Ned Gravel

http://lists.aviating.com/mailman/private/mooney-tech/

Quote: rbridges does hitting a bird with your prop constitute a prop strike? Did you have to have anything inspected?

Here is one datapoint on the subject of birdstrikes in a Mooney. About two years ago, I was on final to 09 at Rockcliffe and just about to touch down doing close to 75mph. One stupid sheithawk (seagull) jumped straight up off the runway as I am about to flare and hit the top of the prop. It had entered the meatgrinder. Biggest mess was on my right main gear. Other than the cleanup, it was really a non-event. That one incident made me feel a whole lot better about a birdstrike on my windshield and convinced me that, unless the big cooling fan up front is not turning, there is very little likelyhood that a bird will make it as far as the windshield in any pieces big enough to cause real damage. YMMV.

There you are Andy: I thought you were in there somewheres. Your latest words demonstrate a great deal more integrity than your earlier posts. Well done, sir.

For those of you that might not know Clarence I can tell you he is a PERFECTIONIST!! He is a cook who eats his own cooking and I am glad he looks after my Mooney. I would venture to guess that countersinking the screw holes had more do with reducing drag than probably anything else. So did bevelling the edges of the plexiglas windows themselves (to make a seamless connection to the window frame along the fuselage). We all know of a few MSC types that are the same way when it comes to finding more efficiencies in the Mooney airframe. After all, these are Mooneys and they are comparitavely efficient and relatively fast, are they (k)not?

This is the weekend my eldest son gets married. So here we are in London Ontario (getting ready to go to the church) about 2 Mooney hours from home. And the Mooney is still at home. We drove for 6 hours because my radios are still not working properly after the GMA 340 install to replace the Narco CP 135 earlier this year. And all four days of this trip (yesterday through to Monday) are forecast as severely clear in cool temperatures. Oh well.......

When I started looking for my Mooney in 2004, the first place that gave me any useful answers on what to look for was Tri-City Aero in Kitchener (an MSC). They ended up doing the pre-purchase inspection on mine and saved me over 15,000 in repair of airworthiness issues. When the evidence was presented to the owner - the price went down.

Mine has never opened in flight and it does not need to be locked to stay shut, but this thread does remind me that I was once caught taxiing to the fuel pumps with it inadvertently left open.

My first reaction to this question is that, in an emergency, my aircraft no longer belongs to me. It belongs to the insurance company so it does not matter to me if the airframe gets bent. It does matter to me if people do. We are all required to save those on the ground before we save those in our aircraft because those on the ground are essentially innocent bystanders. That is why I would avoid using a road - even though it might have a wide paved surface. The only vehicle moving in the plowed field will be my aircraft - and it is my job to arrange that motion so that my people can walk away from the encounter. Most lift, slowest speed, smoothest roll out (if any). If any of you have not heard Jolie talk about her experience, it is worth the time. Now having said all that, most of my flying is over Eastern Canada and the North Eastern and Central US and this affects my first reaction to the question. Even in this area my decisions over the boreal forest of Northern Ontario and Quebec are not going to be the same as over the farmlands of Wisconsin or Iowa. They would be different as well if I was flying over the Rockies, or the Badlands, or the flats near Bonneville. JMO. YMMV.

Matt: You will find speed control to be almost the single most important consideration in a normal no-wind landing in a Mooney. Many of us fly the numbers such as close to 100 on downwind (need to be that slow to drop the flaps on mine), 90 on base, 80 on final and cross the fence at 1.3 X Vxo (70 mph in my case). Of course all this changes in a crosswind or if you are carrying ice or if you expect wind shear or are significantly under gross.

I plan 3 mins per 1000' of descent (about 300 fpm) for cruise descents. For a 5000' descent that works out to about 41 nm away when travelling at 150 kts - so slightly longer than your friend. But he is planning for a 500 fpm descent from the numbers you have given (I think). I generally like a shallower descent because the higher descent rate pushes my airspeed closer to Vne unless I throttle back to less than 20 inches. There is an old saying about Mooneys being able to either slow down or go down - just not at the same time.

I have the same results as others have mentioned. I flight plan for 145 kts. But down low and WOT, I can get in excess of 160 kts TAS. Mine has the one-piece old style windshield and the guppy mouth cowl. I figure that if I ever get around to updating those, I will get another 3-4 knots on the windshield mod and perhaps 1 on the cowl closure.

