbing at Vy vs a higher "cruise climb speed" makes vary little difference in total energy for the trip (it does make a difference but not a massive one) This is similar to what this guy points out with Vx vs Vy. there is a difference, but not a massive one. I would however point out that even this small difference becomes important, especially in the FAA's eyes when it comes to instrument flying, as they allow/require SHOCKINGLY small margins for obstacle clearance. IIRC about 35 feet per NM. That is insane and any of us only clearing an obstacle by that much would cause soiled britches. THe point being that when you look at what the FAA requires, the small difference between climbing at Vx vs Vy can literally mean the difference between meeting that small margin or not.
  10. Coincidentally, I own a glider and am quite familiar with the things you mention. And yes, we do factor those things and more into what we do when racing. In glider racing every last bit of energy management and min /maxing is important. That being said, races are won by VERY VERY small margins because those things do not make MASSIVE differences. They make "very very very small" differences that add up to "small" differences over TIME and repetition. In fact, for them even to matter you have to do all the BASIC stuff correct. You can undo all th eprogress you made by simply losing 1 thermal (out of a hundred you may work on a course) Which brings me back to the point I was trying to make Moonster. That being he will likely not see a drastic change in fuel burn for the trip (he was stating he had higher fuel burns than expected) by trying to nail POH climb speed. Also, the price for any decrease in overall fuel burn will be longer trip times. Which, as it happens, is part of the reason the overall trip burn will not be significantly less. While climbing at 120ias results in a slow climb rate, it results in a faster ground speed for the duration of the climb and less time in flight overall. If he reduces his climb speed to say 90 knots, he will be 30 knots slower for the duration of the climb, and thus have more time in cruise burning fuel for that leg. in short (too late I know), his best course of action is to learn to lean in the climb, find a speed that keeps the engine nice and cool and let her rip. I think all of us probably bun more gas than we expected to or than what one or more performance programs have told us... Heck, we even have to set up a Fuel bias in our Arinc performance section for the Gulfstream... and that is some serious software based on very detailed manufacturer spaghetti charts for an aircraft that carries 43,000 lbs of fuel. Even then it is not correct and has to have a bias put in with experience to get it closer to reality. It is typically less than a + or - 3 %... but with the weights and distances we are talking that is a BIG error.
  11. Good advice above... What I want to add is that climbing at VY (even adjusted for altitude) is not always your best bet for fuel economy. Winds can have an effect. For instance, if you were climbing into the wind, doing a faster climb will to better.. In a tailwind, VX (adjusted for altitude) will be better. as an example, imagine you look up your Vy and it is 90 knots. You decide to fly 90 knots and adjust for altitude. You start your climb into a 90 knot wind. You would start out at 0 ground speed and as you climbed and reduced that speed to maintain a corrected Vy, you would begin going backwards and would do so at an increasing rate for the entire climb. this would obviously be a silly way to get where you are going and would take much much longer than going faster, giving up climb rate and penetrating the wind. I doubt you will find a large improvement in overall trip fuel burn by changing your climb to a set standard no matter the conditions.. However if you adjust for conditions will will probably see an improvement.
  12. I would say you should be very honest with yourself when it comes to what you are capable of flying safely. I love a 231... I have two that have the rocket mods. What you are getting into with a 231 is a lot more than just engine management and complex (retractable gear, speed brakes, cowl flaps, higher speeds, more critical to be on speed for landing) when stepping up from a 152/172. You are also getting into an aircraft that greatly benefits from going high, so you will want to take advantage of that. This means you will encounter very different challenges than in a NA aircraft flying at 8-12 k feet. You will need to learn about and use oxygen and all the stuff that goes with it... Do you know your Hypoxia symptoms? Will you be able to fly and assist a passenger that is having O2 issues? Will you use an Oximeter during the flight to keep track of your blood O2 and also be willing and able to have and use a Monoxide detector and check it regularly in flight as you will be running the heater a lot. Icing conditions are more likely to be encountered as you will be operating in and through more altitudes. Are you comfortable going into the flight levels? Are you disciplined enough to let the engine idle for 5 min after landing to cool the turbo? Just because you can get over terrain does not automatically make the flight safe... You can get yourself into trouble crossing mountain with no OUT if that motor malfunctions. I am in no way trying to discourage you. These planes are not difficult to fly, however going from a 152/172 to a 231 is the difference from making cereal in the morning to making a 5 course steak dinner with creme brule. Neither are HARD, but you have to have your attention on a LOT more things at the same time when making the dinner. I obviously don't know you or your ability... but just from what I have read, I think a 231 would be biting off a LOT all at the same time. It may be a good idea to consider a normally aspirated model for a while. Going to even a C model will be a step up in speed and efficiency and give you an opportunity to become comfortable with that speed and slickness, retracts, low wing, constant speed prop, higher altitudes than you probably go in the 152/172 and the air frame in general. Then, once you are comfortable with that, adding in the things I mentioned about a 231 will be easy. You could probably get one for 35-50k and sell it for roughly the same in a few years when you trade up. Conversely, if you have already decided a 231 is what you want (i know how it goes ), you can always LIMIT yourself to eliminate some of the concerns. Fly lower and slower until you begin to feel comfortable. It will just take a lot of discipline to do so. When you have that turbo and can go to FL240 and do 200 knots, you will want to! Edit: Just an FYI... I fly a G650 for a living. My Rocket is much more challenging overall to fly. I have to pay attention to a LOT more things than I do in the 650. And I even have an FO in the 650!
  13. Lots of great suggestions in this thread.... I do not disagree with any of them. What I would add is, if you are making a visual approach to a runway without a VASI/Papi... Just fly A VISUAL and don't worry about nailing a 3 degree slope. Just try to fly a steady descent to the runway and look for obstacles. Also, I don't typically fly 3 degrees on a visual, typically 4 or 5, which gives me confidence I can make the runway if the motor stops. There is no need to put myself down on such a flat descent in visual conditions. There are also plenty of instrument approaches that are more than 3 degrees. There is an ILS on the other side of the pond that is a 6 degree angl90190120
  14. man that is awful.... You just cant document enough stuff now a days... Always some pro ready to take your money and screw you over.