Ibra

I was reading the history of Avgas 100 Octane (UL thread is somehow depressing to read), it's interesting that Spitefire engine could even run on 87 Octane? they were later switched to run on 100 Octane, this increased speed by 30mph and gave an edge versus ME109 ! https://www.warbirdforum.com/octane.htm A nice history find is that the man who made 100 Octane at Shell in 1930's was the same guy who made flight instruments for flying without visibility in 1930's, he was also a famous racer. Doolittle set the world's high-speed record for land planes in 1932 using Shell avgas https://www.shell.com/business-customers/aviation/100years/more-uptime/high-octane.html https://irontontribune.com/2021/01/16/jimmy-doolittle-pilot-racer-and-inventor-of-100-octane-gasoline/ A bit later, he was more famous with "Toolittle Raid".

You have to land with “full flaps”, especially if you are looking for performance landing (some call these “normal landing”, some call them “short landing”) If runway is long, I tend to land without flaps or with takeoff flaps in gusty/windy conditions, night, instrument, airlines airport…it’s more a convenience rather than impossible, it also makes go-around trivial with power (again not impossible to go-around from full flaps neither) The use of flaps for landing in most small FAR23 aircraft falls under “Flaps: As required”, so everything is acceptable as long as you have your own justification, I don’t think POH are that prescriptive? As they are electric, you have to be comfortable landing without flaps...

That’s a nice one one can at least practice wing level, trimming for sensible speed, at 50ft they will know if they will make it or not ! This makes the manoeuvre with lot of tailwind very tricky ! I once practiced in M20J, it needs more than 1000ft agl in calm wind to make full 360 turn, one can get in less than that with some headwind. However, less than 800ft, it looks like it has to be 180 turn with tailwind landing (or 270 turn to taxiway or cross runway). In glider, one can do 360 turn and land into wind after cable break at 400ft agl

Yes the video has that caveat about 4000ft-6000ft runway with all disclaimers but still fall short of a conclusive demo: looking at wind conditions, it seems like nice calm day to do a demo rather than landing with “15kts gusting 25kts” in the tail The problem with “impossible turn” into opposite runway comes with “50 shades of grey” of aeronautical decision making, I can see how it works with cross runways or long runways in clam winds, however, I still don’t get is wrong with landing ahead into wind? they are survivable even with trees and obstacles? If the terrain ahead is completely not survivable one is better off taking off with tailwind (to turn into wind landing) or start 360 turn back to runway after liftoff (while engine is running)? Even experienced pilot can’t make “impossible turn”, two years ago, a Thunderbirds Commander, AOPA Safety Guru and one of the most accomplished GA pilot passed away after attempting impossible turn in C177. https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/193166/pdf A sobering lesson for many of us: land ahead unless you are overhead !

That’s the crux of it? It’s possible in 6000ft runway with cross runways ! I had to remind few UK GA pilots who were watching YT videos that we already struggle to land with engine into wind in typical British 1800ft runway

Indeed, that's the recipe for Airbus, the big risk of using that in Mooney (or Airbus) is skipping to "check speed for retraction step by step" I had someone who did that after bouncing while I checked him in Mooney: oh boy, what a ride ! Go-around did not exist in 1967 maybe, they were simple: accelerate straight and level and do what you like.

That's posh I think others answered the question on "vario" Finding a new analogue one would be expensive. I think Garmin PFD (e.g. G5, GI275) process static input and give a sort of "instantaneous vertical speed reading"? Altough their screen is too small and IVSI info is even smaller (I never look at it), it's obvious when wheels leave the ground or when Mooney is climbing, I don't have to look inside aircraft to figure it out (in Jets, the pilot can climb 50ft while his wheels are on the ground, so they want an extra confirmation).

