Hank

Quote: eaglebkh I think there is a correlation here with the ease of gear operation and airspeed: the faster you go, the easier to come down - the slower you go, the easier to go up. I know most of us manual gear folks probably get that gear up right after lift off, because the gear is much harder to get up (for me at least) once the plane exceeds 80-85 mph.

And you can renew your driver's license through the mail! No income tax . . .

Hmmm, I've never had a problem. Sure to happen to me now, though. :-)

Quote: rbridge The arc on my air speed indicator is right around 105. I read people saying 120, and I bet they were converting to mph.

Quote: scottfromiowa Isn't < symbol "less than"? Didn't the question state < or less than 105knots?

Be careful of your units! KNOTS vs. MPH will burn you . . . My 1970 electric gear operating speed = gear down speed = 120 mph = 105 knots. So you are right. Your gear speed is most likely 105 knots, which is THE SAME as 120 mph. Some J's and later models have higher gear speeds, some up in the 140-150 knot range where they are useful for slowing down. Mine are not . . . I get to slow down very slowly before dropping flaps and gear.

Quote: pilot716 Finally took the keys for our 83' m20J and flew off for some touch and goes then getting familiar with the plane..Man!! what a aircraft, 160kts & handled like a real smooth machine, landing over the numbers at 70...many good days ahead, now I see what the craze is!

Squirrel, you crack me up! And for what it's worth, I always say a little prayer when I move that round white knob from Up to Down and listen/feel for the thump on downwind. Then I double-check it on base, and pet it rather protectively on final, just to make sure that those cute little black thingys are all set to be squished on the asphalt. You've got that great big metal piece, though, which is much more obvious. Those durn sheep seem to follow me all over the country, too, but I've not yet determined how I keep hearing them. Even bought myself a new headset, but they still make themselves heard, especially the last obnoxious one with his two-tone bleat . . . As long as I keep cheating death, though, I won't complain about the occasional odd noise. It's kind of like those ones you hear from the engine when heading into the mountains at night, just as soon as you get past gliding distance from the last airport and the next VOR is 80+ nm away and there are no lights visible down below and nothing showing on the sectional except lots of very squiggly lines.

Oil pressure and CHT were both fine, but the Oil Temp would peg when the master was turned on, even when the engine had not run for several days.

No, the end of the safety wire away from the filter wraps around a nice two-piece metal plug that once-upon-a-time had a tiny little safety wire holder sticking out of it [that broke off well before I met my plane]. So the safery wire is wrapped around it and twisted down. A careless placement let it droop down and touch the base of the fitting during twisting, resulting in a short. Cut it off and re-safetied, careful to keep the wire on the top half above the insulator. No problem. I'm about to do it again, I can take a picture if you want. As soon as I pulled the safety wire off, I turned on the master and the Oil Temp was no longer pegged, so I knew it was the problem. There is, naturally, no picture of the defective tie, but I can always add an arrow to the picture. NOTE: My O-360 with added-on oil filter is probably very different from your engine! The filter is horizontal at the rear of the engine, with maybe 1" clearance between the filter & firewall during removal/install. Screwing the filter down more than doubles the room.

Quote: maropers My low flight time fiance asked if it were alright if she closed her eyes for the landing... I said go right ahead - I do.

This happened to me once after an oil change. Turned out the safety wire on the filter was grounded out. New wire, more careful approach with the pliers, and everything has been fine.

