kellym

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About kellym

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Uhhem, Either I misunderstand what you are trying to say or you don't really understand the situation. The issue with Vne is not while IN a spin, it is during the recovery, after you have stopped the rotation, because you will be at a very nose low attitude, gaining speed rapidly. Holding a Mooney in a spin isn't the problem, it is getting out of the spin, and it is necessary to both stop the turn and break the stall, which requires forward pitch long enough to break the stall, and then restoring a normal attitude at a rate that doesn't generate a secondary stall and doesn't exceed Vne. The Mooney rudder is not particularly effective at stopping the turn. A Cessna takes effort to initiate a spin and maintain it. The Mooney is very different. A spiral is normally encountered when in IMC and when not realizing you are turning. It has very little in common with a spin or spin recovery, although I suppose if the turn isn't fully stopped in a spin recovery it could happen. I'd like to hear thoughts on the subject from experienced CFII.
  2. Well, there is at least one documented case of in-flight breakup, exiting the bottom of a Cat 5 T-storm with icing, and an incident of a different Mooney exiting another T storm that required estimated 12 G pull up to recover that popped some rivets and wrinkled some skins. Factory made the G estimate based on the damage. The real risk of exceeding Vne is flutter and potential for a control surface to depart the airframe due to flutter. The problem with spins is not so much airframe damage as it is actually regaining controlled flight before the ground rises up to smite thee.
  3. No, he tested the aircraft without the bushings that go with the bolts. The bolts were the proper ones. Two main reasons you don't want to spin a Mooney.....the rudder is too small and too slow to stop the rotation quickly, and the long wings also make the stopping of the roll slow. But much of this discussion about stalls, loading and speeds is too generic. There is a big difference in Vne in a pre-68 model and later models, the short bodies have a different moment and the rudder up until around 68 is shorter. You can''t do 90 knots and lower the flaps at all...87 kts or 100 mph is max flap speed. Main issue with stalls is that you must keep the controls coordinated with the ball in the center. Cross control is very risky in stall, very likely to initiate a spin.
  4. With that budget, look for a C. They are the most numerous, least expensive to maintain, and cruise within 5 kts of the E and F. You want to keep at least 10% of purchase price for unforseen maintenance the first few years. Get the nicest C you can find within your budget. The leg room for the front seats is identical, only back seat leg room is increased in the F. The E is the fastest of the 3, but in most cases won't make much difference. Only if you plan on operating in frequent high density altitude operations will the extra power of the E be a significant difference. It will out climb the other 2.
  5. I am surprised that this discussion has not brought mention of the LASAR FAA/PMA gear down lock socket. It is significantly improved from the factory part, with hard anodized aluminum instead of plain cast aluminum. Not to mention that far too many J Bar Mooneys have worn out sockets. I learned first hand that it is virtually impossible to judge the amount of wear on the socket when it remains installed. I was shocked at how worn mine was when I removed it and installed the LASAR socket. One of the reasons the J-bar can come unlatched without pilot action is when the socket gets too ovalized. The parts and labor to do the job should be under 1/2 AMU. Important, because a gear failure on a J Bar Mooney is almost guaranteed to result in insurance totaling the airplane.
  6. Obviously you have never flown an RV-10 or you wouldn't make such a statement. The only reason for a turbo is to have excess power available to be able to hold an altitude IFR at MEAs of 16K or more. I personally would not want to fly IFR over the Front Range in anything less than a TLS, and better a turbine powered aircraft. The RV-10 has a much better power to weight ratio than the 231, with 260 hp on usually 2700 lb gross. The airframe is lighter, generally 1600-1650 so it has greater useful load than the K as well. I have zero problems operating out of airports like Prescott, Flagstaff, etc. with my RV-10. My takeoff roll is rarely more than 1500 ft, even out of Salt Lake City. It is about 10 kts faster than my E model was when set to the same hp number, usually operating on around 160 hp to keep fuel consumption down, with about 160-165 TAS, vs the E was about 153 kts on 150 hp. Now, you will be very hard pressed to find an RV-10 with a turbo, because Vans specifically discourages installing one. The reason is that the design Vne is 200 kts TAS. If you put a turbo on that allowed you to generate 75% power (195 hp) at 12,000 ft. you would be cruising at or above Vne. My E model had no trouble getting to 17,500, with published service ceiling of 18,800. However, it had no reserve power to maintain altitude if there was any convective activity. My RV-10 weighs the same, empty as my E model did, with an extra 60 hp. My climb rates are at least 500 fpm better than the E. I haven't bothered to find a service ceiling, but others have reported values up into the low 20s. At any altitude below around 12,000, my RV-10 will be faster than a stock 231, on less fuel. For the trip to OSH I average about 11.3 gph on 160 kt cruise. Of course you can probably buy a TLS for what I have in my RV, but not with all avionics less than 10 yrs old. Annual nav/data and charts updates for my Dynon Skyview displays costs about 1/5 what they cost for my GTN 650. I have full 3 axis modern autopilot for about the price of one King replacement servo. Yes, I took 8 years building my RV-10, but I know others that have built one in as little as 12 months. There usually are several advertised for sale, so no building is required.