I got my license in 1987 in a Cherokee 140 "Commuter." As has been stated, it flew like a rock with the power off. I learned to put it down at one end of the hash marks on the runway and stop it before it came to the other end of the same hash marks. In my opinion, a better trainer than the 150/2, 172 types normally flown for ab initio training today. Today, the shortest rollout I can manage in my E model under normal wind conditions, when all the stars are aligned correctly, is about 300 feet. Speed control. Speed control. And then more speed control. But back to our friend, the Arrow. I was in parnership with 10 others on a 1969 Arrow that had the 180 horse fuel injected engine. I groundlooped it in 2003 and I learned then that I would never again own a retractable gear aircraft that worked on hydraulics or electrics. That is one of the biggest reasons I chose my Mooney. That and the fact for only 60% of the cost of our Arrow, I would own (myself only) an aircraft that cruised 25 knots faster than the Arrow and had the same useful load. So... (our) Arrow was fine (except for the gear thing), but the (my) Mooney is way better.

Eldon: Looking good!! As for A/P, I had an STEC-50 in mine when I bought it. It is much like the STEC-30 but with altitude hold already installed. Works for me. What I do not have is glideslope following, but I think that is because of the lack of a flight director to replace the AI I have in the panel now. It will certainly track a localiser and a back course approach. I would rather do the thinking and planning on the altitude myself anyway, so once at desired altitude, it will hold it. How much work you want to do, versus how much work you want it do to (as well as cost) will largely decide which one to go with. As has been stated already, you may have issues with the fact that your PFD is the G600 and it may have specific A/P requirements. Otherwise, these are great devices for SPIFR.

andersjm: Welcome to Mooneys!! Good people on this forum will give you good leads. Mine is a small one. Here is the list of Mooney Service Centers that are listed on the Mooney website. If you find one close enough to you to help, great. If not, then it would be good to rely on someone on this list more local to you. http://www.mooney.com/service-support/mooney-service-centers-3.html Good hunting.

I learned some time ago that (using the manual flaps) the first two pumps will actually increase the slow speed lift of the Mooney airfoil. The last two only increase drag (to help slow things down). Just a few more reasons to only use two pumps of flaps on instrument approaches. Two pumps is also my takeoff settings (as per the POH). Keeping that level of clean on an instrument approach is the best way to be prepared for the missed approach. And..... it handes way better in crosswinds than with full flaps. I do have one or two scenarios where full flaps are very useful - short field, soft field landings and takeoffs. But not on instrument approaches. JMO. YMMV.

I owned my E model for nearly 4 months before I thought to ask one of the folks I was taking for a ride to simply look out the door while we were still on the ground before the engine runup. He confirmed that the step was up.

OK, this is just me reporting heresay - but here goes. I appears that this new certification (by whomever) against ASTM D910, is formal confirmation that the avgas we have all been using for some time actually has less lead in it than the previous specification. ASTM D910 specifies somewhat (significantly??) less TEL in it than the previous one and it turns out that our avgas has contained the lower amount of TEL in it for sometime now. In other words ASTM specifies the lower amount of TEL, which our current avgas meets anyway, so that (at no extra cost to anyone) our current avgas turns out to be much more environmentally friendly than the EPA thought - so they will not fight so hard to take it out of service. Part of the rationale for this move was that the upper limit of the previous specification was being used as the number to calculate the overall environmental damage caused by our use of avgas. Now that calculation has a new lower number to use. Again, this is just heresay.

Quote: Fastbyk When I had my J in for the original inspection Clarence had noticed about the same amount of droop. He shimed the engine and I noticed approximately 4-5 knots increase.

Matt: I only have one piece of advice. Fly the numbers. 100 mph on downwind to deploy flaps. Gear should already be down and first GUMPS check done. 90 mph on base and turn to final. (Second GUMPS check) 80 mph on final. (Third GUMPS check) Cross the fence near 75 mph (1.3 times Vso), pull the throttle and let it settle. Keep the nosewheel off for as long as possible. Voila!!

Thanks BorealOne: About time Nav Canada got off its duff and did this.

Same thing happened to me yesterday on an instrument flight at 10 miles inbound to the FAF for an approach to Ottawa (CYOW). ATC asks me to "say indicated airspeed." "145 knots," I reply (had to read the inner ring) "Mooney SWR, slow to 130 knots, for sequencing," he says. Took some time, but I did and still had to be vectored away because I was catching up to the Cessna. Got vectored back onto final and broke out at 2000' AGL. Dontcha luv the sight of that runway on final after being in the soup for the last 40 minutes? I love flying my Mooney

Rob: I e-mailed you the one for the 65 C model that came with the memory stick about four (five?) years ago from Mooney. It is about 6 Mb though. And in those days, it was called an "Owner's Manual." Hope this is OK.

Norm: Don't know if this helps, but I have the IO 360 app on my iPhone and I think the guy that wrote it owns Air Dave LLC. The website address for his app is: http://www.airdavellc.com/AirDave/IO360_Power_Settings.html. He has gotta know Mac. Hope this helps.

I think I prefer the MVP50 - or the AuRACLE from Flightline. They have much of the same functionality of the 930 and are all close in price, but they are smaller and lighter. I could be convinced otherwise, of course, but I am currently leaning away from the 930.