WardHolbrook

Go do a study of the NTSB accident data base. They're there. In aviation, the terms "ALWAYS" and "NEVER" probably shouldn't be used very often. There are USUALLY examples where the contrary would have been better. For example, historically, most engine failures are as a result of fuel exhaustion. If you've run out of gas, why would you worry about rupturing a tank and starting a fire? Of course the best answer is to not run out of gas. But take the scenario where you're going into a field strewn with large rocks and boulders. I, for one, would probably much rather have something between my butt (and the bottom of the fuselage) and those rocks - even if - it didn't remain there very long.

As far as gear up vs down, for every example of "it would be better if UP" I can show you an example of "it would be better if DOWN" and vise-versa. As for me, it's going to depend and even then, I'm going to hope that I've GUESSED correctly.

Do an Google search for aircraft seat belts and aircraft seat belt re webbing. They are readily available.

Off airport landing gear up or gear down? For me it's an adult diaper - depends. If the terrain is (relatively) smooth, like a road, beach, pasture, etc. then it's obviously wheels down. If I'm going into the water, then I'm going to be wheels up. If I'm going into any other terrain then I'll like lean towards gear down on the assumption that ANY foot pound energy that the landing gear absorbs as it is being ripped away is one less foot pound of energy that my butt will have to deal with. That being said, this is probably one of those damned if you do or damned if you don't scenarios. Like I said earlier, my goal is to contact the terrain as flat as possible and at minimum CONTROLLABLE airspeed and fly the thing to a stop. As far as seat belts and harnesses go, it goes without saying that they should be in good condition. They do not last forever and should be replaced periodically. (i'm not sure what the suggested interval is, but most bizjets get new belt and harnesses every 10 years or so.) If your belts are over 10 or 15 years old it's probably time to get them rewebbed or replaced. If you're flying around in an airplane without harnesses, you're being very foolish.

That stuff gives you more options when dealing with skuzzy weather. More options are good things.

Here in California, it's quite common to start an approach in VMC and descend into a marine layer.

The best way that I know of to make a successful emergency landing in a single is to avoid the need. There is an old saying "A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid having to demonstrate his superior skills." In other words, proper and timely maintenance, proper preflight planning (ie adequate fuel, favorable wx conditions, suitable terrain etc) and good old fashioned common sense will go a very long way to keep you from getting into trouble in the first place. That being said, there will always be a certain level of risk in aviation. There is no such thing as a perfectly reliable engine. If there is a secret to making a successful emergency landing in a single it would be to simply maintain control and keep flying the airplane until everything comes to a stop. The FAA mandates that all certified single engine aircraft have a stalling speed no greater than 61 knots. Many of the singles we fly have stall speeds in the 40 to 50 knot range. At those speeds, as long as you can keep from hitting anything head-on you're going to have a good chance of walking away from it. The survivability of a crash is a function of how quickly the kinetic energy is dissipated. That implies slower is better than faster AND a flatter angle is better than a steeper angle. If you double the speed you've got four times the amount of energy to dissipate. ANY extra speed on touchdown magnifies the amount of energy that will need to be dissipated. It's also a function of time so the flatter an angle you have at touchdown the better. IMHO, you want to touchdown at the lowest controllable airspeed at the flattest possible angle. Now, for those of you who aspire to fly twins someday, there is no such stall speed requirement for the light twins we fly. A few multi-engine aircraft are light enough to have stall speeds less than 61 knots, but many aircraft designers take advantage of higher wing loadings to increase a light twin’s performance. This results in twins with stall speeds significantly higher than the equivalent single engine airplane. Take the Beech A36 Bonanza and the Baron 58. Essentially, they are single and multi-engine versions of the same airframe, with more or less comparable performance and capabilities. The Bonanza has a stall speed of 59 knots and the Baron, a stall speed of 73 knots. Remember what I said about speed - If you double the stall speed, you multiply the kinetic energy four times. Also remember that the survivability of a crash is a function of how quickly the kinetic energy is dissipated. In the event of an off field landing in a twin, you could easily have nearly twice the kinetic energy to dissipate. If you’re lucky you’ll have a flat smooth surface, but throw in some rocks, trees, etc. and you quickly see why survivability in an off field landing in a twin could be problematic. As far as the willingness to sacrifice the airplane. That is important. I’ve always assumed that the moment you lose your engine, the title immediately transfers to your insurance company. Honestly, that’s the only way to approach it. I had a good friend and highly experienced ATP/A&P lose his life in a homebuilt accident. He had an engine failure as he was approaching the airport and he overflew several suitable fields in an attempt to get the airplane back to the airport. He attempted to stretch his glide and ended up stalling and spinning in. Putting that airplane into one of those fields would have probably resulted in a damaged airplane, but he would also have been around to rebuild it or, if necessary, replace it. In my mind, this brings up one of the big problems that I have with homebuilts (or any airplane - like our pet Mooneys - for that matter that we may have owned and showered with time, attention and money over a period of many years.) - although the construction may be impeccable and in all aspects the equivalent or better than any certified airplane out there, how many owner/builder/pilots would be able to overcome the inevitable physiological pressure to "save" the plane come hell or high water that cost my friend his life? After all, in addition to the $$$ involved, you've got a few thousand hours and years of labor invested as well.

