A64Pilot

If you have to ask

If you get to fly heavy as in very performance limited aircraft for awhile you learn that maneuvering especially is an exercise in energy management. Altitude and airspeed are interchangeable. Bob Hoover had it down in his Rockwell flight demos, he even did them in the single engine 114 which wasn’t a good performing airplane. Having said that my preference is airspeed, reason is if an engine quits, first thing that happens is the prop governor trying to maintain RPM flattens the prop to min pitch, that’s a big speed brake, and or instinct is to maintain altitude, the two rapidly reduce airspeed. Go out and try it, just pull power in a hard climb at altitude and see how rapidly speed decays. The best decision Sully made in my opinion was to not try the impossible turn, the FAA tried to hammer him on it, “proving” it was possible in the Sim, but by the time he diagnosed the problem, then went through the mental process of accepting it he probably couldn’t have made it. That was in my opinion the one good thing in the movie, it showed that well. If Sully couldn’t react instantly, well I doubt I will either. In the belief that nobody, myself included will react instantly and will find themselves close or into a stall if climbing at Vx I like to carry a little extra speed hoping that by the time I recognize the problem and react I’ll find myself close to best glide speed, which i’d nothing else gives me enough speed for a flare to reduce vertical speed to close to zero before the forced landing, if your close to stall, there is no flare and you will hit hard. Besides it the only way I can keep cyl head temps down, Cyl head temps are what limit my climb gradient, I’m talking above the first 1000 ft or so, but once they get higher than I like they won’t come down until cruise, but climbing faster keeps them from ever getting up to begin with. I’m a firm believer that Cyl head temps directly correspond the cylinder stress. Now ALL this is opinion of course and well we are all allowed our opinions, but I like a little extra airspeed up to final of course, on short final I fly slower than recommended to prevent float as I’m often flying into and out of short grass fields. A little extra speed gives me time to think.

Our Tesla won’t at least with FSD engaged, I haven’t tried to run a light manually driving, I think it won’t, but haven’t tried. If a sign isn’t where it’s supposed to be it won’t recognize it though, for instance being a fly-in neighborhood our roads are taxiways, as such the stop signs are well off to the side and real close to the ground for wing clearance, the Tesla ignores them. Most outside drivers, Fedex and the like also don’t see them Just very recently FSD has gotten VERY good, I still don’t trust it, but it’s light years better than it was just a year ago. Cyber cab is supposed to go live in Austin this Summer. I don’t think it’s good enough myself yet, but we will see. It’s real close though, maybe Cybercab will get special software?

My aircraft is Registered in Montanna under an LLC just because I don’t like flying around broadcasting my identity. Montanna has a lot going for it, just too cold for me or I would live there. When I was playing bush flying I was a member of their Recreational Aircraft Foundation. Worth looking into for those so inclined, I like their mission https://theraf.org

Fl uses Flightaware to enforce tax, my problem with that is Flight aware gets a lot of their data from people who build Rasberry Pi receivers and upload it. Is that a credible source for a Government identity to use? They should not use a Commercial entity that gets its data from questionable sources, should only use FAA sources in my opinion.

I bought my airplane with the inflatable seal. I notice no noise, can’t tell any difference with it inflated or not, so maybe it just seals great as is I guess. When I bought mine the squeeze bulb was dry rotted, but it’s cheap and many are on Amazon, thankfully the coiled hose wasn’t deteriorated at all and neither is the seal. It does hold pressure, it’s not leaking down, and I’m not deaf

Some people like to have very precise numbers, but I can tell you that in truth that “close is good enough” Actually when you go out and fly an instrumented airplane you won’t get good solid repeatable numbers even though your certain CG and weight are identical. Then if you do a representable sample of aircraft like you should but the FAA will not allow, your scatter factor is even larger. CG in particular for glide ratio affects the numbers more than you might affect. I think Mooney was smart for picking a number and sticking with it, because we need one number to remember in case of need we obviously can’t pull out a chart and determine an exact number and I doubt many can fly a precise exact speed anyway, not without concentrating on just that one parameter. I can’t anyway. Over 20 years ago when the D model Apache came out one of its pages on the MFD was a performance page that constantly calculated all performance numbers and updated them for density altitude, gross weight etc. I’d suspect modern airliners do the same? Do any of the glass cockpits in our aircraft do that yet? When you were flying right at the edge it was nice to have.

