M016576

That’s where mine is, mounted with a bracket, almost completely under the two rear seats, just above the spar. It’s an ‘82 J... and I know the interior isn’t original... but the plastic that has the cutout *looks* like it’s designed specifically for that spot. Im wondering if maybe the previous owner got the back seat fire extinguisher cut out panel from a long body, or a later model, maybe? It could also be custom. Next time I’m at the plane I’ll take a picture if anyone is interested. Either way, the extinguisher stows cleanly about half way into the bulkhead in a little cutout with a C-clip holding it in.

Woof! Great catch!

I will- along with my questions- which primarily relate to how acclimation and age effect one’s “alertness” based on O2 sat- I’m curious primarily due to my own personal hypoxia symptoms, which I’ve noticed changing over the past 10 years during my annual trips through the chamber. Actually- what got me to make my post were the following two posts (neither of which are mine). And while they don’t say exactly “AOK at 92%+”, the second one says that 90-100% is within the range of noise threshold... and I mentioned why I bet it wasn’t below the noise for Don. To which you told me I should be hit upside the head.... I have certainly made some ridiculous, silly and uninformed posts over the years deserving of such a smack, but in this case, I’m not sure it was warranted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If more oxygen at a given altitude makes you feel or perform better, that's the outcome you're looking for. I would simply claim that numbers between 90-100% are within the range of "noise" and how you feel is a much better reflection of your oxygen status. <<<<<<<<<>>><<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What are these “D.V.D.’s” you speak of? Sounds like an ancient form of video medium. Haven’t even seen one in a decade. I’m not making any assumptions- just stating why he probably feels better when he has a higher O2 sat. The references I posted delve into copd... but also discuss normal o2 sats at higher altitudes (5000+’) for acclimated people. If one isn’t feeling well, more is almost always better... unless one is hyperventilating->hypocapnia, in which case controlling rate and depth of breathing becomes more important. But I think hypocapnia would be more difficult to induce with a cannula...Less so with a mask. question- do you know how effective pulse oximeters are in unpressurized environments at altitude? I have no idea, but I’m curious. the key takeaway I have from this thread is that we all have different levels of fitness, physiology and environmental factors that make us all more or less susceptible to hypoxia, and at different rates. So to say “everyone is A-OK at 92% and above” is probably an oversimplification of a complex issue. That’s the point I was making in far fewer words.

That does make sense for you- you’re older, and living at sea level in a city with some level of particulate in the air- physiologically, a higher O-2 sat probably does make you feel better than say, a 25 year old that is acclimated (lives at) to 6000’ and is in clean air on a more regular basis. A few references that discuss the topic: https://perf2ndwind.org/about-chronic-respiratory-disease/altitude-oxygen-levels-and-oximetry/ http://www.high-altitude-medicine.com/SaO2-table.html This particular issue is something that we discuss frequently in my line of work- especially due to the recent rash of OBOGS related “anomalies.” O2 is typically something we want more of.. not less... although not always (hypocapnia being an example of that)

That “Dutch Roll” is an effect of the high positive dihedral in the tail plane. I don’t like it either- it feels weird... but it’s a side effect of the tail plane being so dynamically stable (that it over corrects).

I’ve flown 2 bonanzas- a V35B and a S35, and 2 other aircraft that use the same wing (T-34B and T-34C but both these had aileron and rudder trim, too). So my sample size is somewhat limited and subjective, and I also wasn’t “grading the aircraft” on this point- so actively looking for it. To me, though- they seem to fly similarly from a stability standpoint to the mooney’s I’ve flown, with the exception of a far lighter control force required in the Bonanza and T-34. bonanza’s do have dihedral in the wing, which does as you say (helps with static stability). I wonder if it’s easier for a Bonanza to fall out of rig? Upon research, I found this scholarly article which is very interesting (from a aero-nerd perspective) on how lateral stability in aircraft, which discusses FAA certification standards and how they have evolved. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b312/58da0a72490bb62cc7b3bd1de1faaa4749ad.pdf Just as a side note- with my first J, the aircraft would bank right and the nose would drop after about 15 seconds if I let go of the controls... at least until I had the controls re-rigged, at which point it flew much “truer.” I don’t think I could get a minute of hands off time though (on either of the mooney’s I’ve owned... but that’s something for me to try!). Chapter 2 here discusses static vs dynamic stability in better detail than I do. https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/pubs/folder5/t34c/p-330_ch9.pdf

