cliffy

Run Forest Run!

I was informed a few years ago the biggest problem with the alt hold system today is finding a good "eyeball" to show trim condition. There are two different ones. One is "brass housing the other is black plastic One is way better than the other. If the lines do not match up static then the eyeball is junk. The next hump is what is the legality to install, STC usage ,etc. ?

All electric or hydraulic driven landing gear have some sort of mechanical backup system to put the gear down in case the primary system doesn't work. The backup system usually does not allow the gear to be retracted again once used to put it down. Mooneys, Cessnas to 747s they all are the same in this respect. Mooney manual gear is unique in that because it is linked directly and hard mounted to the gear retraction system (much like any backup extension system would be in an electric gear system) it needs no backup. Safe simple provided proper maintenance has been performed. The biggest problem with any retractable gear system is proper maintenance over the years. Beech, Cessna, Piper, Mooney they're all the same in this regard. some take more maintenance than others but they all work if properly maintained.

I've got the wheels and brakes from a crashed McCulloch gyroplane gathering dust in the hangar. Of course most have never heard of such an animal. Just a wet spot in aviation history. They look like 500-5 Clevelands +master cylinders and pedals Picked them up 40+ years ago.

Gotta be my poor computer skills I'm not smart enough for a smart phone!!!! :-)

Is there any list of exhibitors for this year? I'm having trouble finding one Maybe its just my computer skills :-) Also interested if they have any rotorcraft (autogyros ) there Just looking this year

Here's the online tool for requesting a ferry permit Something sounds fishy when a DAR is "required" in all cases JMO https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/phl/local_more/media/ferry_permit.pdf

Does the airport take ANY federal funds? If so Federal rules apply for use of hangars Some items to consider- How far and how much power to run the each hangar? Winter heating needs? Due county regs require fire sprinklers in the hangars? Times and requirements change for a "new" build. How about water and sewer requirements? FAA does not now pay for tie into taxiway or pavement support for that portion as time goes on. Check taxiway width requirements for planning purposes. The FAA has certain requirements regardless of wingspans contemplated. Same with weight bearing requirements of pavement.

Do it right by following the Lycoming instructions and using their tools. Its the only "approved" procedure This is not something to go off the reservation with. You're life may depend on it. If you have never done it before get someone who has. This is no place to learn the craft.

Unuseable fuel and its moment are included in empty Weight and CG. On the other hand- Any CAR-3 airplane does NOT include the weight of the engine oil in the empty weight of the airplane so the weight of the oil in the engine comes off of your useful load. On Pt 23 airplane FULL engine oil is figured in to the Empty Weight calculations.

It looks easy It ain't Find a replacement part.

Give it a good wax job and you'll get another 10 knots!!!!!

I flew out of KPGA (4100 msl) for over 13 years in my D. We had DAs of over 7500 feet every day in the summer, I went out many times at gross weight. With a 5000' runway its no problem except as noted the climb rate is half or less of what you would expect. Acceleration is ls slower but doable. I've gone out of Mammoth Mountain in the CA Sierras on a hot summer day. Its 7134 asl. Won't ever do it again and its 7000+ long. Same with Flagstaff in the summer. You just gotta watch the DAs. If its over 8000' DA you might want to rethink when you leave. Remember at 7,500 DA you are working with only 75% of your normal rated horsepower for takeoff. You HAVE to lean for best power on takeoff or it won't be fun.

I think one might find that when a 100 hr inspection comes due it entails all of the 50 hr inspection plus a more detailed 100 hr inspection thereby having oil and filter at both 50 and 100 hrs, might be in the airframe manual

I'm not quite sure where you are coming from with the ramp check idea but- We had one member several years ago come back to his airplane after a ramp check when he wasn't there and it had a grounding tag on it. Turned out he had dents and corrosion visible from the outside that the inspector grounded it for. IIRC it went to the graveyard. The chrome spinner deal was always a ramp check initiation Polished prop blades would quite possibly be a ramp check issue The entire point of my post being that everything involved in maintaining CERTIFIED airplane has an APPROVED procedure. Casting about by doing things in a different way has consequences that sometime do not seem apparent and many times times result in legal issue or a BIG safety issue On my own Mooney I caught an imminent engine catastrophic failure by following the 50 hr oil change routine with cutting the oil filter apart to have a look see. If I had decided "on my own" because I didn't have time to check the filter to just drain a refill the oil and go 100 hrs to a filter, my airplane would be in the grave yard today. The only way we keep our little part of the aviation world safe is to follow the program. Its a two edged sword here. One side cuts to safety issues and the other only cuts to legal issues. Either way it cuts. Your choice.

