WardHolbrook

The "impossible" turn is always more than 180 degrees and it's always at least two turns. The problem isn't that it can't be done - it certainly can. The problem is being able to recognize when you are "in the window" where you can do it. That's the point where, after the "oh, s#!t" startle factor" is over, you can start to execute the turn. Are you in a place (altitude, distance from runway, etc.) where it is even possible? The problem most pilots have is that they simply have no idea where that window is and how dramatically it can change from flight to flight so they end up guessing or coming up with some arbitrary number like 300' AGL or 1000' AGL or whatever. Without that understanding and the discipline to apply it, it's a crapshoot. Some guys are lucky, some aren't. Even when you know where the window is, doesn't mean that you'll be in it when the engine calls it a day. For many of us, the safest advice is to limit your turns to 45 degrees or so of runway heading and fly the airplane until it stops moving.

Correct. The L/D remains the same - it is a constant for any given configuration. The speed at which the L/D is achieved varies according to the weight - the more you weigh, the faster you have to go to achieve it. That is the reason sailplane pilots carry water ballast - it allows them to fly faster and farther when they are searching for thermals in good conditions, yet be able to dump the ballast when conditions start to deteriorate.

Didn't you just answer your own question? It's pretty much SOP to NOT automatically top off aircraft fuel tanks in aircraft that are larger than your typical 2 - 4 - 6 seat light SEL airplanes. Once you get up into the heavier light-twins and above you very seldom fly with full tanks. Landing with more than 60 mins worth of full is one of the more inefficient things we do as pilots - carrying around unnecessary weight saps aircraft performance and costs money. However, there are many legitimate reasons to do so - IFR reserves, fuel pricing, etc; but to just automatically do it is sloppy flying.

It all depends upon the simulator. The full-motion "stimulators" used at FlightSafety and Simuflite work, the PC based training devices don't count.

There is definitely a rigging problem with his airplane. That's not the way an autopilot corrects for crosswinds.

That movie was a classic! The remake, "Rat Race" was pretty good as well.

For Part 91 operators it's legal to modify your checklists to your heart’s content, just make sure that you retain the required items in some logical sequence. I’ve always modified the "normal procedures" checklists in the aircraft I fly to have a logical flow pattern. Some of the original factory checklists have you unnecessarily bouncing the cockpit as you run the checklist. Not at all "flow friendly". The purpose of using flows in conjunction with a written checklist is to simplify cockpit workload and to introduce a level of redundancy into the process - you always have two passes to check every item. It also helps you to minimize heads down time; for example, you do the “ After Takeoff Flow” as soon as possible after takeoff, but you also wait until you're out of 10,000’ or well clear of the airport terminal area (and its associated traffic) to run the After Takeoff checklist. That way you minimize the heads down time in the airspace where most VFR traffic is. Do the flow, verify with the written checklist when it's safe to do so. Two separate methods, one backs up the other. It doesn't matter whether you're flying a Mooney M20C or a G4 it all works the same and it enhances safety. When it comes to developing the flows that work for your airplane, I recommend that you try to run from top left to bottom right, in a way that makes sense. It's also quite useful to spend some time sitting in the cockpit with the original factory checklist in front of you. It will become quite evident how to reorder things to come up with some logical checklist flows. Keep the checklists concise and to the point. The Normal Procedures Checklist probably doesn’t need to be 9 pages long. Years ago I flew MU-2s for LifeFlight. Our two particular airplanes had been leased by the US Air Force and flown by US Air Force pilots. When we took delivery of them the Air Force checklists were still in the cockpit. What an eye-opener. I have never seen a more complicated checklist in my life! It was comprised of two of the standard issue military multi-ringed blue binders with page after page after page of "to do" items. By comparison, the MU-2 FlightSafety checklist was one 8 1/2" x 11" laminated sheet. The FlightSafety checklist was more than adequate. I had no idea what the purpose of the Air Force checklist was. As I remembered, it had every warning, caution, comment and suggestion contained in the AFM. Definitely overkill and probably a safety concern - too much heads down time required to wade through it. Take an example from Piper - most of you have probably seen or used the checklist that they silk-screened onto the sun visor in the various Piper Arrows. Short and to the point and above all, adequate. Don’t forget to include any avionics specific pre-takeoff checks into your flows and checklist as well. You’ll want to read through your equipment supplements in your POH and incorporate any appropriate autopilot and avionics checks. Often, these checks aren’t addressed in the airframe manufacturer’s checklists and they really need to be done. Once you've developed your checklists, save them to a file so that they can be easily modified, checklists tend to be a work in progress. Also, I've found it handy to print them on card stock and take them to the nearest Staples Office Supply. They'll laminate them for $1 per page. With a little bit of work you can end up with a very professional checklist.