Yes- exactly. It’s “geared” for that feel- and in pitch (with the Missile and Rocket, anyway) for a lighter engine. i haven’t flown a long body- so I can’t speak to how the pitch feel compares to a rocket/missile or regular J/K (or short body)

Have you flown a Bonanza? I love my mooney.... but it’s not “stability” that the Bonanza lacks (it’s exceptionally stable). It’s just that it’s noticeably lighter on the controls. a Bonanza is Positive-> neutral in static stability (much like a mooney), and dynamically positively stable. And it has a very light control feel (it doesn’t take much force to deflect the flight controls). The mooney is also positive to neutral in static stability and dynamically positively stable, but it requires more force to deflect the flight controls... hence the “heavier feel.” I’ve heard a lot of pilots say that the mooney is more “stable” due to its heavier flight controls... but that’s not necessarily aerodynamically accurate- stability, as defined in aerodynamics, has to do with an aircrafts resistance to change of state, not how much force it takes to change the state itself. It’s more about what happens when you let go of the yoke, rather than how much force is required to turn the yoke.

Unless it’s a Missile or a screaming eagle.... all the speed/efficiency, and the useful load to go along with it (~1150 lbs). Ovations are beautiful... but wouldn’t they be better with a 1150-1200lb useful? It’s too bad that hasn’t happened for mooney. excellent write up though- quite objective, I feel the same way about the Bonanza. Light on the controls, fast, nimble. The Mooney could be lighter on the controls but it wasn’t designed that way, in part due to using rods and turnbuckles instead of pulley’s and cables. Those same rods also add weight that could have been reduced (significantly) by using cable. But one of Mooney’s selling points has always been the control rods.. much like the “roll cage.” It leads to a heavier feel on the controls and a lower useful load in exchange for possibly a bit more safety (assuming the rods are more robust than cable).

Trim switch for the KFC-150... they are about $650.00 if you buy it new. Any avionics. (G500TXI for example- $16000 for far less capability/power than in iPad).

Turns out you can fly safely with no WSO, no gps, one pilot and no radalt at “500’ “ and 400+ kts after all (It’s amazing how “old school” the light gray is) Now that I’m in the 35, and *actually know* how low I am... it’s funny to compare reality with perception.

There is nothing inherently unsafe with formation flying, no more so than the other two types of flying (Visual references... or Instrument references)- so long as all all the pilots involved are proficient in the practice. 3 types for flight: Visual- using the earth as your attitude reference instrument- using your instrument panel as your attitude reference formation- using another aircraft as your attitude reference. so, with that mind... if two aircraft run into each other while engaging in formation flight- the midair is due to pilot error in some capacity, so long as the underlying formation positions themselves are proven to have safe clearances. The reason that it is pilot error, is that a *safe* formation position accounts for potential disruptions of airflow., turbulence, etc. every time I’ve heard of a mid air occurring during formation flight, a safety investigation occurs as well, to ensure that the pilots are being trained properly and have safe practices. it is possible, as the mooney caravan doesn’t have quite the sample size of instruction and flight hours in formation that the military has, that their formation positions are not designed with enough clearance to provide safe separation in the event of “natural phenomenon.” ***I can’t say , though, as I don’t know*** Either way, it’s worth an evaluation of the positions for wing tip clearance, vertical offset, and procedural operations- it’s a great learning opportunity at the very least, and it’s possible that maybe something will be discovered that could be done safer or better. Accidents happen, luckily we all get to learn from this one, and I bet it will make us all safer pilots. Nothing is inherently dangerous about formation flight, any more so than the two other types of flight and I really hope to one day join in with the professionals that organize, host and fly In the formation clinics for mooney’s and the mooney caravan. Their work and efforts not only raise awareness for the mooney brand, but help to build the mooney community, and make me proud and excited to be a mooney owner.

