M016576

After seeing a couple of “rockets/missiles are dangerous; the airframes can’t handle that power/mod!” Posts here on mooney space, I did a (very) cursory look into in-flight break ups of Mooney’s on the inter webs. I found 3. 2 were K’s, one was a C, if I remember correctly, one of the two K’s was a rocket. I think that’s where the idea came from that the rocket was “more dangerous” All 3 were in heavy convective turbulence (again, if I remember correctly)... I think the issue was not “what type of mooney” but “what were the conditions of flight.” jmho.

I know for a fact that their is no fuel that far aft in the wing, at least not where the extended range tanks are installed.... and if there is, you’ll need to go see Paul Beck @ weep no more.

I think the issue here is in the use of the term “aux” tank. I think the ferry tank (auxiliary tank) is what that document is referencing. Not the Monroy Extended Range tank. If only someone on this board could help us out @Piloto.... for your extended range tanks, the datam is the same as the regular tanks, correct. 48.43”.

You won’t have to- they probably have already figured it out..... and possibly even work around to get access!

I’m not sure you really understand the possible end state of this technology as dreamed up by Tesla... Because it involves nobody actually having/owning a car at all (let alone the skill set to “drive”). Just an automated fleet of self driving in perpetual motion. So the concept that our children would “want the keys” is not really relevant (when was the last time you saw an actual key and not a fob, btw.... very very soon it’s your phone that will allow for the car to start/go/move... but all that’s an entirely different conversation). Tesla is the leader in pushing their “beta” software out to the masses. A few other companies are working in autonomous driving as well- Google (waymo), etc. I’m not 100% convinced the “moat” is as wide and deep as many Tesla stockholders seem to preach. But time will certainly tell.

If it’s a joint use field, and a military (ANG) controller is in the tower- he’s required By regulation to say that, regardless of if it’s a civilian or military aircraft. they are definitely still doing this.

What type of tank do you have? I normally just take my portable tank to Norco- I want to say my last fill was 25 or 30 bucks. medical grade vs aviation grade sparks quite a debate.... I’ll steer clear of that. edit: just realized that Norco is only the pacnw. See Paul’s comments below though- same idea- and yes, expect to swap tanks. I do this for CO2 for beer brewing/carbonization as well.

Yep- that’s the reason why the rates are what they are.... the statistics don’t lie. Kind of like if all this self driving stuff actually does bring accident rates down and proves to be orders of magnitudes safer than non-self driving cars... the cost to insure a non-self driving car will skyrocket. Imagine being priced out of being able to own an old Jeep or mustang... because you can’t afford the insurance. Talk about opening up a whole new can of worms! Imagine collector car clubs asking why young folks aren’t driving any more? Why they don’t love working on cars anymore? Don’t love racing cars anymore? I can see what’s happened to GA happening to the “traditional auto” once self driving is widely propagated. Maybe not tomorrow or in 5 years. But check back in 15 years.... some guys love the progress @mike_elliott, and part of me can’t wait for it! But part of me knows that there are some things that I love about “the way it currently is” that will be forever changed and possibly eliminated altogether for a wide swath of people. sorry for the thread drift!

I look forward to the day that an insurance company doesn’t ask age as well.... because that would mean age wouldn’t be a factor in their risk calculations (ie... we, as a human population... would be so healthy that older age wouldn’t correlate with higher risk of accident/failure). I hope that day comes sooner rather than later!

Not sure the tail could take that kind of speed.... just looking at Vne....

Really expensive, though... the newest version runs about 400K....

Nat Gas is a fossil fuel- so you’re right to consider it one. But it’s characteristics of combustion and it’s abundance make it a better choice (imo) than the others (coal, oil, etc) As of today- The US doesn’t have the capability to meet its domestic energy demands purely by solar/wind/hydro. Power can also be expensive depending on what part of the country one lives in, and even what time of the day it is. Perhaps new battery technology or advances in turbine efficiency will improve the economics of wind and solar... but if we as a country are going to add an additional 20% yearly energy consumption, we’re going to need to figure it out... and quickly. I think that’s the biggest hurdle to everyone driving EV’s in the next 5 years- just finding the additional power. on another note- I think what will drive the nail into the coffin of the ICE will ultimately be the cost to insure a car that isn’t self driving/electric. If the self driving vehicles are indeed safer, premiums for manually driven ICE vehicles will rise to the point to where It will no longer be affordable to drive them. Sure- some people will still maintain such cars- but the cast majority will be forced to adopt the safer, self driving technology. and where will that leave flying? If self driving cars become the only way to travel... why would pilots even be required on airplanes? 1). (Total thread creep) 2). (I don’t necessarily fully embrace the thoughts posted above on self driving / piloting ... but do see a possibility for such an outcome... very curious what others think of this possibility)

My numbers aren’t old per se... I just misinterpreted the data. What I was reading was counting total energy consumption- not power generation sources. This is the source I was using... the same source as you... just I read it wrong- my bad! https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ Nag Gas is in abundant supply in the US, and it burns clean... so it’s a pretty logical choice to replace coal.