Well for one there is a thread going on right now relating to when and how to do oil and filter changes with some varying thoughts Oil and filter changes are covered here in this manual designed by the engine manufacturer To the point of an A&P having his certificate yanked? Know of one who advocated that after overhaul the owner should just "fly it like he stole it" instead of following the Lycoming approved break in system. Feds came knocking and pulled his license for a while. They're take? "What makes you think you know more than the guys that built the engine rather than follow established and approved procedures?" No different than not following directions to change internal star washers on magnetos ANY TIME THEY ARE LOOSENED no matter how slightly. Many mags have fallen off due to this alone. We had one just a year or two ago have a forced off field landing in a dirt field just for this very item. But someone decided that they wouldn't follow the Lycoming procedure and just do it their way. (Also FAA policy on locking devices- lock washers, safety wire, etc.) I know of one Fed inspector (many years ago) whos thing was to find planes with chromed spinners and ground the airplane. The owners would always ask "why?" and his response was "find me any approved procedure that allows one to chrome a spinner". The same goes for polished propeller blades. Find me any manufacturer approved procedure that allows a prop to have a polished surface. Thy all require some sort of surface coating to avoid corrosion. If push came to shove the polished blades lose. Just sayin' s&*t happens when you least expect it. Every Fed inspector is different and I've seen some dozzys in 55 years especially with the new guys just coming onboard and wanting to make a name for themselves.

How much do you want to know about how to operate your 4 cylinder Lycoming? There have been A&Ps who have had their license yanked when the FAA came a knockin' because they thought they knew more than Lycoming on how to maintain the engine https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/O-HO-IO-HIO-AIO %26 TIO-360 Oper Manual 60297-12.pdf

How much do you want to know about how to operate your 4 cylinder Lycoming? There have been A&Ps who have had their license yanked when the FAA came a knockin' because they thought they knew more than Lycoming on how to maintain the engine https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/O-HO-IO-HIO-AIO %26 TIO-360 Oper Manual 60297-12.pdf

I had it sitting in a box in my computer for some time and just found it, Don't remember where it came from but I guess I thought it had enough good info to save originally.

My Accutrak will split the runway on a GPS approach (in VFR weather all right?) It wanders a little back and forth a few degrees in cruise but not too noticeable Of course my airplane flys good hands off without the Brittain system on.

