Blue on Top

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

168 Excellent

About Blue on Top

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Everything Airplane

Recent Profile Visitors

246 profile views
  1. @Ibra Everyone is making good points. I especially like the fuel quantity and full flaps comments, but ALL points are very valid. My fuel story (and it is like hundreds of others). Bringing my "new to me" 1963 P172D (C175) home to Wichita from Atlanta. Nearly 4 hours into the flight (over an overcast, but with a C182 chase plane). It finally dawned on me after the second reminder from chase, that I was LOW on fuel. I remembered then that the endurance numbers in the POHs are NO RESERVE. Fortunately, I landed safely (probably not enough fuel to go-around), and then added more than the usable fuel …. the first time I fueled the airplane. Live and learn.
  2. @Hank Great observation! ASTM and FAA are looking into this to potentially modify the regulations/compliance to the regulations. The go-around is a major point of interest as is is causing a large percentage of the fatal stall/spin/spiral accidents. Thank you!
  3. @N201MKTurbo Thank you! Wonderful observation. You are correct. … I knew I wouldn't think of all of them If a pilot would takeoff with the flaps full (landing configuration), would the force be high? … to a new to this aircraft pilot?
  4. @Ibra Great observations! Thank you. 1. 100% agree. TMI --> overload --> ignoring warning 2. This is a fantastic observation. I agree 100%. Some things are binary, but your idea is great. 3. True, but people should be working on that … and learning from the past. What where the chain links that led to the accident? How can we break a link? We do a lot of this in flight test. 4. LOL (and I agree with you). On the other hand, if humans and electrons are both 95% reliable, the odds of them failing at the same point in time is really, really low. Fuel starvation is a good example (starvation is that engine quit, but there is still fuel on board … like in the other tank). Thank you again! Great observations.
  5. @carusoam I'm just glad that you didn't say, "Beeeep. Beep." because that would be the Road Runner passing you. . Thanks for the good feedback.
  6. @MooneyMitch Holy crap! I recognize that web address; it's in town! Thank you! The files look super interesting! For some reason box #3 is restricted … which are all the interviews with Beech, Cessna and Mooney. I didn't know that he headed up the Cessna 620 design. The 620 is basically a double 310 (hence the model number), basically a wood, 4-engine, King Air. WOW!!!
  7. PS. The Flying issue that @PT20J (Skip) posted the link is an AWESOME issue! Not only does it have the referenced article, but it also has the speed challenge between a new Mooney and a sports car. AND (starting on p.77) the coolest business jet ever made! Yes, I am very bias. That airplane (the Citation X prototype) was my baby. It's really, really fast, and it stalls better than a C172. Plus, I was privileged to get several hours in a T-38 flying formation with her.
  8. Thinking about some recent Facebook post, What are all y'all's thoughts on configuration warnings, for example: "Takeoff Warning" - flaps in the wrong position, speed brakes out, etc? "Landing Gear Warning" - Based on throttle position (some say manifold pressure, but it is really throttle position), flap position (full (landing) flaps without the gear down), etc? Different stall warning? Different landing gear warning? Etc? (you name it. Just getting some ideas to look at why (fatal) accidents happen … from a total aviation geek's perspective Pull!
  9. @cliffy (didn't mean to leave you hanging) The short bodies don't require them. This is not a tail volume issue but rather a stall speed, geometry and HP issue (long story). Mooney did a GREAT job implementing them as they vary force with empennage (trim) position.
  10. @MooneyMitch Is there a book or something? I would love to read it. Thanks!
  11. I hear they fly much better when Benjamin Franklin is the pilot.
  12. @steingar What are the titles? I want to buy them and have them personalized! In fact I'm in the process of organizing my library (all are in Excel, when purchased, read and if personalized). Life is all about people. I'm so excited! Now, if I can get @RogueOne to be not so confused, ... I'll post a picture of a minor Mooney variation of a very common design … as soon as I find it on the computer again. Y'all are awesome!!!
  13. @jetdriven What you have stated is true by definition, but … the courts don't interpret the law that way. Cessna's largest, lost lawsuit was on a seat sliding back after a very hard, bounced go-around attempt (stalled and crashed). The AD had been out for decades, etc, etc. The claimants said Cessna knew about the problem and did nothing about it. The jury believed them. Lawyers will find ways to convince juries that a small replaced part somewhere on the airplane had some little influence on the accident, and that is all it takes. Aviation needs tort reform and a true limit of liability (unless proven negligent). Would a case against GM even get to court if your engine quit in a '57 Vette?
  14. @Dream to fly Joe: Just call me "Bucko!"
  15. @Dream to fly Joe: Don't you dare back out of this. I want your input! If we can take an automobile engine with all the new technology, is mass produced at a MUCH lower cost and meets all the requirements at a similar (or lighter weight), why shouldn't we try? Please