The better question is are you proficient? The mistake many pilots make is equating currency with proficiency. They are not mutually inclusive terms. You can have one without the other, you can have both and you can have neither. Currency makes you legal, proficiency makes you safe. You need both. My answer is if you are planning on doing any flying IFR or VFR, you need to do get as much recurrent training as it takes to insure that you are BOTH current and proficient. Remember that the pros who do this every day go through a recurrent of some sort every 6 months. My suggestion is to budget the time and money to grab a CFII and go find those areas where you might be a bit rusty and work on them. A couple hours of dual twice a year isn't going to bust airplane anybody's budget.

I agree with your hesitancy to use Nexrad or a Spherics detector for anything except making strategic decisions. The problem with Nexrad is the refresh rate. When things are booming the information can be too old to be used for anything other than provide confirmation of convective activity in the general area. The problem with a Spherics detector is that they lack close-in resolution. In the Falcon 900 that I fly for work, we've got all three - dual Spherics detection systems, Weather Radar and XM Weather. As I said in an earlier post, I use the XM Radar for long range planning. It's ideal for that. When we're flying non-stop, coast to coast, it's nice to have a source of current information on any lines of weather that we'll be dealing with 1000+ miles downrange. Closer in, the Spherics detectors allow us to easily determine which areas of precipitation merit our undivided interest and which do not. Finally, the airborne weather radar allows us to easily avoid those areas of precipitation that have turbulence associated with them. The problem with using just a Stormscope is I've seen plenty of areas of extreme precipitation that did not have any associated turbulence, but I want to avoid those areas as well. Without airborne radar, how would you know that? If you say - "with nextrad" all I would say is that you're a braver man than I am. Of course, there are days when the refresh rates and the life cycle rates of the cells make for adequate info in the cockpit, but what about those other days? How do you know if you're good or not? Personally, with just Spherics and/or Nextrad, I've got to be able to lay eyeballs on any cells. That implies DAY VMC. (How can you avoid something by 20 miles without 20 miles of visibility?) With airborne wx radar my personal options open up dramatically. (Day/Night, IMC/VMC) As far as recommendations on how to fly weather, I'm going to refer you to the book "Weather Flying" by Capt Robert Buck.