On a simple 4-cylinder engine, the Mooney squeezes out quite a bang for the buck. The following compares the 201 model comfort, load, performance, efficiency and safety to other aircraft. Enjoy! Comfort One common misconception is that the Mooney ain’t the most roomy plane around. People have said that the cabin feels cramped. Despite that claim, the Mooney is still bigger than most four-seater planes. Check this out: Aircraft Cabin Width Cabin Height Mooney 201 43.5″ 44.5″ Beechcraft V35 Bonanza 42.0″ 50.0″ Cessna 182 42.0″ 48.0″ Piper Arrow 41.0″ 45.0″ As you can see, the Mooney has the widest cabin among all of these aircraft. But, it also happens to have the shortest cabin height, which is probably why it has the reputation for being somewhat cramped inside. Nevertheless, it’s a reputation that’s hardly deserved. Utility Let’s take a look at the load-hauling capabilities of various airplanes: Aircraft Useful Load Payload w/Full Fuel Beechcraft V35 Bonanza 1270 lbs 826 lbs Mooney 201 1100 lbs 716 lbs Cessna 182 1219 lbs 691 lbs Piper Arrow 960 lbs 572 lbs Ok, the Mooney is obviously not as good of a load hauler as a Bonanza, but you have to look more closely to see that it actually is…the funny thing about the Bonanza is that if you take off with full fuel and four passengers, as you burn off fuel the center of gravity moves aft of the limit! The Bonanza has a very narrow CG range. So, unless your Bonanza is equipped for in-flight refueling, the Mooney ends up being able to haul a bigger load farther in the end. And when the tanks are topped off, the Mooney even beats the Cessna 182 in terms of the crap you can carry. Not too shabby for a “smaller” plane. Performance and Efficiency Since we’re talking about topping off tanks, let’s get down to the real heart of the Mooney’s superiority. Regardless of what the factory claims (169 knots), my 1977 Mooney 201 cruises at 160 KTAS at 8000′ at 70% power. This is while sipping a mere 10.5 gallons per hour of 100LL. Let’s take a look at performance figures for various aircraft (all figures represent 75% power, leaned to best economy, VFR reserve; the trip cost is calculated with a fuel price of $2.50 per gallon): Aircraft HP Climb Rate Usable Fuel Cruise Consumption Endurance Range Mi. per Gallon 500nm Trip Mooney 201 200 1030 fpm 64 gal 160 kts 10.5 gph 5:35 895 nm 15.2 $82 Piper Arrow 200 831 fpm 72 gal 137 kts 10.5 gph 6:20 870 nm 13.0 $96 Beechcraft V35 Bonanza 260 1150 fpm 74 gal 160 kts 14.0 gph 4:45 765 nm 11.4 $109 Cessna 182 230 924 fpm 88 gal 140 kts 13.5 gph 6:00 842 nm 10.4 $121 As you can see, the Mooney flies circles around its competition in the performance and efficiency category. The Mooney literally covers more distance in less time using less fuel! Why is this so? How does a Mooney manage to squeeze out that kind of performance from just a 200 hp four-banger? It all comes down to design. The Mooney is one of the cleanest planes out there (pre-composite era, of course). The 201 cowl and aerodynamic cleanup was a major accomplishment on the part of Roy LoPresti and Mooney. Here’s a great comparison of various lightplanes and their respective dragginess: Parasite Drag Coefficients & Flat Plat Area Aircraft CDP Flat Plate Area (sq. ft.) Mooney 201 0.017 2.81 Beech Bonanza 0.019 3.47 Piper Arrow 0.027 4.64 Cessna 182 0.031 5.27 Beech Sierra 0.034 5.02 Piper Warrior 0.034 5.83 Cessna 172 0.036 6.25 Cessna 152 0.038 6.14 Beech Skipper 0.049 6.36 Piper Tomahawk 0.054 6.64 Handling The Mooney’s handling is, in a word, impeccable. With control rods all around, the plane responds immediately to the slightest input from the pilot. Yet when you trim the plane up, it flies completely hands-off! You really don’t even need an autopilot (although it’s irreplaceable for IFR flight). Also, despite what people say, Mooneys are not hard to land, and they’re not difficult to slow down. As long as you stay ahead of the aircraft and plan your descents and power changes, it’s trivial. Speed brakes definitely aid pilots in getting Mooneys down more quickly without having to chop power (although there’s still quite a bit of debate over whether or not shock cooling is really a factor) or pick up excessive speed (although the yellow arc and redline in my 201 are very liberal), but I don’t have speed brakes and I don’t feel like I need them. Still, I’m sure any Mooney pilot will tell you that the Mooney really separates the good from the bad, in terms of the pilot at the controls. Safety When you address the issue of safety, the Mooney 201 is one of the safest planes in the sky according to the statistics. The Mooney’s steel tube rollbar cabin frame provides exceptional structural integrity. I have read countless articles and have seen photos that provide evidence of this. People have walked away from crashes in Mooneys where the cabin remained intact, saving their lives. In most other aircraft it would not have ended that way… Also, I’ve heard people talking about the Lancair’s strength, and how the test rig broke before the wing spars did. Yeah, yeah, whatever. Little known fact: the same thing happened at Mooney. Mooney factory engineers broke a static test fixture at 9.3 Gs while trying a destructive test on the J model wing. Anyway, you’re not going to break a Mooney! So there you have it. That’s just a handful of the reasons why I love owning a Mooney. Sure, there are quirks, like with any other aircraft, but at this point in my life (until I can afford a TBM-700, Meridian, or Pilatus) the Mooney is perfect for me.

I was thinking the same thing and as you I can not remember the reference I had for same. I think it was called "break out force" but I'm not sure but I do remember it was mentioned in reference to the two different ailerons. I got to thinking what if the only change was that the aileron design was changed for less break out force and everything else remained the same (as I think it did but I need to verify)? What if one could get an approval to use the later ailerons thereby allowing the TT A/P to be used on earlier airframes? I wonder if a letter of "No Technical Objection" could be had from anyone at Mooney? Or a DER to sign off on same? Also wonder what the issue is because the servos are able to adjust torque and travel time/rate. I don't quite understand the issue here. The mind is just wandering right now There is also the possibility of going "Primary Category" as was discussed sometime back, here on MS.

Looking into something interesting Anyone know why they say nothing earlier than a 65?

Badges? Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges (or 4 GPS screens in the cockpit:-) :-) Old school baby Old school! :-)

For those unfamiliar- If you look just aft of the red label saying "low band" you'll see what look like little oblong cans. Those are the "crystals" you would buy that were tuned to the transmitting frequency you wanted to use. I had to buy a 119.3 crystal for mine so I could talk to VNY tower. This was long before even 360 channel GA radios were available let alone 720. There were only a couple dozen frequencies used for towers all over the country. You could go to your local food market and "test" all the tubes (those round glass thingies) to find the bad one and buy for replacement. Each one of those tubes had a heating element in them so it could emit electrons (to deep into ancient electronics for this note) but suffice to say you could heat the cabin with the heat from them :-)