Heres my 2c, never climb at vx, except to transition directly to vy, and vy should be avoided as too slow, why? Nobody I don’t care how slick you are if the engine quits at vy your going to find yourself either in or very close to stall, at that point your have to do the thing your brain is screaming not to, to point the nose at the ground to break a stall, but you don’t have the altitude for that so at best you crash flat in a “mush” close to stall with high rate of descent. Vx to stall is only 6 kts with flaps up. Why do I say Vy is too slow too? because a 60 degree angle of bank takes from memory a min of 1.4 times stall speed, and any normal human will lose some speed if one quits, you might want some maneuverability if it does quit and that means as a min 1.4 times stall. That’s somewhere around 88 kts, you do climb flaps up right? so use flaps up stall speed, my J I think at max gross thats 63 kts 88 kts is all over Vy, so you need to be a little faster if you accept that your not Super Pilot and you will freeze for a very few seconds before you accept that it has quit. So if your climbing at mid 90’s kts and it quits you may have a decent chance of maneuvering to make either the impossible turn or that field off your left or fight shoulder after losing five kts or so before you get your act together. Personally I use 100 kts, I like even numbers and a little extra fudge on my cake. Oh and the engine doesn’t get hot as fast too.

That is an easy one to answer without any chart. Spinning a dead engine over takes a huge amount of energy, so where does this energy come from? Easy, the only place it can, from the potential energy of the aircraft, robbing all that potential energy and maintaining kinetic energy reduces glide a LOT. But here’s the thing, go out and stop the prop, I had to pull mine all the way until just before stall, going that slow she was dropping pretty fast, then dropping the nose to get back to best glide ate a lot of altitude so I’m convinced unless your really high that you will actually have a poorer glide ratio stopping the prop. Funny because I can stop my C-140 prop easily, it must be because the constant speed prop is flatter at low RPM?

There isn’t any difference that I can see in a Mooney’s wings fuel tank wise and the Thrush crop duster’s wings and I’d suspect there isn’t in any wet winged aircraft that’s riveted metal.

I do feel this way and hope to convince as many of you as I can. IF Gami gets to keep selling their fuel and or somebody else does their fuel We as in all us Pilots and Owners need to lobby as hard as we can with AOPA and all the type clubs that before ANY alternate fuel is required that it has to accepted by both the Airframe (where one exists) and the engine manufacturer (where one exists) This FAA awarding STC’s with no testing is BS, by no testing I mean the FAA didn’t test, they review the STC applicants testing and accept that. But it’s insane to allow a fuel be put into an aircraft that both the engine and airframe manufacturer warn against, this contributes to safety, how? Cirrus saying that they have Airworthiness concerns on their aircraft that have the Gami fuel in it should raise Huge concerns in the FAA. I wonder what new Cirrus wings cost?