I'll add one more thing... You need to consider the ENTIRE cell to be the color of the highest return. In other words, if a cell is painting green and yellow, then that entire cell should be considered yellow. Like wise, it any part of an individual cell is painting red or magenta, then that entire cell should be considered red or magenta. One mistake you don't want to make it to think that you can sneak through the green part of a red cell. That's likely to cause more "excitement" that you'd want to have in one afternoon. Over the years I've attended quite a few radar training courses given by United Airlines, FlightSafety and 3 or 4 of Archie Trammell's courses back in the day and they were all very good. However, the best one I ever attended was sponsored by Honeywell and given by Capt. Dave Guinn. I know that not many Mooneys have the useless RCA radar installed, but there may be some guys here who will eventually upgrade to something with weather radar installed. My advice to you is to get yourself in a good training course. Until you've attended one you're safer not even turning the bloody thing on.

All you guys who are flying around in the upper teens and lower Flight Levels without ever having sat in an altitude chamber are making a dumb mistake. It's the classic example of "Just because it's legal doesn't make it smart!" If you're up above 14,000' or so you really need this training. I've had two chamber "flights". Each one was a real eye-opener. I was just sitting there fat, dumb, and happy with the pencil and paper making strange, illegible scribblings until they put the mask on me. I told them that I was OK and was still good to go. It was actually pretty frightening once I came around enough to realize what my personal response was. I understand that different people have different responses. Some people function like a ni-cad battery - they seem to doing well and then they simply go off the cliff. Others, like me just sit there fat dumb and happy with warm fuzzy feelings - totally oblivious to what's going on around them. Others I've seen crash pretty fast. You really need to have the chamber experience to see what your personal response is. It's just my opinion, but I don't think just reading about it is enough. As far as accessories go, you will want a pulse oximeter. Cannulas are only legal to FL180, above that you'd need (and want) a good quality mask. Above FL200 you'll also want a small back up bottle like this one that you can keep at your side and use to get down to a breathable altitude in the event of a failure in your main system. www.skyox.com/product/SK12-6 Chamber training is readily available. I've received mine at UND at a reasonable cost and the FAA and military offers civilian chamber training at little or no cost as well. Here's a link to the FAA's course: www.faa.gov/pilots/training/airman_education/aerospace_physiology/ You can do an internet search for other courses and training providers, but bottom line, hypoxia is nothing to screw around with. It's one of the major pilot killers.

I love Mike Busche, seriously, I do. He brings a lot of experience to the table and gives you plenty to chew on. There is a lot that we can learn from him and others like him. But there are caveats too. Bottom line it that there's little additional to be gained and a whole lot of additional opportunity to muff something up. Beside, what's a person to do if he doesn't have GAMI injectors and a full-blown engine analyser? Experience has taught me that the time to troubleshoot a problem (practically any problem) is on the ground, not in the air. A few months back, we had a generator come apart (literally) during climb out. The resulting voltage surge took out the remaining two generators and left both electrical systems unpowered except for the batteries. The guy I was flying with is also an A&P and AI. We ran the checklists, isolated the bad generator and got the other two back online. After we told ATC we needed to return to SBA my copilot/mechanic decided it would be a good idea to run some diagnostic checks and do a little trouble shooting - "It will save Ron some time when we get back to the hangar." I had to remind the mechanic part of my copilot that we now had reestablished a safe and fully functioning electrical system save for a loss of a generator due to unknown reasons. Did he really want to poke a stick at the compromised system by playing around with it while we were in flight? He found it hard to believe that I wouldn't allow him to start flipping switches. Mechanics look at things differently, not necessarily better than pilots, just differently. The question is what does the electrical system of a 3-engine business jet have to do with a mag check on a Mooney? Quite a lot actually. It's all about systems knowledge and what you're actually checking when you run your various checks. When you do your various systems checks what are you really checking and why? Granted the Falcon has a lot more (and more complex) systems, but a pilot needs to know and understand what's really happening (or should be happening) when he moves the ignition switch and cycles the prop during the engine runup. Now, if you've got an engine analyser that's nice, they are worth their weight in gold, but even then, if you discover that you've got a problem with your ignition system the proper course of action is to simply do what you have to do to insure a running engine until you can get the airplane back on the ground. Running additional checks to verify "Yes, we do have a problem" is pointless. There are some pretty good primers on aircraft magnetos and their operation and maintenance on the internet. Not all of them are written by Mike Busche. Just do a google search.

