Ned Gravel

I was unable to get home this weekend because I was stuck in Detroit for both Saturday and Sunday because of that system in the Northeast that took its time to move out into the Atlantic. Remember the beautiful flying last weekend? Oakland Troy (KVLL) finally showed MVFR at 10:30 this morning and I knew that VFR was over the St. Clair river, just a few miles to the east at the start of 3.2 hours of Mooney time. Here are the pictures. 2200' ceiling approaching the river from the West, to a 7000' ceiling on the Canadian side, and finally CAVOK (SKC in Canada). Caught one more photo looking south at the last of the system as I ran east at 5500'. 3.2 of the best hours I will spend all week (well except for the obvious of course).

Quote: carusoam Sorry, wrong forum area....

Quote: FlyingAggie

OK, here goes. I bought my Mooney in 2005 and in 2006, my MSC, Tri-City Aero at CYKF Kitchener, Ontario, hosted a MAPA Technical Workshop with Jerry Manthey. So I went, as did about 25 others. Mostly Mooney drivers but one or two mechanics (we call them AME's in Canada). So there we are in Clarence's spotless hanger, surrounded by Mooneys, seated at our tables and we start introducing ourselves and it went exactly as folks are doing in this thread...... "Ahem.... (stands up) ....Hi. My name is Ned and I am a Mooney driver..... (looks around the room sheepishly and sits down...." And that went on for about 2/3rds of the introductions there. We looked like an AA meeting and this was our time to "come clean." Got my fix yesterday. Today, I am in Southfield, Michigan, having spent 2 hours and 45 minutes flying to Troy Oakland (KVLL) from Ottawa (CYRO) on business. S'OK. I'm good now for a couple of days or so....

There but for the Grace of God go I........

Quote: FlyingAggie ... I like the idea of having dual brakes and they might be useful during my transition training, but I have about 7 hrs in the left seat with Mooney's, which didn't have dual brakes, and had no problems in the five or so landings. ... Alan

Quote: Parker_Woodruff Yup. One of those plastic lenses runs $213 and about an hour of labor to fit if you're familiar with the process.

Quote: JimR So true. Very nice. Is that an MT prop? Jim

Jim: Yeah, yeah, I know. As Scott mentioned, it takes perhaps more money to do the mod thing, than it does to buy up. I have a friend who owns an MSC and this is what his E model project looks like now. Difference between he and I? He gets to do his own work, and I would have to pay someone else to do mine.

Scott: Needless to say, some of us are biased the same way you are. I like the term "stone simple" when considering the complexity of my manual landing gear. I don't know if anyone else is familiar with the term "J killer." That refers to an E model with all the goodies on it, making it the equal of a J model in terms of aerodynamics, and carrying about 100 lbs less empty weight. Therefore, should be faster than a J. Now putting all that stuff on it, may, or may not, cost more than the difference in price for similarly equipped J and E models. But it is nice to think about..... And there's that stone simple landing gear to go with it.....

Eric: That is the other one I know too. And I actually suck at the crab and kick method. It is not a stable method for me. Forward slip is also the method taught by our chief flying instructor - in those aircraft that can handle it. But so as not to lead Mike astray, I do use Don Kaye's numbers for crosswinds. Add 5 mph for every 10 kt of crosswind component and subtract 5 mph for each 300 lb under 2575 lbs.

I agree with Jolie. I slip mine all the time on crosswind finals. I find such an approach to be stable this way. Fly 5 mph faster and use less flaps, but forward slips create fairly solid performance right down to the numbers. I do not use it as a device to reduce speed on descent or to get down faster. Those are planning issues and I try and solve them further out - or I am going around. I have heard from many sources that our "short body" Mooneys have a very comfortable flight envelope when it comes to slips. My own experience (about 350 hours) in my own E model supports that view. I hear (but I do not know) that J's are OK with slips too. I have also read that it is primarily the "long bodies" where problems can occur in attitudes and configurations that do not tend to bother our shorter birds. IIRC, I read about "... a former Mooney factory test pilot with more than 14,000 hours of flight test work exploring the complete flight envelope of many models of Mooney including the J ..." who ended up UWOF because of a loss of control in a cross controlled approach. An article in the May 2007 MAPA log discussed it: On August 4, 2004, approximately 0845 Central Daylight Time, a Mooney M20J single-engine airplane was destroyed upon impact with terrain following a loss of control while maneuvering for landing at the Olney Municipal Airport (ONY), near Olney, Texas. See Trey Hughes editorial in the same edition on slipping: I don’t know how many Mooney owners or operators have had the chance to experience a cross-controlled stall in a Mooney, but those who have been unfortunate enough will agree that it is a place that no one wants to go twice. Mooneys, especially the long-body models, have a tendency to roll toward the deflected rudder when they are stalled in an uncoordinated condition. This roll can be abrupt and unannounced. Especially with flaps extended, during a slipping maneuver, it is very easy to lose elevator effectiveness and suddenly get a nose-down pitching moment. I have talked with several Mooney factory test pilots – both present and past – who agree that a slip is not a normal maneuver in a Mooney and should not be attempted at low airspeeds and altitudes. ..... While the short airframes (pre-J) are not as susceptible to this issue, slips in even these models should be approached with a lot of caution. Remember a Mooney, even those with 200 hp or less, has the flight characteristics of a high performance aircraft and should be flown as such. Slips are not part of normal operations and not how these airplanes were designed to be flown. If a slip must be preformed, remember to keep the airspeed above about 80-85 KIAS and you will avoid the possibility of a tail stall and the subsequent loss of control. So, to quote Forrest Gump, "careful is as careful does." I know my Mooney and I know how it handles a cross controlled stall (at altitude of course with an instructor on board) and Trey is correct. It will roll toward the deflected rudder. The difference is that my E model is not as violent in this manoeuvre as the longer bodies and can be recovered before it enters a spin. Location of the CG can also either mitigate or compound the issue. Now, having said all that, this is just my opinion and it is worth as much as you paid for it.

