GeeBee

Power to weight merely expresses the delivered horsepower but not the thrust. We got into this with PA18's and different propeller STC's. The amount of hp converted into thrust can vary markedly with a given propeller. All these examples have the same power, 180hp on the same airplane. Yet they have markedly different thrust ratings. https://www.propilotsinc.com/questions-answers/#faq-2

The effects of runway slope cannot be easily canned because the net effect is dependent upon acceleration and that is a factor of thrust. The number is somewhere between 2 and 4 per 1 % of slope.Thus thrust to weight ratio becomes relevant. Very high thrust aircraft will be less affected than low thrust aircraft. Obviously this means, turbo vs non-turbo etc. and even an inch off the prop blade can have an effect. In order to get a really accurate number you really have to flight test to get an acceleration factor unless you can get a net thrust number of the particular power plant and propeller combination. My source is Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. If you don't have a copy I suggest it, which is in print and Axioms of Flight, which is out of print but often available on Amazon. All that said, PT20J's suggestion of the 70/50 rule is very sound advice.

So is the map states you have landed in or states you have landed in with your Mooney?

Very sound advice. Here is the thing about engines. It does not matter if it has 50 SMOH or 5000. When you buy a used airplane, be prepared to drop an engine in it unless it is a fresh factory reman or new and has a warranty. I've seen some very low time engines be POS because of corrosion, poor overhaul, poor break in etc. I've seen some high timers run and run. Sure you inspect, compression check, oil analysis, borescope but the reality is you don't know until you run it for a while. There is a C-182 on my field that was purchased with 100 SMOH. After another 50 hours it shook like a wet dog and you couldn't fly it without the cowl flaps fully open. Case bolts were coming loose. The owner threw in the towel and sent it out for overhaul. Bad hardware, questionable torque work etc. and this was by a well known and supposedly reputable shop. As far as avionics, paint and upholstery go, you got two choices, what can you live with or what you want and when. Then budget accordingly. Bottom line to a used airplane. Make sure it has good "bones" i.e. no corrosion or bends, be in a position to drop in an engine and if you don't consider yourself lucky, budget for everything else now or in the future. Price accordingly. The price you come up with may not buy that airplane.

We have a winner! And the Vso of a Ovation or Acclaim is 59, so add another 5 to the problem.

Actually I was misled three times. First on their website where they say "2 or 3 weeks" lead time. Second, after one month on August 7 when I called. Next on August 13 when I called again and told it was going to ship that day. It shipped finally, two days later. I don't mind bad news, just tell me the truth so I can make intelligent decisions. I think hypertech has the right idea. Order through Spruce.

Think about this. You are at KTRK zero wind or maybe pick a little tail wind say two knots, what is your ground speed? 66 if you touch down precisely, precisely at Vso. If not it is higher. So you're hydroplaning for a while.

I cannot speak to Mooneys, but I had a set of VGs on my PA-18 SuperCub. Compared to a non VG PA-18 the airplane was a monster. It would not stall power off. Slow flight you could zero the airspeed indicator (a lot of guys install helicopter airspeed indicators). I could go full flaps, level MCA and accelerate it a little bit to get it to stall. When it did stall, I could hold it in the stall and have full aileron control to the stops. Because of the aileron control, and the tail strake, the airplane could not be spun. I worked hard, and tried every trick in the book, power burst etc and it would never spin. On take off, I just got the tail up and pulled, it flew. On the top end it was no slower than a regular PA-18 but then again you are talking USA 35B airfoil with a top end of 85 knots. I can personally attest to slower stall speeds and better handling at low speeds because the energy over the ailerons is amazing. That is the reason why it "feels" solid in a Mooney is the energy over the ailerons. Does it make the airplane slow on the top end? Answer is it depends, both on the wing and the VG. When the FAA made Bill Lear put them on the original Lear Jet it slowed the airplane 10 knots. Lear was so mad he went out to the prototype with a hammer and knocked them all off, then flew the airplane. The FAA was unimpressed and required them anyway. I would guess on a Mooney it might make a very slight difference on the top end, but not a lot. Drag rise is not that much compared to a jet.

fr8Dog62. You're close we will have to meet up for lunch. at 57Alpha at KFQD! It is a hoot!