Like I said, the risk of doing damage is greater than the benefits of doing the test. If you've got an indication of a bad mag during the runup then it is warranted, but as a routine check? Not for me thank you.

I don't know, it's like saying that lower RPMs impose less stress on the plugs and leads. Maybe so, but is it enough to make a difference? I don't see it, but your mileage may vary. Mags are 19th century technology and have been installed on aircraft pretty much since day one. They tend to either work or not and an inoperative mag is pretty self evident. Personally, if it starts and passes the mag check (appropriate drop) I would not worry about it and I would just go fly the airplane in a normal manor. If it makes you feel any better, then by all means fly those initial hours any way you want, but I don't see how you'd be doing anything worthwhile by doing anything more than what the mag manufacturer or overhauler recommends and I've never seen (or heard of) a break-in recommendation.

How would you even "take it easy" with a mag? Only run it part time? I would not recommend doing a high power mag check LOP or otherwise. It would be way to easy to mess it up and accidentally shut the engine off and as they say in the barrio, that would be no bueno. What I would personally do is just go fly the airplane - normally. But be alert for anything untowards that might manifest itself after the mechanics have been rooting around in the engine compartment.

I've been thinking about this ever since I read your original and posted my original reply. Like I said, I would be pissed if I discovered something intentional like that on an airplane I owned or flew for work. It's the intentional part that would cause me to lose all faith in that airplane until I got a new set of experienced eyeballs to go over it from spinner to tail cone and red nav light to green nav light and top to bottom, including all of the logs. I would assume that you asked your new maintenance shop to give your airplane the mother of all inspections. If you found this type of shoddy repair and cover up what else is there lurking under the surface? Hopefully, there no more to it than that, but how could you know without digging deeper? If someone was able to rationalize something like that, what else was he able to justify? When it comes to safety, there are some assumptions that you have to make and good maintenance is one of them.

I have come to truly appreciate quality maintenance by people or companies with integrity. It is seldom the least expensive alternative, but quality rarely comes cheap. When you find that "golden" shop or mechanic, pay them what they ask for and do whatever else you have to do to keep them happy. It's that's important. I've got to question the guys who have been performing your maintenance and inspections - how do you miss a missing stud? On the other hand, there is the issue of "cheap" owners. Being frugal is one thing. But guys who intentionally cut corners? I've worked at a couple of places where they had rationalized skimping on proper and timely maintenance. I quit those jobs, it's just not worth it. People need to realize that skimping on or putting off maintenance ALWAYS ends up costing more in the long run. If you can't afford to properly maintain your airplane then you can't afford it. In my book, signing off and painting over a botched repair borders on criminal. You don't accidentally do crap like that, it was intentional. I would be pissed if I were you.