ADI wise. Failure is or could be easily made to be extraordinarily unlikely, the injection plate is just that, no moving parts with several injection holes. Then there are two pumps and surely both are tested on run-up, Separate electrical systems is as easy as a battery back-up like several current instruments. Have a pressure switch like one that runs many hobbs meters will tell you it’s on via a light, and or a failure light is dead easy, heck add a horn if you think it necessary, if the electronics fail it fails to the on position, or you have a switch that merely turns the power on, it’s not modulated it’s just on or off. Real easy to make it orders of magnitude more reliable than our engine, When I Certified the MVP-50T in the S2R-H80, it’s first installation in a Certified airplane. I spoke with Rob Roberts EI’s owner a little concerned about what if it quits, because if it does you lose everything, ALL engine instrumentation, fuel flow, fuel quantity, even voltage and amps, prop RPM, everything. I forget the number but he had to prove to the FAA that the likelihood of failure was if memory is correct over a million to one. How do you prove that I have no idea, but the FAA required it. So he can make electronics stupid reliable and he’s set to build the electronics for ADI. Using Unlimited’s as an example is a little silly, it’s like comparing a normal car to Top Fuel. If ADI fails in truth most likely nothing will happen but you will have time to either turn on the manual switch or reduce power. I know people that run our motors on 93 Octane pump gas and IO-540’s too, Experimentals do as they please, some run one tank 100LL for T/O and some don’t. I’m not abdicating running car gas or 94 UL, just know some that foolishly do. You think we have hot start issues, you ought to see how bad it is with car gas, that stuff vapor locks the moment you turn it off, you can hear it frying. Methanol mix handles freezing concerns, a tiny bit of oil handles corrosion concerns, but what do you think is going to corrode? I imagine a Rotomolded plastic tank, the pump can handle water, use an RV water pump if you think it’s necessary, the hose is rubber and the injection tube could be stainless. Windshield washer fluid is 30% to 50% Methanol, ADI wants %40 https://carfluidguide.com/how-much-methanol-is-in-windshield-washer-fluid/ Methanol Content: Windshield washer fluid typically contains 30-50% methanol, critical for preventing freezing and enhancing cleaning effectiveness Leaves the engine, Methanol is going to exist in it for milliseconds so I can’t see Corrosion there. But finally there is decades of actual experience with ADI from the Military, Airlines back in the day and hot rodders, they often use windshield washer fluid which is apparently Methanol and water, and I’ve never heard of corrosion from windshield washer fluid and I’m sure it doesn’t contain any oil. No need to modulate it, it’s only on at high power and the amount your spraying is way in excess to what’s needed as until you start spraying a stupid amount excess isn’t harmful. I assume size of the injector will likely be based on HP of the engine? If we accept that lead is a health concern and has to go (I don’t myself) but that only leaves a few options (Magic fuel) that has eluded smart people for decades? A new engine that I can assure you all in is over $100K, or scrap our aircraft, add maybe a low compression motor STC, maybe possibly low compression pistons and or cylinders and live with the power loss with our existing engines? Or ADI and 94UL Now to be clear, I do NOT want ADI, I want to keep 100 LL, but if forces beyond my control take it away from me I don’t see anything viable but ADI. Do you?

The sad thing is a Bonanza is a very easy airplane to fly, especially to land, reduce power and they come down right away, no float. They have short wings and pretty big flaps I think that has a lot to do with their popularity, the ease of flying, especially landing. If I could get past the nauseating tail wagging in light turbulence I might have bought one, a few years ago when I was looking you could get a V tail for about the same money as a J, because I think the average V tail is twenty years older.

I think GA accident rates follow the hours flown, so unless the rate is factored against hour flown as in x number of accidents per xxxx hours flown I don’t think it’s necessarily accurate. I’ve seen rates that factor in hours flown, but usually it’s just a number per year.

Yes, that’s what I’m thinking too, 94UL is of course a “fit for purpose” Aviation fuel, refined etc under I think an ASTM spec etc. should I think not have any vapor loc issues etc that car gas does, 94UL won’t “eat” composites or nitrile, fuel tank sealer, paint etc. It would let you burn car gas too, but car gas has its own problems with different formulations existing and changing seasonally etc. So it might be difficult, not saying you couldn’t make it work, just it may require even more airframe mods and tomorrows car gas likely won’t be what we test and Certify today. Without being any kind of expert from what little I know is ADI would allow unleaded fuel tomorrow without any problems and my bet is the engine and airframe manufacturers would test and sign off on 94UL if they haven’t already. In my opinion it’s very important for the manufacturers to approve any alternate, to require a product they don’t test and approve is at a min irresponsible. Only the high compression and turbo motors would need ADI, the majority of GA would be fine just switching over to 94UL. There is a solution for those that think we need one, we don’t need a Magic fuel mixed from Lord only knows what with unknown health consequences etc.