Wow! What a thread. Some people feel very strongly that there is only ONE right way to land. As a beginner, I learned the easy way, mostly the same way I landed the 172 I used to earn my wings. Keep it easy--90 mph downwind, 90 mph base, 85 mph final. Why vary speed all the way around? Downwind: pitch & throttle for 90, level flight. Drop Takeoff flaps then gear to start down. Adjust trim a lot. Base: pitch & throttle for 90 mph, continue descent. Final: pitch & throttle for 85 mph, continue descent. Adjust flaps to maintain aim point for numbers, not usually visible over the trees at my home field. Hold 200' agl until over the trees, throttle to idle, decelerate over the highway. Hit the numbers at 80 mph - 3 mph for every 300 lbs. under gross. This puts me down usually on the 2nd or 3rd stripe. Home is 3001' long, trees at both ends that hide the numbers. Brake gently, turn around on the runway using full right rudder, no brakes, back-taxi to the turnoff at stripe #4, the only paved runway exit. Taxiing through the grass is a shortcut I don't use much--why hurry to the ramp? I'm a firm believer in the KISS method. My Owners Manual says to put in Takeoff flaps and gear abeam the touchdown point, then adjust flaps and power on final to achieve desired glide. So that's what I do. Keep It Simple. YMMV, and apparently it does for many. I use full flaps when needed, half flaps when possible, often somewhere in between. I really don't look at the indicator once I put them to Takeoff on downwind, and I don't look at the ASI much beyond halfway down final, when it should be pointing at 85 mph. Oh, yes, even in our wonderful Mooneys, in the pattern it still works the same old way--pitch for speed, power for altitude. Even with the trees getting large, I can hold/climb by only adding power and keeping the yoke forward. Learn your plane, practice a lot, feel the wind. Sure, the rudder and ailerons are connected, but use both sets of controls. Overshoot your base leg? Keep a standard rate turn and fly the airplane back. That keeps me away from the ridgeline parallel to the runway [dead ahead on final], comfortably above stall, and reminds me to pay more attention to groundspeed the next time. No two landings are alike, why should any two flap settings be alike? "Extend flaps as required on final approach to adjust for variations in wind, glide angle, and other variables."--Mooney Aircraft Corporation, Kerrville, Texas Once you are comfortable flying and landing the plane, THEN worry about short fields, wheels hitting the numbers, spot landings, salvaging poor approaches, etc. Get the basics down first!

I read that article, too. Seems it said to stop the prop if you are at least 6000' agl, since you have to slow well below best glide. If it happens to me, I'm just going to pull the prop lever all the way back and look for a good spot to set her down. At that point, the plane will belong to the insurance company instead of to me. NOTE: this is for engine failure. If I'm out of gas, switch tanks and hope for a restart. If no restart, then the above applies. My Owner's Manual recommends running on one tank for an hour, then running the second tank dry to determine the time left on the first tank. It is not a strategy that I use. YMMV.

While I would like the analyzer shown in your avatar, or one like it, there is no space in my panel to put something that large. I'm not sure that I could put in even a UBG-16 or the like without making a new panel overlay to rearrange things and make room. So that's a prime consideration for me. I'm not ready to yank out my tach and MP/FP gauge to replace with a box. 1. Will it fit? 2. What unit has the most bang for the buck? for my specific application, 4 cylinders and a carbereuter. There's still something to be said for an analog gauge. I can tell at a glance where the hand is, but reading a number takes more time and greater concentration. A speed tape would drive me nuts--speed goes up and down, but nothing changes on the display, it's always in the same location. Your fancy analyzer combines the two, and that's legitimate. Options that don't apply to my situation don't count, even though I will have to pay for them. [Lean finder . . . I find it when the engine runs rough, or when the EGT needle starts moving the other way.] Brings to mind the old saying, "You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

I don't fly at "high altitude," prefering the breathable stuff around 8-10K. I figure my descent rate to be 500 fpm unless instructed otherwise. It's easy to count on my fingers from Pattern to Cruising Altitudes on my fingers in thousands, then double it, and start down that many minutes out plus 2-3, since the descent will accelerate me somewhat. If IAS gets away, then pull back the throttle a little bit--I find a 2" reduction in MP works well. If I start with a 2" reduction as I nose over, speed has rarely been a problem, but nosing over and maintaining WOT causes much more acceleration, even richening the mixture to maintain EGT on the way down.

Bennett-- Maybe Tim could make you a matching cushion to use while you search for hen's teeth? That way you maintain the beautiful aesthetics, can admire his fantastic upholstery, and gain functionality in the short term while searching for your long-term solution. It would look much better than the two stacked chair cushions my wife sits on, as neither of my seats adjust vertically.