This scenario is one of the prime reasons why they hang turbochargers on airplane engines. Remember that an aircraft's ability to climb is a function of excess horsepower above that which is required for level flight. When you start limiting weight all you're doing is reducing the amount of horsepower you need to maintain level flight at any given airspeed. With a NA powerplant you loose power at the rate of about 2% to 2.5% per 1000 ft of DENSITY altitude. Climb performance is all about one thing - available power. I'm not sure of the "real" numbers, but let's talk hypothetically - let's say that our hypothetical Mooney requires 100 hp to maintain level flight at cruise flight. If you've got a 180 hp Lyc in the nose you've got 80 "excess" hp to climb with at SL, but at 10,000 feet DA you're down to roughly 35 excess hp. Now let's say you've got a 200 hp E model. That 20 extra hp isn't going to do much when it comes to increasing your cruise speed. (To double your cruise speed you've got to quadruple your hp - every thing else remaining the same.) However it will make a difference in your ability to climb - now instead of just 80 excess hp at SL, you've got 100 and at 10,000 ft instead of 35 you've 50 hp to play with. Turbocharging essentially allows you to develop full-rated power up to its critical "density" altitude. Now instead of having 50 excess hp to play with, your turbocharged (or turbonormalized) 200 hp Mooney will have a full 100 excess up to climb (and cruise with) up to it's critical altitude. Based upon the principle of there's no such thing as a free lunch, there are penalties associated with a turbo - they generate more heat (more power = more heat) and they're not as efficient at lower altitudes. So if you don't spend much time above 10,000 ft (density) altitude they don't make much sense. As far as maintenance costs go, I've flown a few thousand hours behind turbocharged piston engines and they're not that big of a deal to live with. Any additional maintenance costs are easily dealt with by adjusting the hourly budget just a little. The numbers will be different when you start comparing other models, but the principles and concepts remain the same when you compare a J with its turbocharged direct counterpart the Mooney 231. You can add intercoolers to deal with the excess heat and Merlyn wastegates to increase the critical altitude on a 231 (or you can buy a 252). Bottom line is this, with all aspects of aircraft takeoff/climb/cruise performance, it's all about horsepower. More is better and never, ever in the history of general aviation has anyone ever said "I've got too much power". That's also why Powerflow exhausts help a bit - every little bit helps.

The caveat is that you must have taken the time and effort into educating yourself on how to read and interpret what that analyzer is trying to tell you, otherwise it's just another expensive piece of hardware in the panel that you don't or can't take full advantage of. It's a great tool, but there are several great tools (for example an AoA) that a prudent pilot would probably want to add to his/her airplane as well that were unavailable when our airplanes were new. Also, how many pilots invest in something like an engine monitor and fail to invest in engine oil analysis? That's certainly a no brainer and probably the least expensive safety enhancement you can do for your airplane.

The term "aviation addiction" pretty much sums it up. The purist in me wants the 252. Is there a more efficient or capable "off the shelf" airplane? I would want one with TKS and I'd gladly pay the slight performance penalty for the increased utility. The pure performance junkie in me wants a Acclaim S, but the fiscal conservative in my wife says that's not likely to happen anytime soon. I've been a fan of the entire M20 series line from my very first Mooney logbook entry 47 years ago. I'm a Mooney fan for precisely the same reason why I prefer the Dassault Falcon 900 and 7/8-X series 3-holers to the Gulfstream G-400 and 500 series airplanes. They all do pretty much the same thing and have essentially the same performance but what the Gulfstream folks do with massive amounts of thrust and fuel flow the French do with aerodynamic efficiency and better design - but then on this forum, I'm preaching to the choir.

I am between airplanes now. I have owned a Luscombe 8F, a Cessna 421B and most recently, a couple of gliders. I hope to find a clean Mooney 252 Encore in the near future. Presently, my "daily drivers" are a couple of Falcon 900Bs, but that's about to change too. The boss is looking to sell one of the 900Bs and replace it with a Falcon 900EX.

Maybe for some it's an "either/or" thing, but for me it's a matter or priority on the "must have" list.

You buy a Mooney for its speed and efficiency. I'll tell you what I tell guys that are getting into a jet cockpit for the first time - all that extra speed means in cruise is that it won't take quite so long for the waypoints to pass underneath your nose. Fly your new airplane the way it was meant to be flown - fast. Now, the difference will be when it comes time to slow down and configure for landing, but that's a training issue. Get a thorough checkout and do what it takes to maintain your proficiency and fly the airplane the way it was meant to be flown. Enjoy your Mooney!

When you're flying from point A to point B, it's not about the cost per hour, it's all about cost per mile and sometimes it makes sense to look at cost per seat mile. Cessna 170s/172s are the poster children of successful aircraft designs. After all, they've built over 48,000 of them since 1948 with no end in sight, but there's a reason why Mooney's are so popular and keep rising from the ashes.

Isn't redundancy a wonderful thing?