  7. They really are not. Monroy STC adds capacity over and above existing capacity by sealing an additional bay the same way the original tanks are constructed. For example, one E I know of has around 80 gal capacity. You can't get that capacity from bladders, AFAIK from the current O&N STCs.
  8. Mooneys are more prone to leaks for one reason, mostly with a few other issues. Mooney until around 10-12 yrs ago did all of the tank sealing AFTER the wings were built. That meant no sealant under the lap joints, no sealant under the rivets. Also there is a huge gap between the main spar and the rib at the inner end of the wing. Every other manufacturer riveted the wing skins on with sealant applied, so there was sealant inside every joint. Also, the vast majority of Mooneys were built before 1970, and the sealant used in that era was very inferior to what has been used from some time in the 1970s on. I would say a strip and reseal done by the handful of specialty shops is more likely to be leak-free for many years than a new wing built by Mooney before the turn of the century.
  9. Not all planes with bladders get anywhere near 50 years. Bonanzas are more likely to be hangared, which will extend life. I have watched a couple Mooneys get converted to bladders. Labor was well above estimates, and one of them never did get rid of all leakage in the transfer tubes. It is no different than resealing, you need mechanic and shop very familiar with the conversion to get it done in near time estimates and get it done right. Why lose useful load and spend a bunch more money, when a shop like Weep no More will get tanks resealed for longer than you will own the plane with no more issues and considerably less money? Have resealed tanks, and got them leak free for years. Just my experience working on my Mooney and others as A&P/IA.
  10. If he has to work on tanks annually, he doesn't know what he is doing or is cutting corners. If you ever had to install or remove a bladder, you wouldn't do it again. Most V-tails from the 60s and 70s are having to repair or replace their bladders these days, and sometimes it takes more than one try to get them in correct. also easy to damage a quick drain on them. Whether a pilot or pax need to lose wt is immaterial. You can't remove the extra 30-40 lbs of the bladders. In a 4 place plane with less than 700lbs useful with full fuel, you no longer have a 4 place plane.
  11. You need to refer to the Whelen chart. What you need for a 1960s Mooney is very different than what is needed in the 1970s models, etc. Whatever you install new has to be at least as effective in area coverage as what the plane came with from the factory. A belly rotating beacon or strobe is very good at nigh on large airports to have the A380 and B747 drivers see you as the light reflects off the pavement. Top mounted gets lost in the noise of all the other lights around.
  12. Bladders are unlikely to last any longer than a good strip and reseal. You are wrong about bigger airplanes. All modern airliners use wet wings with the same ProSeal. The sealant never fails catastrophically or suddenly. If you have any problem, it is likely to be a weep for years. All of the old wives tails have a little smidgeon of truth based on 1960s sealant. If you think you can ever get the wing spar to flex enough to cause a leak, you will have landed hard enough to do gear damage. Bladders weigh a lot for a plane with limited useful load. They require a minimum of one extra bay to carry the same fuel. It requires cutting the wing skin for an extra inspection panel. They likely have more unusable fuel. They cost significantly more by the time you include labor. They are not immune to leaks. Every bay has a connecting tube that requires very precise clamping force, because the originators of the STC did not bother to put a bead on the lip of the connecting tubes. Certainly your choice. I would never buy or even look at a Mooney with bladders, but that is just my preference.
  13. This is very good advice. Bladders add 30 lbs to empty weight, require about the same labor as a full strip and reseal of a tank. You need a mechanic or MSC that has a good reputation for tank repairs. I did a full strip and reseal of the right tank on mine in 2010. Not one drop since. Repaired the left tank about 3 years ago, and it took me two tries to get it leak free (I missed a leak at top of rear spar the first time). What you need to look for in the tank is whether the sealant under the reddish brown top coat is grey-dark grey, or is light pink. The latter is factory original from the 1960s and needs to be removed for any repair to last. A good reseal should last 10 years minimum, and more likely 20-30 years. The sealants used (there are 4 different sealants called for) are vastly improved from the stuff used in the 1960s. The old stuff dried out when not kept wet with fuel, and then cracked. The current stuff stays nice and flexible forever. I know of at least one MSC that at least in years past was not good at all with tank work. It takes patience and attention to detail, but is not hard to understand or do it correctly.
  14. Engine gauge limitations are generally in the FAA approved airworthiness limitations. As long as you are inside those numbers, you are fine. To operate with numbers not inside those requirements you need STC/337 field approval. G1000 or whatever instrumentation markings should match POH, or there is a problem.