The crash was not a Mooney either. However the question was about overshoots, running off the runway. Can happen a lot of ways. The hydroplaning speed of a Mooney is about 63 knots which means you have a distinct chance you are hydroplaning on touchdown even in a Mooney.

Yep damp will freeze over very fast vs wet because of the latent heat of water. And you pointed to two problems we in GA face and that is poor condition reports and the lack of grooved runways. I am sure Jes gave you the correct report, but not the current report and I never understood why with all the automated weather equipment, ASOS and such we have that it did not include a runway temp reading. If that damp runway had been grooved it also would have been much better for you, slower to freeze over, better cornering forces on the tires, better friction coefficient.

One of the things I used to emphasize when teaching in jets is touching down on the mark, and getting the speed broke down to 80 knots quickly. It is essential in all operations and especially short or wet. That said, I can tell you that you can do everything right and still come to grief. I have landed on wet runways and had all main wheels go to "release" on the anti-skid because the hydroplaning was so severe it detected "locked wheel" condition. No matter how hard you press on the brake pedals, no matter what setting you have on the auto brakes, the airplane is not going to stop under those circumstances. Your only hope is the thrust reversers get the speed broken down fast enough your tires penetrate the viscous surface since hydroplaning speed is the square root of the tire pressure times 9. I was checking out a new guy once into Chicago Midway. He did a prefect landing, actually touched down 25' before the mark nice and firm which is what you want to break the viscous layer. We had the exact landing distance calculated for the runway by our dispatch, at our exact current weight and it was based on wet numbers which provided another 15% margin, so all in all we had a 30% margin. On touch down with "Maximum" auto brakes set, every wheel went into "release". I had the "kid" go full reverse thrust while I raised up and wedged myself between the seat back and the brakes with grunting and cursing. We stopped with about 50' to spare.

Thanks for the tip. I will go over and lurk on the BT site. As far as the link goes, that is a data base issue, not a hardware issue and if you notice it affects not just G1000, but GNS and GTN units as well. Data base issues are common and usually fixed quickly because it is a coding issue, not a hardware problem. Happens to the big boys too. \

Restricted Forum but that said, the reason why it is not in the data base can be a lot of things. The Jeppesen data base seems to have more than the FliteCharts. Why? I don't know.

If you don't have a glide path angle defined in the data base, you shoot a standard LNAV approach and you fly it like any other non precision approach.

If they don't have them in stock, I just wrote a big check for nothing and a box of rocks from Garmin just arrived at the shop. No, I am comparing a WAAS LPV approach to an LNAV approach. As I said, it is usually only a 100 or 200 feet and the times that will make a difference is rare in occasional use. As I said, everyone's situation is different. Your situation may require WAAS. How often is your airport below LNAV minimums? I will tell you this, I know of several airlines taking delivery of brand new wide bodies, with WAAS equipped FMS and their operations specifications do not include LPV approaches? Why? Not worth the money to train and certify. Their calculation is LNAV minimums are good enough. Now you can say yeah but they go to ILS airports and you would be correct. Except they take the time and money to train and certify for CATIII ILS approaches. Now the number of times I have shot an actual CATIII (that is the wx was severe enough to require it) in a 40 year career is maybe 20? I've seen a lot of CAT II or CAT I to minimums but real CATIII is rare. For the last 15 I was flying into London, Amsterdam, Stockholm etc. The airlines do a very tight business case for everything they do and it does not take a lot of diverts to sell an approach and still LPV is a hard sell.

I am one month and one week after the order date.

