Hank

Formation flight in the Mooney Caravan involves formation takeoffs and landings; both operations are safe when done right. Both are done in close proximity to the ground. Many videos have been posted here showing both. TnGs are safe when done right; so are full stop landings. Many accidents happen on landing, just read the NTSB files. I repeat: can we stop the incessant yammering about how unsafe the things we each dont like are? One question was asked about how to do something, and was completely buried by people telling him not to do so, because they are so dangerous . . . While they are demonstrably not. I don't recall the details of my PPL checkride, but my Instrument ride had one of each type: touch and go, missed approach and full stop. The DPE wouldn't have asked if he thought they were dangerous. Can't count how many my airline pilot CFII had me do during training, but it was well into the multiple-dozens. Can we please stop bickering, fighting and insulting??? It appears that no one's mind is being changed. I hope the OP was able to find the answer to his question, buried in all of the noise. Hey, @TheTurtle, send me a PM if you want to discuss TnGs rationally, quietly and without meaningless interruptions.

I've never kept the nose up longer than necessary for aerodynamic braking, and I'm not very good doing even that in the Mooney. But if your feared example happened, it would probably be reported as "loss of control on post-landing rollout."

TnGs aren't related to formation flight (usually). But if someone is so deathly afraid of TnGs as some people here seem to be, then it would be advisable for those same fearful types to avoid formation flight, lest their fear of hitting one of those nearby planes overwhelm them . . .

If you think a touch and go is dangerous and asking for a gear up landing, please avoid formation training, you'd either have a midair with another plane in your flight, or stroke out worrying about it. Want to reduce all landing risks? Don't takeoff, you won't have to worry about landing.

This is good advice. The MAPA PPP does not do touch and goes. At my first one, though, my instructor was working with me a month after my transition training (and I hit 100 hours total time enroute to the PPP), and one landing he challenged me to land on the mains, keep the nose wheel in the air and take off again. I did, and it was fun! Probably the most TnGs I did was with my CFII during instrument training. I didn't question the decision, I grew up watching a variety of jets and propellor planes doing them (F4, A4, A6, AV8A, C130, C141, etc. Can't swear about the sea planes, their landing zone was pretty far out, but I did stay out of their way in the sailboat . . . ) I was surprised that the PPP doesn't do them, but the first hint I had that they are "dangerous" was here, a couple of years ago. I retract my flaps with one finger, while holding the throttle to idle; grabbing the gear means letting go of the throttle and moving my arm, and I do that just like on every takeoff-- after achieving rotation speed, pulling the yoke back and verifying positive rate of climb. Just like on every takeoff, my right hand stays on the throttle until time to raise the gear. Just like on every landing, I raise the flaps with throttle to idle, and don't mess with anything else. If you don't like them, don't do them, but stop the incessant the yammering, telling everyone that they aren't safe and should never be done!! P.S.--the horse is dead . . . .

But airplane values dropped off a cliff the day after he fussed at the Big 3 for flying from Detroit to Washington to ask for bailout money. He thought they should have driven and made them fly back, turn around and spend two days on the highway driving down. When they arrived, their jets and my Mooney were worth 30-50% less than the day they originally flew down . . . .

Because that's the standard CFI question while training in a Cessna, where split flaps apparently happen sometimes. Maybe they have separate motors for each Fowler flap? Besides, I think he's grasping at straws to justify his own preference to not do TnGs. Like the insurance question he asked. Yes, every insurance company would like to insure pilots who always do everything properly and in accordance with their checklists, but both of those pilots are already insured. The good news: you are PIC of your plane, and I am PIC of my plane.. Weather and winds withstanding, you don't have to do anything you don't want to. But just because you don't want to doesn't mean that I shouldn't, and just because I want to doesn't mean that you should. Touch n Goes remains a valid exercise, and a good maneuver. Do it or not, it's your choice.