Robert: Hi. I just sent you the DER directory and it has 14 names in WA alone, starting on page 127. Hope that helps. Good luck and let us know how it all turns out.

Operational Security has been increased??

Thanks SagemGuy: I am obviously not familiar with the Brittain systems and the Mooney PC and I appreciate your insight.

Rage: In answer to your first question: Is it necessary to have a standby vacuum source for flying IFR? The answer is, it depends. On you. Loss of the vacuum pump may cause you to lose the TC, AI and DG if they are vacuum based. If they are not, no worries. If you lose the attitude indicator and DG in hard IFR, do you have a way to keep your aircraft upright and on course without them? If you have an autopilot, and you use it a lot, from where does it draw its attitude and course information? If the answer to that question is "my vacuum based gyros" then it too is gone. If not, then at least the A/P might be relied upon to hold the aircraft upright and on course for you while you have no other method of determining which way is up, while you figure out what to do next. My solution in my E model is an electric TC that feeds an STEC-50 A/P. Between these two and my compass, I should be able to keep things going until a bolt hole appears out of the murk. My panel mounted GPS can drive the A/P and I have a control column mounted GPS providing situational awareness. I practice partial panel a lot because this is not the best solution. Backups to keep the primary reference instruments operating is the one I would like to have in place. Here are some options for standby systems - and you already mentioned one approch. Getting electrically driven gyro instruments is a good one - but can be expensive. One step further along that line is little bit of glass in the Aspen Evolution, but you still need backup instruments to go with that. As well, these may require some electrical power backup. The old Precise Flight standby vacuum system (SVS) that was probably the one previously on your F model, is now manufactured by The Vacuum Source (http://www.thevacsource.com/). Aero Safe (http://www.aerosafe.net/) manufactures an electrically driven vacuum system that we can install in the battery compartment. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. SVS is $1000 cheaper and one third the price of the electrical option. It also causes a little bit of loss of MAP when it is engaged (or so I am told). Choices are now yours. I will probably put the SVS system in my aircraft during its next annual, because I really dislike having to sweat partial panel in hard IFR. Someday, when I win the bijillion, I will probably replace everything vacuum related with electrical and then install a Turbo Alternator BAE-14/28. See http://www.basicaircraft.com/turbo-alternator-bae-14-28.asp

I do not know too much about 696s and their installation in a Mooney cockpit, but a relatively well known instructor by the name of Don Kaye swears by his. He has posted photos of his control yoke mount on http://www.donkaye.com/Dons_Homepage/Garmin_696_Photos.html.

I do almost the same things as Brian. Brief folks on how to get on, and demonstrate, and then let them demonstrate to me. Works wonders for those that have any difficulty at all getting up or down and we discuss ways to alleviate any difficulties well before we actually board. Also helps in case I have to put the aircraft down in a field someplace and we are needing to move more quickly than after a normal taxi back to the barn. (former boy scout). As for the door, I do things a bit differently. When we are aboard and seated, I tell them not to worry about the door - we will cover its operation in a moment. Then I brief. Then I demonstrate. Then I let them show me. A couple of times. Good for the same reasons as outlined above. In an emergency, the person in the right seat is part of our solution because they know just that little bit more. But.... that is just me.

Mitch: I live in Canada, so please take my advice as that of in interrested outsider. Interested, yes, but not a person whose opinion would count in your legal system. I would strongly advise your contacting the AOPA Airport Support Network folks (http://www.aopa.org/asn/). They do have such standing. I have read, over the six or so years of my AOPA membership, about 40 cases involving AOPA's involvement in a community activity to stop just the kind of thing you have mentioned. They did not save Meigs Field, but they have saved many others and their work has resulted, in one case I recall, lopping the top three floors off a building being constructed contrary to FAA flight path safety requirements.