dkkim73

FWIW to new members, I think it is extremely helpful in sensitizing people to the way that the porpoising dynamic develops. I just had a terrible landing last week after several "greaser" flights, due to rapid configuration changes late in the approach and poor short final Vref. The biggest value is the -experience of the instructor and - the multiple simultaneous video feeds. Agree it looks dated but who cares?

Here's a way to look at it: In a fast increasing spiral, you are using the generated (large) lift vector to cut a curved path in space laterally and somewhat less so vertically (turning mostly sideways through space). Gravity ("God's gee") is pulling you down as well, but you are cutting sideways. When you roll shiny-side-up, all the lift at that high speed (lots of kinetic energy to use also) all pulls upwards, plus you have 1 g downwards to boot. And the trim setting tries to increase angle of attack further. So all things that will try to bend the wing. This "moving in 3 dimensions" and general understanding of curved flight can be positive and useful as well. E.g. emergency descent, you can roll into a 60 degree bank and spend half your lift in a turn while only pulling 2g. The higher wing loading can help you bleed energy and get down faster. On another note: I just this afternoon after a long week pulled out Rich Stowell's "Emergency Maneuver Training" again after many years. He discusses a wide range of Bad Things and Bad Conditions, focusing a lot on spins but also considering other upsets and Overbanked. But he also expands the Overbanked discussion more broadly to consider overbanked situations down low (e.g. wake turbulence). I don't think I could do the general approach justice, but he brings up pushing (unloading the wing) to allow better roll inputs, as was mentioned above by @Ragsf15e above.

You seem very motivated. That is more hours than many people probably get in juggling training and work. I was the same way and the frequency paid off, so not a criticism, just a voice saying hang in there... Was the ceiling below minimums or was the CFII hesitant to fly actual? I had a grizzled old Alaska CFII and we flew an ILS to 200' early on. Some schools have crazy high minimums these days.

Please let us know your experience. This is someone I would like to add at some point (same plane).

I agree. Based on vignettes, and observations of how corporate culture has evolved elsewhere, it sounds like there also was a disconnected managerial class with some cult-like thinking. E.g. the kind of people who tell each other how smart they are and pay each other bonuses*, while ignoring the engineers. And it sounds like they were downright harassing the objecting engineering voices. Who'd have thunk Boeing would ever have such a tarnished reputation. * the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone

On a positive note, I was impressed by the beefiness of the main (carry-through) spar on the wing. Here are a couple of photos I took of the last wing on the line when I was visiting Mooney in February (edit to add: it's not fully-built, but shows the center spar):

Yeah, the intent is to avoid heavily loading the wing and, exactly as you say, the high speed in that nose-down orientation will naturally cause pitch up at that trim setting. It is trimmed for higher angle of attack (lower speed) but the plane is whipping along at a low angle of attack (high speed). Can be even more extreme with a lot of nose down and high bank. I think of it as "*unload the wing* (as needed, say if you've already inadvertantly started pulling), roll upright, then actively manage the recovery (which involves holding forward pressure to slow the pull-out and thus manage g-load)". HTH

“Before I came here, I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture, I am still confused -- but on a higher level.” ― Enrico Fermi

When I visited in February, they were doing outside contract manufacturing. There is a lot of tooling capability and space there. Felt like few people, but sounded like a lot of them were highly-skilled. And there was a parts cage with parts they continue to make for Mooneys.

Is the lacing a general replacement for places that people tend to use zip ties? And, for the original question, this would be under the cowl, so hoses and cables more so than wires, though both, really...

Would they let you rent the closer one for a few months and try it out? Ie. keep both and see what the utility is. $50/month is very reasonable, seems even more so for OR, at least the wet side. Probably would help to see: -how it "feels" to have it closer; do you fly more? -how often you have to divert due to wx Long shot, but you could also see if anyone's done any work to survey for approaches. Someone here probably knows more about how big a thrash (or wait) that could be. D

Excellent, thank you. That's a good video. Trim for 100KIAS in the setup, roll to 45 and let it go, for those that don't watch it. I imagine that's not crazy far off what would be reasonable in a Mooney, given the cruise speeds, though a bit faster would be better simulation (eg. 120-140 KIAS for busy instrument phases in the long bodies). While I like crisp, fast roll (some of the most fun GA flying was the Super Decathlon), this video makes me happy that my IFR commuter bird is a *Mooney* (fist bump) not a doctor-killer, er, I mean Bonanza... D

OK, please try not to laugh: Are there any gotchas on what kind of zip-ties to use under the cowling and how to apply them? I went to take care of this a few days ago: and realized I didn't have any with me. On the one hand, not everything needs to be aviation-specific, but on the other hand I've elsewhere encountered brittle zip ties zip ties sawing through things with motion sharp ends causing later trouble So maybe materials and design matter. As for placement, my first thought was to take pictures and just apply them back in the same areas as before. Any thoughts appreciated. I figure it's better to over-noodle than to make assumptions. D

Thank you, Paul. That one line about no added water clarifies the terminology! The whole thing also re-rang a bell and I just crawled out of a rabbit hole of vapor phase diagrams and reading about azeotropic distillation.

