Blue on Top

Tragic! I've been at that airport many, many times. Looks like a fully controlled spiral. IF the chute was deployed, the pilot probably gave up at that time. I hope the full details of this accident are made public. We need to learn from it.

If you think stall/spin characteristics are questionable now, … wait 'til you get tip tanks A turboprop is just a totally different animal (yes, clean sheet would be the least expensive).

This is soooooo way cool. Especially to know that I am not the only total geek on MooneySpace! The precision and metallurgical complexities of a turbine engine (turboprop, turbofan or turbojet) are beyond amazing. In addition all of this is happening in an unbelievable, high RPM and changing temperature, pressure and fluid (airflow) environment. The cooling requirements and blade to case tolerances alone are mind-blowing. A 5% fuel efficiency gain is a total game changer. To use an over-used statement, "This is not your father's PT-6." Now, let's put one on the front of an Acclaim. With a turbine, efficiency comes with speed and altitude. Both would have to go up from the Acclaim to make this work. Regretfully, gross weight would need to go up, too, or useful load would go down or the seat weight would need to go up significantly (we still have CAR 3 seats in our planes). It CAN be done. Keep dreaming! As the Wrights said (paraphrasing), "If all one does is sit on the fence and watch the birds to see how to fly, they will never fly themselves."

Yep. Only if the series that had Johnson bar flaps (my requirement) and a rear window (her requirement). Wonderful airplane.

Yes … and no. Lead is definitely there for the octane boost, hence the problem with taking the lead out of 100/100LL. It is not an issue in automobiles because they have variable timing now and can run on lower octane (remember that autofuel and aviation fuel use different octane rating systems, too). The secondary problem that comes in (if you use an automobile engine and ignition in an airplane) is guaranteeing horsepower rating. In other words, if I have an auto/aircraft engine rated at 300 Hp and it only gives me 280 Hp on a high hot day (to save the engine from detonation), the airplane may hit an obstacle.

C175? I owned a 1963 P172D for a while with the GO-300. We had planned on putting in an O-470 when the GO-300 gave up.

What size and how many pages? There is a great place in Wichita (original home of the Mite) that I can get them copied and digitized inexpensively. Thanks! -Ron PS Would Mark Wiebe have a set?

Now you have me seriously curious. It seems strange to me that the vapor lock would be downstream of the aux pump. Maybe they tried to pass without the pump ON? If the pump would be required to be ON for takeoff/go-around, it would become a “no go” item on the MMEL (or MEL).

I am (educatedly) guessing that there is only one aux fuel pump, and it is mounted somewhere near the firewall (I’m not guessing which side). The fuel must be sucked up to the engine. If it were pushed from the fuel tanks, it probably would have passed. Fuel line proximity to hot engine parts is an issue, too. Ironically, 100/100LL is probably worse, but that is water under the bridge.

This is interesting. There is autofuel at many airports here in Kansas (Midwest) without alcohol to support the 2-cycle and Rotax fleet. EAA did STCs for lower compression ratio engines (<9:1) that were certificated for 80/87 and 91/96 octane fuels. Petersen did those and went into the higher compression ratio engines utilizing a water/alcohol injection system. Does anyone know which engine(s) we’re tested and why it failed? In other words, was it an engine issue or an airframe delivery issue?

It is interesting that you mention these things. 100/100LL aeromatic content is significantly higher than autofuel. Ironically, it attacks fuel tank sealant in wet wings (hint, hint). The sealant used back then did not have 100/100LL in mind at that time.

I KNOW one of the things that made the M10 so darned heavy was the diesel engine … and radiator … and gearbox … and ...

Did anyone ever try to certify the eligible Mooneys for autofuel? Or did Mooney just roll over to Continental/Lycoming and say no. My first aviation job was on EAA's autofuel program. Yes, low wings have more problems with vapor lock, but there are low wings that are FAA approved (most have fuel pumps in the wings to push the fuel and not pull it).

X-57 only uses the DEP for takeoff and landing; otherwise those propellers are stowed. Power is added inversely proportional to airspeed. It starts (minimal) just above the clean stall speed and gets to full shortly before full flap stall speed.

I so agree with you, but … It is difficult to cool an engine that is water cooled without adding a lot of drag (temperature delta is too small between water and the outside air). On the other hand, being air cooled means not running the really high compression ratios that make the diesel so much more efficient. Catch 22. There have been certified air cooled diesel radials in the past, thnough . Hummmmmmm.

In addition, it would increase the airflow velocity over more of the airplane (instead of just the fuselage), which increases drag.

I agree with you 100%. But (not bragging, Don M., I was the chief engineer on the "trainer to be flown in other lands") I was told that autofuel is not consistent in China. Not sure I believe that though.

I didn't say that this would be efficient … it would not be. Ask the X-57 guys.

Just making an educated guess, the structure is probably good, but stall speed is too high -> new, 26G+ seats -> empty weight increase of 60-80 lbs.

No I haven't but that is very interesting. I'll have to look. Somewhat ironically, this is what is going to have to happen to get the new autonomous vehicles certificated. For example, 21, voting, stability augmentation systems. 7 can fail before it needs to land. They are calling it "graceful degradation".

Now for the hypothetical … UBER 1. no matter how many $B are spent, physics will not change. Vertical takeoff and landing is VERY power intensive (~10X from an airplane). 2. Tilt rotor/engine/pods/wing are a compromise. Propeller inflow where high thrust (1.1 GW minimum) is required is very low. In cruise the inflow is high (180 knots). The blades would need to be twisted differently. Before you say it, I can rotate the blade. True, but the Wright Flyer propellers are not twisted very much from root to tip (30 mph inflow) … and they did a great job! Fast airplanes may have 30 degrees+ twist from root to tip. 3. The X-57 (with 12 propellers per side) is so inefficient that they are now down to using them for high lift (takeoff and landing only). They are shutdown otherwise … yes, inside information. 4. Electric motors - Low end torque is not applicable. The propeller controls how much torque can be used … and how efficiently. 5. Electric motors - cooling IS an issue, Not as much is required, but it is in a very concentrated area. 6. Hybrid electric is just an interim solution until something with more power density comes along. &. Airplanes are designed around failure modes and not everything operating 100%. One may design with 20 electric motors but if one connection fails and takes out 10 of them, the airplane is a twin

Why beef up the landing gear? That is not what is holding up a gross weight increase (one needs to think more outside the box).

Car gas is not universal across the world … especially in China

Regretfully (and as KSMooniac pointed out), these $ values are from a couple decades ago. New engine $80K, G1000 $100K, paint $30K, interior $20K+ and the largest omission, insurance $50K+ Yes, its stinks. Someone hit the nail on the head about the quantities used in GA. If you're even a Cirrus, making 300 parts per year is still in prototyping quantities. We need to borrow from other industries and not certify what we don't need to certify. We all fly with iPads … take the second screen out (saves $30K+). Add a little cost to cool the iPad.

Aviatoreb: The noise is almost all prop (I have done many noise tests). Composite propellers can be lighter because the major load (centripetal) puts the blades in tension … where composites shine.