Tell him to join MAPA and attend a PPP. My first one was five weeks after I finished my 15 dual including 5 IMC when I bought my Mooney with 62 hours and 0 complex. They hold 5 or 6 a year at different locations, including Vermont I think. The one in Niagara was fun, too.

It wasn't before Obama killed the aircraft market in '08 . . . . I'm not really up on the recovered market pricing since then, it was too depressing just a year after I bought mine.

Congratulations! I really love my 1970 M20-C. It's a great plane; take care of kt, and it will take care of you. Do you have any pictures yet???

The higher airspeed makes the out-of-trim pitch up force much stronger than on initial climbout at slower speed. Why? Because lift is proportional to speed.

Ask your favorite transport pilot. Only a few military fighters have thrust:weight ratios > 1, such as the F-16, and that enables it to accelerate straight up. The new engines for the 787 each produce 78,000 lb thrust, for a total of 156,000 lb. The old engines produce 64,000 lb each. Variants of the plane have gross weights of 502,000 - 551,000 lb.

I've practiced Emergency Descents with 45° bank at cruise speed. The IVSI wraps pretty far like that . . .

I have no wsy to determine my distance from a cloud, until i put a wingtip into it. Then I know I'm too close, unless on an IFR clearance.

Way to go, Steiney--inject some science into an offhand duscussion . . .

How much do you reckon this is costing me? Replacing it looks very $heet metal inten$ive!

What turbo said! What's the reason to learn turns around a point? Lazy eights? Constant speed descents? I never do any of those outside of training . . . But they teach aircraft control, and you learn to make the plane do what YOU want it to do.

I was given one but haven't installed it yet. Did you use the foamy doublestick tape, or the thin kind?

Kinda makes it hard to jump over the moon, dunnin it?

So what is that giant piece of hex bar sticking up in front of the windshield? That's a crazy place to put a temp gauge, if that's what it is . .

Simple--lift is proportional to speed (do I need to look up the equation and define the terms?), so to come back down, just d low down until lift is lesstill than total weight and you'll come down. How fast you will descend depends upon how much less lift you create. Or descend the way I do: push the yoke to create a nosedown angle, and adjust the trim as speed initially increases and quickly plateaus, so that the nkw, higher lift won't be enough to counteract the negative angle of Attack. Hey, lookkee, two ways to descend, both of which are compliant with Bernoulli, Newton and empirical evidence!

Wow! Now I've watched the video. They started with a gross oversimplification of Bernoulli's Law, turned it into a straw man, and proved the straw manto be incorrect. They further compounded their error by expanding from an incorrect / incomplete oversimplification not being fully functional to the whole thing being wrong . . . I can do that with your bank account and prove that you are either getting rich beyond your dreams or going rapidly broke, depending on the assumptions I make in my simplified model and how I apply them. Note that they left that part out . . . Kind of like how so many A&Ps "prove" that running your engine LOP will "burn it up" without presenting any data. Show me the math, with all assumptions clearly stated. Once I go through it and don't find any inconsistent assumptions or things I think are inaccurate, and there are no math errors, then I might believe them. Right now, I stand by my above statement: Bernoulli and Newton both contribute to lift, and they cannot be separated. Others have held this belief for longer than airplanes have been flying, granting both the title of "Law" because they hold pretty much all of the time [although Einstein did a good job showing that relativistic effects must be taken into account as speeds approach c, but aerodynamics are gone well before then . . . ].

I also cycle before every takeoff, unless I'm doing pattern work [then it's just once before the first one]. When I pull the lever all the way back and nothing happens for a couple of seconds, then I know to do it again, until I have an immediate response. I've had too many things work during preflight / departure and not work on landing . . . from the stupid landing light to vacuum pump to my entire electrical system. It's nice to make sure the prop governor is functioning while still on the ground.

How do I, as a potential buyer, know that an unsigned 337 "Major Repair or Alteration" is actually for an IA-approved minor alteration and is therefore acceptable? I'm just a PP, so to me an unsigned 337 would be a problem . . . . Because at some point, my C will need to be replaced with a different airframe.