I used to live a 30-minute train ride south of Sendai. It's a beautiful town, an amazing harbor, and good seafood. Hopefully both will still be true . . . They just need to get the fires under control, those are much worse hazards in Japan due to both population density and construction methods. In the country where I lived, housing lots were roughly 2000 square feet, not the houses themselves. My prayers are with them, as well as the less-developed outlying countries with tsunami warnings. Hawaii and the West Coast should come through fine.

comparison shots are provided below of my two installed weather systems. First is a distant shot, Mk. I eyeball, followed by a closer view more than an hour later of the cell on the right. Last is a shot of my stormscope as I passed it by. Those times that System I is ineffective [in IMC], then ATC has always vectored me around areas of heavy precip at my request. Having the stormscope display [system II] keys me in on when to ask. Oops, attaching mixed up, the scope shot is now first. FWIW, these two vere visible as soon as I leveled off at 9000 msl over WV, but were actually in SC, very near the GA line.

Alan-- With the noted exception that your big-bore will handle differently than my carbed 4-banger, I found through trial and error that 90 knot approach speed handled much better with approach flaps already in, and to descend along the glideslope all I had to do was drop the gear about 1½ dots high. By the time the needle reached center, I had begun to descend; if I waited until the needle centered to drop the gear, I would be high and the pushover I gave was always too much, taking me underneath so that I could then pull up . . . Try dropping your gear at center, and see where you go, then adjust by dropping the gear a little higher so that you don't have to push the yoke over. You can do this by yourself, VFR, at any airport that has either ILS or GPS approach, as the glideslopes are mostly the same. As with everything else, the plane likes to fly and doesn't like to slow down. Go to your practice area, drop the gear and time how long it takes the plane to start down. It should ease the workload during approaches to find this point, and drop the gear early.

Even my C will do most of these requirements. Last summer I put four adult males and 34 gallons of fuel and flew up the OUter Banks to Kitty Hawk, then hopped over the sound for gas. Trip length was 180 nm out on the scenic route, 125 nm back direct. No problem, but the guys in the back were a little cramped. Any mid-body should be able to do the same, I would think. The 400 nm trip with 4 big guys will probably require a fuel stop unless you fly high and slow, but nobody buys a Mooney to fly slow. Max range is in the vicinity of Best Glide Speed, which is 105 mph [= 90 knots] for my short-body; no thank you! Even Optimal Cruise = Best Glide Speed x 1.316 is too slow [138 mph = 120 knots for me]. But at least you can play with the numbers, as the formulas are very close across types. These are the Carson speeds.

I was alway told that a 172 was a 3-adult aircraft. My plane will only carry four adult males if I off-load some fuel. Took cousins, etc. to Kitty Hawk with 34 gallons, crossed the Sound, filled back to 34 gallons for the return. Flight time was ~1½ hours, but there's no need to take away any options. P.S.--in 1969, I weighed <50 lbs . . . but I have put on about 40 since college that I could stand to shed. Like you said, calories are too easy to come by.

Quote: JimR Scott, Isn't aerodynamic efficiency primarily a function of indicated airspeed and practically independent of altitude? Please comment on the linked ERAU study on cruise efficiency below, which I'm sure that you are very familiar with, and check the performance tables in your POH, which show the longest range achievable in our 201s at the lowest listed cruise altitudes. I understand the induction efficiencies associated with running WOT, but, tailwinds notwithstanding, are they really great enough to justify flight in oxygen dependent regions? Is it not possible to run very efficiently LOP, at less than WOT, and at moderate or even low altitudes? Greg, You have to slow way down and fly at what will probably be less than 50% power to really maximize your range. Flying LOP is more efficient than ROP. I agree with Scott that 1000 nm should be easily doable in your beautiful new Ovation. Jim http://www.db.erau.edu/research/cruise/piston.frame.html

Congratulations, Mitch! You must have burned the writing off of the pages in the book!

Granted, much of my IFR flying is in VMC, but it's a great way to get around/through/into complex airspace. I've flown exactly one real hold [three planes going together to eat, and we needed a pop-up clearance--first plane cleared in, the other two got to climb and hold]. As for tuning in VORs, I frequently use them in Nav 2 just to keep up with my position on my sectional. Yeah, I use paper, good old VFR sectionals, and carry the marked Low Enroutes, too, just in case, but have yet to need them. The screen on the 430 is pretty small, and I often keep it off the map to verify correct wind correction when it is blowing strong. Why wait to get a dot or two off on the VOR head when right there on the screen is my actual ground track?