I doubt it, but assume if they said they were going to it was both possible and Lycoming was OK with it. My SWAG is liability from saying you can burn Mogas, mostly including me think that means Auto pump gas, but does it really? Does Mogas even exist anymore? By that I meant the fuel that was Certified to burn in the Peterson and EAA STC’s in the 80’s isn’t what is at the pumps nowdays. Plus I think the target market fir the airplane is Part 121. Would that matter for Auto fuel? I don’t know not having personal experience with Part 121, but finally Auto fuel just isn’t available at airports I don't think Lycoming is the stick in the mud most seem to think as they allow and of course Certified a 540 for Embraer to burn pure Ethanol for Brazil. So I think Lycoming will allow ADI, by allow I mean not deny Warranty etc. Its astonishing when you think about it that the FAA allows a fuel that no manufacturer tested, or none that I know of, both airframe and engine. It would seem to me that puts the FAA into a liability problem, Cirrus says don’t use it, FAA says it’s fine, your million dollar aircraft becomes unairworthy, who is paying?

Our Grandfathers would dribble it into the carburetor of a running engine at high idle and gunning it every so often. This was back in the day when pulling the head and de-carburizing an engine was recommended. If there is sufficient water it will clean, but I don’t know if ADI is of sufficient quantity. From this Avweb article Tecnam is going to build an aircraft with ADI. Will they? I don’t know but think there is a market, but maybe mostly in Europe? Haven’t seen many Tecnam’s around here. I believe the T means turbo, never seen one but seems to be the engine we have been crying for? IE electronic controlled, variable timing etc. https://www.avweb.com/features/the-return-of-anti-detonation-water-injection-adi/ “Air Plains isn't the only company exploring ADI. At least one European manufacturer, Tecnam, will reportedly use ADI in a new twin called the P2012. Powered by Lycoming's new TEO-540-A1A, Tecnam says the airplane will be operable on mogas. Another Lycoming-powered aircraft, Grumman's pilot-optional Firebird drone, will also have ADI, presumably to operate in theaters where 100LL isn't available but mogas is.”

There is 109 Octane unleaded race gas https://racefuel.boostane.com/products/109-octane-fuel Oxygenated is good for power production, back in around 1980 when I was drag racing turbo bikes when we set a record, on the way back to the starting line they would take a turkey baster sample of fuel to make sure the fuel was legal, must not have been a difficult test. I think it may have just been specific gravity like you test antifreeze maybe? Has anyone actually tested the Gami fuel for octane? Does it claim to be 100 Octane? Is the requirement to be 100 Octane or just pass detonation testing?

Or just don’t trim full, personally my trim ends up where it is at takeoff, and you should plan on electric trim not working, because it’s some kind of rule, when you need anything the most is when it won’t be available, even when trimmed for takeoff, it takes quite a lot of pressure and trim when I raise flaps

I try to tell this whenever it comes up, but try going rapidly to full power on short final with the trim full up, if you have the strength and are comfortable with the excess pressure required to keep from stalling, fine. Maybe it should be done at altitude. If nothing else I think it should be done so pilots see just how much pressure is required, if you don’t expect it, it could catch you off guard. Ray Maule used to teach an approach in a Maule trimmed full nose up, I did a go around once and that was the last time I landed trimmed full up, it took both hands to hold the nose down, obviously I didn’t die, Mooney especially a 4 cyl one ought to be more forgiving

IF it were rebalanced when the servo was installed it should be a little nose heavy, which is conservative for flutter

Mine does anyway, always thought if it faced backwards that the icing mast wouldn’t be needed

Blocking a vent should not change level indication, unless and this would be an extreme event but unless it was blocked and over time the pump pumping fuel out pulled such a vacuum that it collapsed the bladders. I have seen a metal fuel tank crushed from a blocked vent though so it can happen.