How about 500’ through a canyon?

Sorry -A-... a Mooney is a lot of things compared to a fighter- but “maneuverable” isn’t one of them. It’s exceptionally stable instead, which in my books of far more important for a plane of its mission. the piece you’re missing is that a fighter, while heavier, has a far higher thrust to weight ratio, better wing loading, hydraulically actuated flight controls, and provisions for both aerobatic and inverted flight. I can fly a fighter in formation using my thumb and index finger..., an F-15 can roll 360 degrees (aileron roll) in a single second, and can execute an instantaneous turn in excess of 20 degrees a second. my mooney in formation takes continuous FORCE on the controls (they are heavy), rolls VERY slowly (because it’s designed to be stable, not maneuverable), and takes a full minute to turn 360 degrees. Power response is OK, but you do not have much excess power available, compared to a fighter- which has tons (factors of 2+ times if you count afterburner), of excess power available at normal close formation speeds. A mooney does have a smaller turn radius than some fighters (but not a faster turn rate...). but that’s about it from a maneuverability standpoint.

Try walking around on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier during flight operations... if it wasn’t for jet exhaust, you’d have nothing to breathe at all!

Yes, this- I think the CO is “coming in” through the vents and/or door... I see this on the ground as well with the windows/vents/door cracked. Once I’m airborne, the CO is 0 on my amazon-purchased co meter (which has replaceable batteries... vice the sensor con, which I had before).

You are correct- “D” is part of the guard ramp now- and barriers are in place unless the F-15’s are conducting flight ops. That happened about 3 years ago (D being absorbed into the guard ramp) as part of some new security regulations. the ground controller and the tower controllers, are actually a mix of civilians and guard personnel. So the tower is pretty much connected to the guard base whenever it’s open. The air traffic in and out of K-falls is relatively light, unless it’s during the ANG fly windows.. so there are several hours during the night where the tower closes, and the field goes uncontrolled. Some weekends, too... but not all weekends- the 114FS flys every weekday, as well as one weekend a month.

I’ve redacted the initial post- again I apologize.

Different aircraft have different security requirements based on the classification of their hardware. Some military jets can be parked in unclassified, or on civilian ramps without guards. Some cannot. As for the complexity of starting one of these fighters... their really isn’t much to it. Open a single panel on the F-18, and you can open the canopy and deploy the boarding ladder. One switch turns on the APU. Then it’s just a matter of cranking the motors using apu bleed air- very simple (no different than any other turbine, really). A F-15 doesn’t even have a battery... the canopy is controlled by a pneumatic accumulator- the control handle is right in the side of the fuselage- easy to access. Boarding steps are build into the side of the jet, and a small set of steps extend out the bottom, in the event one doesn’t have a boarding ladder.

That’s exactly where it is. I have a connection from my aspen that runs to the IFD that automatically inputs the oat and set heading bug and a few other things.. but you can enter a bunch of the data “manually” in the calculators.

This is correct. As for the security- for anyone that’s been to NAS Lemoore- you’ll know that the flight line side of the base is about 7 miles removed from the “administration” side- and is surrounded by government owned, sub-let farmers fields. These give a pretty clear view of anyone approaching. the base itself is surrounded by fences and each road is blocked by manned gates with barriers, but those are located outside the farmers fields. This particular “gate crasher” did crash through the back gate in their car. I’m fairly certain that the fences and gates have been improved since this incident. But it just goes to show you what a little determination and a lot of meth can do.

You’re correct- I re-read my post.... I intended it to be well meant “ribbing”... but you’re absolutely correct- it does come off as very much a “jerk” or “troll” move. no offense was meant, and I apologize for the way I came off.

Yes- exactly

We do it all the time in my line of work... when fighters are executing aerial refueling.