First of all, with regard to non-WAAS G1000, Garmin did not say they had no more GIA-63W units. They said they would not make them anymore. They are in stock. The upgrade kit is in stock at Garmin. I just bought one this month. Second with regard to the NXi upgrade, I think it will happen, but it will be a while. If you look at Garmin's project list, they are going from King Air down. The first SE they are doing is the PA-46. I suspect Mooney will be one of the last. Starting with the higher priced machines makes sense. I suspect it will be long enough that a WAAS upgrade to a legacy G1000 is worthwhile. If you don't upgrade to WAAS however it is not a big deal. Yeah you can't do an LPV approach. Look at the approach charts for most GPS approaches. The difference between an LNAV and an LPV in most, not all, but most is 100'. How often has that made a difference to you? I suspect unless you are in a scheduled operation, rarely. I can even show you an approach where the LNAV minimum is lower than the LPV (KMTN RWY 33). Second restriction is not be able to file to a GPS destination AND alternate. Again, how often does that raise its ugly head? Depends on your home base. Me, a little more but not a lot. My issue is the way my home airport is laid out, people hit the GS antenna a lot so you have to the LPV to get really low. As to the Bravo, like the machine but it is different, requires a thorough understanding of its operation and it is a tad thirsty which is why I opted for a normally aspirated Continental. If you get a good price, you can buy a fair amount of fuel and accounting for present value of money, may be a good buy.

Yes, and on August 7 they said, "shipping today". Then he told me they really got slammed by Osh Kosh. OK....but I ordered it two and a half weeks before Osh Kosh.. Called them yesterday, "shipping today". Just got notice they have not even handed the box to UPS, just prepared a shipping label. I don't mind it taking time, just tell me the truth. If Mooney stuff takes longer, they should say that on their website or when you order the product. Bottom line, be honest with your customer. Learned a long time ago as an airline pilot, don't BS your customer. Tell them the truth, tell them the whole truth and if it is your fault...own up to it. People can handle the truth better than they can handle a lie.

I have to say, Redline is the most frustrating and incompetent people to work with I have encountered in a while. I ordered a Sidewinder July 8. The website says allow 2 to 3 weeks lead time. I still have not received it despite be assured on August 7 and August 14 that "it is shipping today". If I was not so far in, I would cancel the order. Worse, they wasted no time charging my AMEX on July 9 rather than when it shipped. I can say nothing good about their customer no service.

She did look like "Broomhilda" even had a mole on her hook nose. She used to roll out to the runway with her students in the back of one of her many E-2 Taylorcrafts with her compact out powdering her face with door open and the prop blast going! She had a stock C-150 Aerobat and she took the word "Aerobat" seriously. She would do airshows with it and I did not know a C-150 could do those things, aerobatic version or not. If she was down on you she could cut you down to size and chop you up faster than Benihana! If you learned to fly from her, consider yourself truly fortunate.

Ameilia Reid, aka "Broomhilda". A force of nature and one of the best sticks I have ever encountered. RIP.

Thank you Victor. I was just in Oz and I even stopped and looked at an Ovation 3 outside of Brisbane (although that was not the purpose of my trip). Had a great time and finally got to hold a Koala which was a lot of fun! As a matter of fact I told my wife when I repaint this airplane in a few years I want "Mooney Red" instead of the maroon.

Thank you and to answer your question directly about IFR in a Super Cub. The only IFR capable SC is the original PA-18. This is because it is certified under CAR 3 so all you have to do is add the equipment required my 91.205 (d) and you are good to go. Newer interpretations such as the CubCrafters Top Cub, X-Cub etc are all FAR 23 certs and their TCDS prohibits IFR operations no matter the equipment. Second it is only good for busting overcasts and warm weather IFR etc because you have no pitot heat and no STC available to remedy that fact. Finally you need an airplane that flies good and straight because you have to use the "Adidas Autopilot" a lot and because there is no autopilot so you get pretty busy on approach. Have your iPad mounted right in front!

Thank you all for the warm welcome. Since you asked for pictures, here you go