PTK

The question is regarding two identical J models. Same exact airframe with same exact powerplant will have very similar ROC. So with ROC being equal it seems to me that, if any J is structurally capable of 3200#, it certainly should be of 2900#.

Thank you Mike but I don't think that's the answer to a legitimate question. Same airframe with same powerplant. I'm simply curious. Is it an apparent math disagreement between Mooney and Rocket Eng.? Is it a different FSDO? Is it that the OEM is being held to more stringent rules? Why the difference?

If, accoding to Rocket Eng., any J, irrespective of tubes, can be allowed a GW of up to 3200#, why, according to Mooney, that same J is not allowed to a much more conservative 2900#?

Yes Anthony. It's intetesting that no mention is made to any tubes being different. It's also interesting that the Missile has a max TO weight of 3200# and a max landing weight of 3083#. All this with a J with no tube changes. If any J can be allowed a GW of up to 3200# why not up to 2900# ?

It's all relative. Flaps increase the curvature or camber of the wing and therefore also increase the AOA. This is how flaps increase lift. It follows then, that in order to produce the same lift as clean, the flaped wing must fly at a smaller AOA than it does clean w/out flaps. So with flaps deployed the AOA itself increases but the plane flies at a lower AOA compared to clean in order to maintain the forces in equilibrium. This also explains the lower stall speeds with flaps deployed.

My home field is 50 ft wide and it's tight. With braking I can manage turning it with the main just barely droping off the edge of the pavement. That's why I think 65 feet should be doable. On a broader note to select a tw takeoff is exactly that: a choice. And turning radius just doesn't seem an important enough factor imo to force myself into a takeoff with tw.

You considered most key variables: lightly loaded, low DA, no big obstacles and plenty of power. All good. Keeping in mind that a tw takeoff will use a lot more runway to get enough lift, because it takes distance to cancell out the tailwind, I wouldn't have selected this option. Also considering that more often than not a tw is stronger at two or three hundred feet agl it's not fun to find out that the plane doesn't want to climb after lift off! I would have chosen your option 2. 65 feet should be plenty of room to turn.

As someone said there are two guarantees: taxes and death. (Some politicians misconstrue this as "...tax 'em to death..." but that's another story and would be a thread drift!) Personally I prefer to put my tax dollars to work and get ff and another set of "eyes" when vfr. Hopefully I can forestall the death part as much as possible!

An extra set of eyes can never hurt. It may even be a lifesaver. http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110820X50228&key=1

It's not clear to me that they're trying to vector you around necessarily. There may be another reason. After all that's the value of ff. We are not a unknown generic 1200. To the controller we are a known quantity in that they know our intentions. It has been my experience that they usually will tell you their reasoning. I would comply.

The point is that as flaps are introduced the angle of attack increases momentarily and the airplane initially wants to climb before it pitches for its trimmed airspeed. In a turn especially base to final with uneven lift where one wing is producing more lift than the other is no time to be add drag into the equation.

Although TO flaps increase lift by shifting it to the rear of the wing causing a pitch down, with anything beyond TO flaps the drag will exceed any lift and will initially momentarily pitch up.

This has me thinking. We know in the base to final the airplane is low, slow, banking, maybe a tad uncoordinated and the stall speeds are higher. The one thing that's next to impossible to know is how slow was the airplane allowed to get in the turn and what the pilot did to encourage and precipitate a stall spin. This may have not been the cause in this particular accident due to the two very experienced pilots but it may very well play a role in other base to final stall spins. I'm specifically referring to flaps. Introducing drag in a turn with flaps only aggravates things and this is the worst turn to throw in flaps. The airplane is already on the edge and the last thing it needs is to pitch up and slow even more. Depending on how close to the edge it is, flaps in the turn may very well be enough to through it over the edge. And that's the last thing that poor pilot will ever do in his/her life. Often times this concept of the order of doing things may not be clear especially to newer pilots leading them to develop sloppy flying. And this kind of sloppiness is dangerous. I know my ppl instructor was not that detailed. It wasn't until my IFR training that a different instructor drove it into my head to "never add flaps in a turn" along with flying by the numbers. My apologies for the drift here. We now return to our regularly scheduled program!

WOT is my SOP. Only exceptions are when flying around at 3K feet or below and/or in really cold wx to avoid overboosting mp and when want to go slow for apprach to land or sightseeing.

When I was in the process of researching to acquire my 201 I was chatting with the late Bill Wheat and we got into talking about the J and how Mooney should've never stopped building them. One of his comments was "...you're preaching to the choir..." He loved the M20J. It makes no sense. They perfect the M20 through the years to the M20J and then drop it! I wonder in retrospect if it was a good decision.

1983 M20J, 2740 gross, 1803.7 empty. 936.3 ul, 552.3 full fuel payload. 9 times out of 10 I fly with fuel to the tabs, 50 gallons or 300# for a 636.3# paying pax. That's a solid 5 hours with reserves. With full fuel it's a solid 6 hours with reserves. The flexibility of long range tanks is nice but not a must have. Having said that I think if my tanks ever need full strip and reseal I just may have lrt installed. I have speed brakes so it would only be 15gal/side. Still pretty significant.

So can someone decipher part 23 reform? What changed? Anything "groundbreaking"? https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/december/16/part-23-reform-faa-releases-final-rule-on-small-aircraft-certification https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/Part23_FinalRule_2120-AK65_WebCopy.pdf

I have push pull knobs, non-vernier throttle, vernier prop and mixture. I wouldn't change a thong. I'm always wot pulling back only for approach and land. Vernier RPM and mixture is wonderful.

Tom, you did absolutely the right thing. Excellent decision making. Job number one is to act and exit the icing conditions. This means alter course, altitude or both. Altitude change was not an option so you elected to turn back. Typically you would need to climb at least 2-3K feet above the freezing level in hopes of getting out of icing. I would've done exactly the same thing in those circumstances.

What I said was that higher fuel burn means higher entropy. Energy in the fuel is converted to unusable energy. The increased speed comes at a cost. I was simply referring to the increased O2 requiring increased fuel flow.

Cold air contracts and becomes denser. The engine is taking in dense air and therefore more O2 for each combustion event. But as the Second law of Thermodynamics says...there's no free lunch. Entropy must increase. The corollary to the increased O2 and more speed is that the engine compensates by consuming more fuel.

Bowel movement safety overide switch. Comes in handy on long flights. Does it by any chance also have long range tanks? They go together..,parts of same mod.

I don't look at it as time. It's to whatever degree it's needed. The trick in a forward slip is to balance aileron and rudder to lose the extra altitude while maintaining approach speed. How fast you lose altitude i.e. the impact of the slip or sink rate is determined by angle of bank. The steeper your bank the faster you come down. The limiting factor is your available rudder. Any excess bank angle over and above available rudder will cause a turn in the direction of bank. So the impact of the slip is controlled by bank angle and available rudder to keep from turning away from the runway.

Thank you for posting all that info @M016576. If I understand it correctly the sn 24-0001 to 24-0763 need those bolts and nuts in the gear (items 1-9 in note 1) but sn 24-0764 and up don't need anything? And no mention is made unless I missed it on ASI change. Are there Va considerations with higher weights? I'm even more confused!

Prerequisites to a spin are stall and uncoordinated flight or excessive yaw. You are half way there because a slip is by definition uncoordinated flight with yaw input. However spins from slips are not as likely as those from skids. In a skid the bottom wing stalls first encouraging the airplane to drop into a spin very quickly. In a slip the top wing stalls first dropping to level. You have to work hard to enter a spin from a slip but it can be done.