Turbine or turbofan fuels don't have lot of odd aromatics? Maybe the new stuff like SAF or bio-ethanol would have required careful compatibility teste and monitoring. Anyway for their tank or rivet reseal, they send someone inside to inspect, scratch and patch every year

This makes accelerating in ground effect straight and level more useful in under-powered piston. As example, in takeoff or go-around in high density, it takes ages to accelerate straight and level in ground effect, you may even need to retract gear in ground effect to get to your target climb speed. One can't simply pitch up and hope it will climb? For "gear up", this comes naturally on takeoff or go-around: I don't think one need to pitch for climb or and check vario like in Jets. I know few instructors who insist on +8deg pitch (or +15deg) for go-around, immediate power, drag flaps, positive rate for gear up, clean flaps... These techniques seems like an overkill in Mooney, we just go slowly, 1/2 power, get level, breath or trim, raise gear, full power accelerate level, raise flap... It's doable without vario? Mooney is small, it climbs by itself during takeoff or go-aroud: if the nose climbs 20ft, the tail climbs 20ft. In Jets, one can have aircraft nose at 50ft with wheels still on the ground, so after rotation, they check vario > 0 before raising gear.

I hate when I hear that in Mooney, same for “rotate” I know it’s standard in professional flying as the pilot can’t distinguish between “rotation” and “climb”, they have an “eye height” of 50ft even when taxiing, they call rotate and V1/V2. There is nothing wrong with, * Accelerating single engine piston in ground effect, it’s not a jet ! * Retracting gear in ground effect without using vario > 0. The aircraft fly by itself, there is no rotation involved and it’s easy to know that it has lift-off, one can accelerate in ground effect, once they are at sensible speeds they can retract gear or flaps. I think drag flaps first is required in some GA (I recall Cessna with their 40deg flaps), however, retracting drag flaps at very slow speeds under VS1 near ground under 50ft lead to disasters (even in fixed gear, lot of Cirrus accidents are botched go-arounds or balked landings where pilots jumps on flaps under 60kts as they throw 310hp in front)

Yes if you are landing with takeoff flaps, it's simply another takeoff where you will raise gear and then flaps... When landing full flaps, there is the question of raising "drag flaps immediately" before gear or anything, I think this apply to some underpowered aircraft with +40deg flaps but I highly doubt this applies to Mooneys...

A better comparison is "raising the flaps first' vs. "raising gear first" at full power say between VS0 and VS1, say between 55kts-65kts when flying above 4000ft and see what happens? At 85kts, the exact order does not matter that much, go-around at these speeds are non event. In the other hand, things are more quirky between 50kts and 70kts, this is usually associated with balked landing, or botched flare, or bounce: the main risk is raising flaps between VS0 and VS1, this guarantee infinite drag and aircraft won't climb even with full power. Once past 85kts, one can do whatever they want with pitch, controls, configs...in any order. Under VS1 under 50ft, lot of brain and precise flying is required (one has already run out of speed & altitude) Personally, I would keep the flaps where they are until I have enough speed and brain. If I can't get enough speed well past VS1 in ground effect (after raising the gear), I would pull the mixture and cut the loss. Go-around from 85kts above 100ft agl are non-event, I can raise gear, falps and nose at the same time and it works !

It's very tanasient and hardly measurable, it falls under "too small to bother or notice"... I wonder if it's aerodynamic that relates to the relative angle over which main wheels and front wheel move? or layout of doors? all 3 wheels are connected to same piece, they go in sync but move in 3 different directions I would have blamed some mysterious gyroscopic mouvement (from high spinning wheels), however, we usually press the breaks before retracting...

In Ovation, I don't think they do much under say 80kts? * They don't make flare or landing shorter, so they should not be deployed. * They don't make takeoff longer, so does not matter if they are open or closed. They only affect L/D near VNE and don't seem to affect L/D near VS. Then looking at their size, they doesn't seem to change stall speed, I would say Gear & SpeedBreak at the same time on go-around. Ovation airbreaks have zero effect on "induced drag" at slow speeds near VS, they only matter for "parasite drag" on high speeds near VNE (and to keep engine CHT warmer while on fast & steep descent )

I have the same (with takeoff marker but with continuous positions anywhere in the middle)