Yeah all of our dealers kept trying to say that what they could sell was a 400 gl airplane, thinking of course 20% less capacity = 20% less cost. But that wasn’t the case the money saved in fiberglass in the hopper was trivial, money difference between a -15 (680 HP) Pratt and a -34 (750 HP) wasn’t much, a Hartzell three blade is a Hartzell 3 blade cost wise, batteries, Starter / Generator, airframe, wings, landing gear etc are the same, there just isn’t any real savings. But you could get a Factory overhauled Walter 750 HP for about half the cost of a Pratt, the Avia prop was less, the Starter / Generator came with the engine etc. Now the Walter wasn’t as powerful as a Pratt, but I was going to derate it to 680 HP as it could make that, leave the airconditioner off as well as lights etc and a 400 gl airplane became viable, then GE bought Walter and killed that plan, but GE was building a “New” Walter making much more power, no hot end insp, no fuel nozzles to clean and several other things and they were wanting to get this new engine in new aircraft of course so we became their launch customer. I think GE General Aviation died on the vine, nobody else jumped on the engine, they designed and built a new engine with 3D printed parts and 21st Century GE aero technology etc for the Cessna Denali. But where is the Denali? Pratt also began giving sweet heart deals to manufacturers to block GE too, but our current owner was too arrogant and stupid to listen. Point I’m making is I don’t see the price point changing. I believe the street price of a Pratt -34 is about $500,000, OEM was about $350,000 back then, but then you buy prop, prop governor, starter / generator, even engine mounts are thousands, so an OEM ends up with half a mil in the engine, so I’d guess you would need a million five to turn a profit for a non pressurized four place? You know I wouldn’t be surprised if a Turboprop isn’t as expensive as a Williams Turbofan, and who wouldn’t want a Jet over a Turboprop? Transition wise a Turboprop is much easier than a piston to manage, especially a Turbo, if FADEC there really isn’t anything to manage. You have to be stupid to hurt a Pratt, they start so easily you have to be stupid to hot start one. But yeah, money is the problem, and a 680 HP Pratt airplane just isn’t much cheaper than a larger higher HP one, Everything is the same, same Avionics etc, just bigger airframe. A TBM is likely about as small as a Turbine makes sense, and a Bonanza is about as big as a single engine piston makes sense. Now if a 500 SHP turbine cost half as much as a 1,000 SHP one did, then you could do it.

Usually VNE is pretty easy to increase, especially if it’s flutter. The Thrush S2R was an R-1340 aircraft, it got a turbine conversion via an STC, when Fred Ayres bought the plant, he bought the STC and the the first factory built turbine Ag aircraft was born. It kept the same gross weight and speeds of course, but Ag pilots fill the hopper until they just barely make the trees at the end of the strip, they don’t care about weight so they sold like hot cakes. Overseas though they very often hold applicators to the POH and as there were a great many overseas sales, they needed higher limits Years later Fred thought he was going to get rich building a purpose built Cargo aircraft for Fed-ex, overextended himself and went broke, we bought the plant and after a couple of years I went about increasing gross weight and Airspeeds. It took a couple of years to establish ourselves, clean things up and get a good “book of business” etc. , until then we just didn’t have the funds for Certification projects On the S2R-H80 my first real “new” aircraft that was of course really just a modified S2R using the same airframe, landing gear etc I increased gross weight from 6,000 lbs to 10,500 and airspeed VNE from 160 mph to 196 and flap speed to higher than the original VNE. Other than testing and analysis to prove the margins were there there was not all that much actual structural redesign required, only thing needed to increase VNE other than testing of course was tightening up the balance limits some. Aircraft are very often Certified not to their actual limits, but to realistic and safe limits that the aircraft is capable of in its current form. For example I have no idea what the actual flight CG limits are on the S2R-H80, the forward limit we tested to about as nose heavy as we thought safe to prevent a nose over on a tail wheel aircraft and the aft was the amount of lead we could stuff into the weight box that was mounted as far aft as possible. Neither limit could possibly be approached under any loading condition possible in the aircraft as it is. So very often when you make big changes to an aircraft there is a lot of room in increasing limits and often it’s not much actual work required to do so, what the gotcha is being able to afford all the DER’s etc to jump through all the FAA hoops to get there, the aircraft mods are the cheap and easy part, they may take only 90 days, but Certification can take two years after you finish the aircraft. So what I’m saying is that I bet fuel, VNE and gross weight may be within the possibilities of increasing on a Mooney, all it takes is Money Maybe Although a Certified four pax turbine already exists, it was built and Certified over 50 years ago, just was never built. It would in my opinion be a better aircraft, but it is not an inexpensive aircraft to build. All it would take is Money https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/november/01/will-the-interceptor-400-only-live-twice