This got me thinking about how unusual attitudes come to pass in IMC. The scenarios I can envision at first blush are: -autopilot mode confusion (it's not flying the airplane, and the pilot is looking at Foreflight ;)) -autopilot-facilitated trim stall and upset (in any ALT mode other than PIT(ch) and get out of sync on power setting, eg. reducing to descend on intermediate segment, got distracted, etc) -bad turbulence -handflying with a paper chart out of nostalgia and got distracted (ok less likely except in failure situation) The Scott Perdue video mentions a "spiral divergence exercise" to get a sense of the natural progression, starting 45 degrees bank from straight-and-level, no trim change, with KIO criteria of 160kts and 60degrees bank. Not clear what speed he starts at. @PT20J describes an interesting experiment. To the CFI(I)s here: what would be good entry conditions for such an exercise in a Mooney? D

My experience and understanding are similar to @IvanP's in terms of O2D2 specifics. Went through this evaluation last year, though with a turbo so the eventual need was more definite. One thing I will endorse: Oxygen is useful at lower-than-required altitudes, maybe more so that you would think, and subjectively noticable, at least for me. So, while you might want to get a feel first with a passive conserver cannula, I think you'd find eventual utility in the conservers (unless you're always tooling around low across the flatland; I didn't see a homeport in your profile). So I think it's good you're looking at this for a high-performance NA aircraft as well. I found that using the mustache OxySaver cannulas worked for me, but required a lot more oxygen flow/use to maintain similar sats than I later saw with the O2D2. Tank fills last a lot longer since I purchased a demand conserver. When I started looking into all the specific choices (# of setups, +/- mask, etc) I found the O2D2 less expensive for a 2-person setup than the Precise Flight X3 would have been. Pros and cons have been articulated before, but there seem to be enough PIREPs for each to conclude both are solid choices. I was *very* hesitant to choose an electrical system over a mechanical, on general principles. One more thing with a USB cord (a dinky standard) or AA batteries, right? However, I've been very impressed with the practical simplicity of the system, and I've had zero issues. For me with the Scott/Avox onboard system, it works fine with the inline reducer. The company is very good to communicate with, they will walk you through the nitty-gritty details. FWIW the Boomula option adds comfort and convenience in the cockpit. The flow sensing is very reliable with the prongs kind of just floating there in your nostrils. Easily maintains sats for me up to 17k so far. I don't have a detailed PIREP on the mask performance yet, just basic ops checking so far. HTH David ETA: An issue with O2 fills is often that of logistics, more than cost. E.g. not available, late in the day, they don't have the right fitting for Mooney (happened 2x to me so far).

Thanks for sharing, @GeeBee, I'd wondered if something like this existed. Capacitance, or some kind of resonance probes. Reading the instructions makes me wonder how flexible the filling curves are for the G1000-tied EIS and various other units. I would imagine it wouldn't be hard to have implemented it as an arbitrary curve, but maybe some of the specifics are already baked-in to at least the type-certificated installations.

You know, it doesn't have a really positive return feel, does it? I've been in the habit of just draining a bit from each side for a few seconds in the run up area. Someone else mentioned the value of examining the drainage, also. Maybe I should figure out a pan or catch bucket type solution.

The explanation for this (running low boost >FL180) I recall was to prevent vapor lock. And higher pressure might itself in theory help with small ice crystals. But, it also occurs to me that: -If this helps recirculate fuel through the system (e.g. running [high] boost pump with mixture cut off *I believe* recirculates fuel on a part of the system very near the throttle body but does not inject it, instead routing it back to the tanks... hence used to facilitate hot starts). Wouldn't this potentially help keep ice from forming in at least a part of the system? Curious if this forms any part of the rationale for the procedure. David

Are there any gotchas with sourcing the isopropyl alcohol? I haven't looked too closely at the drugstore stuff, not sure if there are small additives that might cause any issues. I figure it doesn't have to be anhydrous, just mostly alcohol. The POH above warns us off some other auto gas tank additives. Seems like ordering fluids from aviation places dings you with hazmat fees, etc. D

Makes sense to me. While living well is the best revenge (and you seem to be doing that in addition!) there is a salutary value in fighting evil. The fact that a few percent of people are willing to engage with a thug/bully/mugger protects everyone else. And once they realize you're a pipe-hitting m(.*)f(.*) instead of cynically maximizing against a constraint, they might treat you differently. Tailwinds to you as well, D

You must (almost certainly do) have better insurance. I was nickled-and-dimed for every person coming near the plane.

That's a really good point. My loading usually looks fairly far fwd on the CG diagram, lots of tail downforce in cruise and more so esp. trimming into short final and the flare. Think Corvette...

@Danb what kind of "weight envelope" are you practically using with the Acclaim? I feel a bit weight-limited at times. The 100-gal tanks with TKS but no AC seem perfect for my situation, but need some planning. E.g. I had it fueled to 88gal in prep for tankering fuel to and from on my commute, then scrubbed due to wx. Now I can hear the pucks accusing me in my dreams as it sits, and any training flight needs to be a bit longer to get below MLDW, and more so to take any pax. Longer term: I probably need to verify whether the TKS fluid was included in WB, and my transition instructor suggested re-weighing the aircraft at some point. D PS. For Jose's purposes, the point would be there's still flexibility, though the envelope is different with different models and specific planes.

That's the flexibility that the Bravo and Acclaim offer (and other turbos I would imagine). You can fly it in different modes for different reasons. Low power, far lean-of-peak for efficiency and going easy on the engine, or push it up and get someplace fast. I've really become a turbo(normalizer) convert, but I also live in a mountainous place so it was initially forced upon me ;). The fast climb and ability to get above ice and turbulence is nice, too.