According to the DoE, In 2019, the Entire US produced 3.99 trillion kWh’s of electricity. according to the DoT, in 2019 passenger vehicles accounted for 3.22 Trillion miles traveled in the US. a Model 3 Tesla uses approx 26 kWh per 100 miles. If every passenger car in the US turned into a Tesla Model 3 tomorrow, the demand on the electrical grid would rise by approximately .837 Trillion kWh’s.... about 20%. the top three power sources for American electricity? Oil- ~37%, Nat Gas, ~35%, Nuclear- ~11%. while oil may no longer be filling gas tanks... it’s still going to be burned in power plants for a while. If we really want clean(er) energy- we need to focus more on Nat Gas and Nuclear. (Or making hydro, solar, wind more efficient). It would be nice if every EV built and produced really did offset carbon emissions 1 for 1... but we aren’t there yet. Hopefully sooner rather than later- but our whole power infrastructure needs to change for that to happen.

You are the perfect salesman for a new Tesla! unfortunately, it’s not as good of a deal any more for a new Tesla... that free supercharger network perk was a pretty nice option.

Nuke plants or Nat Gas (or straight up oil). That’s the only way under the current limitations that the country could conceivably create enough electric power to go “full electric” with all our vehicles. The visions of “all-green” electric power are not currently realistic. I’m not sure they ever will be. as for AvGas- it’s hard to best how much energy per LB you’ve got tucked away in a gallon of avgas/jetA. Which is why it works so well for an airplane... where weight drives every consideration. a straight up electric plane is not really feasible if you want it to haul a load (have to carry all those battery packs). I like the hybrid idea... something like what Hyliion is doing for their class 8 truck drivetrains. “Trucking” does have some similarities to aircraft... hyliion’s drivetrains have a small Nat gas fired generator that charge a “small” battery pack. The battery pack powers the electric motors, and can run for ~25 miles or so in “all electric” mode with the generator off. With the generator on- you’re limited in range by the amount of Nat gas in the tank... that works out to be about ~1000 miles while hauling an 80000 load. Only takes about 10 minutes to fill the Nat gas tank. Compare that to the Tesla One semi... which has to carry (and charge) a massive battery pack. The “Upgraded” Tesla one has a range of 500 miles, and takes approximately 30 minutes to charge its battery’s. if I was going to pick an electric power technology to adopt for airplane use- I think it Would be the hybrid solution.

Technically, any fixed wing aircraft the president is riding on flown by the PAG is considered "Air Force One." The 747 most associate with being AF-1 is actually known as a VC-25 by military designation.... he also regularly uses a 757 for travel (mainly due to it's ability to fly into smaller strips).. that's known as a VC-32. Of course, any rotor wing aircraft the president is riding on is known as "Marine One." and the squadron tasked to lift the president via rotorwing has multiple aircraft... H-60's, V-22's, etc.

That is correct- the two 747's being re-worked to take over as AF-1 were already built, sitting on the ramp awaiting delivery to a now defunct airline.

That's so true.... the question is, has that niche market already been filled by the other vendors... is there room for another? Does a market even exist for such aircraft anymore? Gosh, I hope the answer is an emphatic "YES!" but watching the decline of GA over the years as the costs and barriers to entry increase almost parabolically makes me think... maybe not.

Beautiful!

yeah- it seems crazy to me, too! I'm calling Parker in the next day or so- maybe he can shed some light on this for me. I've been working with Falcon; the underwriter is Old Republic.

I appreciate that... maybe it is age based... I just turned 41! ;-)

Anyone else get a quote for insurance that’s 40% than last year? sad.... I have a perfect safety record, thousands of hours in retracts, turbine, pistons, twins... owned my mooney for 7 years with a perfect safety record. Have not had a single mishap or issue in any of the aircraft I fly. No claims against me or anything... CFI, CFII, ATP... and still my insurance is up 40%! how long can GA go on like this? I can’t imagine that safety rates in GA are going to get better by pricing out the people that fly for a living. It’s sad.

I think the key to drive home is that if the approach is looking ugly, and requires more than a standard rate turn to capture centerline, that it’s best to just take it around rather than try to “make it happen.” Over the years I’ve seen far too many mishaps in both military and civilian aviation that I attribute to “trying to make it happen” when prudence dictates just taking it around and trying again in a more stabilized manner. That sort of decision making is not necessarily natural for the type A pilot (accepting that one may have ended up in a position where it’s better and safer to abort the approach, landing, mission). one way I’ve heard an instructor phrase this phenomenon with a positive reinforcement is this... “just take it around.. go arounds are free- and you get some extra flight time for them!” the real stink is this, though... I’m willing to bet that if this was a wrapped up approach turn stall... Imthat it wasn’t the first time this pilot had been in this predicament... and had made the approach “happen.” It was just the first time (and last) that he spun it in.

That’s a great video! Smart wing design on that thing. Also amazing how little of that aircraft appeared to be remaining, and how they were still able to recover the flight recorder. Thanks!