I agree. It's not all just about the hours in the logbook, it's about the total package that a pilot brings to the table. If a pilot is diligent about stuff like checklists, gets adequate transition training, is disciplined to always fly by the rules, has the basic skill to fly precise altitudes, headings & airspeed and has an appropriate amount of common sense, then there is seldom a problem. I've known plenty of guys with hundreds of hours that, because they lacked one or more of the above items, had no business in a complex, high-performance airplane like a Mooney. A few of those guys (and their passengers) are dead now.

My most "intense" experience was several years ago giving some actual instrument dual in a Cessna 172. Some severe unforecast "lake effect" weather (low ceilings, visibilities, and icing conditions) developed while we were on a combination night, instrument "round-robin" XC training flight. The "out" part of the trip was uneventful - the weather was as forecast - 4,000' ceilings with good visibility beneath, perfect conditions to allow an instrument student to get his first bit of actual. The "back" part of the trip was another story. An unforecast winter squall developed and moved across our home airport and every possible alternate for about 200 miles. Ceilings and visibilities were running around 400' and 1/2 to 1 mile in blowing snow. Additionally, there was light to moderate icing. Initially, I wasn't too concerned, it would be a good experience for the student to see just how quickly things can go "south" on you inspite of all the planning you do. (Sometimes Mother Nature just flat refuses to read the weather forecasts.) By the time we got to our home airport, the weather had dropped below the minimums for the VOR approach so we decided to go to our alternate which had an ILS. We were starting to pick up a bit of ice, but it was only about 15 minutes to the alternate so I wasn't too concerned. Again, I felt that this could turn out to be some very good experience for the student. As we diverted to the alternate the vacuum failure light on the instrument panel illuminated. That was not a good thing! That was precisely not the time that I wanted to have deal with a vacuum failure. The student did a good job of partial panel flying, but after several minutes he started to get vertigo and he began to lose it. At that point, I took the airplane back and was flying "cross panel" partial panel. The winds started to pick up and the ride went from occasional light chop to light to moderate turbulence. The whiskey compass was all but unusable. At that point, I declared an emergency. What had started out a routine training flight with a couple of easily handled "issues" had turned into something altogether different. As we weighed our options, it became apparent that the weather was going to get worse before it got better and we didn't have much more than the legally required fuel - waiting out the squall line in a holding pattern wasn't an option, besides we had started to pick up a bit more ice. I decided that it would be better to get on the ground as soon as possible - the weather was at minimums for the ILS. I tried flying the first approach, but with the turbulence and the whiskey compass dancing around I couldn't keep on a heading that allowed me to track the localizer. Basically all I had was the electric turn coordinator. I missed that approach and went around for another attempt. This time we had approach vector us to the inner marker and I descended on the glideslope. Just as I was getting ready to go around the runway lights came into view and we were able to land. That was probably the closest that I ever came to dieing in an airplane. It was also the last time that I ever flew actual IFR in a single-engine airplane. There was a time when I would fly any well maintained, legally equipped single-engine airplane about anywhere and anytime (within reason). For me, those days are gone forever. As far as single-engine IFR goes, it never used to bother me at all. Now I would never even consider it unless I had a VFR ceiling underneath me the whole time.

Here is something, that in the near future, may really help in dealing with grossly inaccurate fuel gauges. Hopefully they'll be available for other aircraft besides Cirri. http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2012/121022digital-fuel-sender-now-certified.html#.UIa_AiYpz0B.blogger

My worst landing ever? Simple, it was with a Lear 35 at Grinnell IA (GGI) about 20 years ago. We used to fly there a lot and on that short runway (for a Lear) it was always a "chop and plop". That particular evening, there was a whole bunch more "plop" than usual. It was most embarrassing. As he was exiting the airplane, the boss asked me if I wanted to go practice that some more. You could see the rubber marks where the main gear dual wheels touched down for 3 or 4 years afterward. Definitely not my proudest moment in an airplane. However, that was then, this is now and I am very happy to report that since that evening 20 years ago, I have finally discovered the secret to making perfect landings every time. In the beginning, I figured that it had to do with maintaining a stabilized approach and proper airspeed control; but obviously that wasn't it. I then worked up a theory that involved planetary alignment and moon phases. I was getting closer. I finally put it all together when I figured out how to hold my mouth - you have hold it just right and the planets have to be in proper alignment and the moon has to be in the proper phase, in addition to flying a nice smooth stabilized approach and exercising proper airspeed control. If you get a greaser other than when you're doing all of that you're just lucky.

You should probably want to practice the occasional approach where you keep your speed up as much as possible to the FAF for those occasions when ATC has a couple of jets sequenced in behind you. A lot of jets will be using ref speeds of 120+ knots, sometimes a lot more. It's good practice.

Think of it this way, buying a used airplane is just like buying a used car - regardless of how careful and conscientious you are throughout the entire process, there is still a chance that something can slip by or develop in a "clean" airplane after the purchase process is completed. After all, you're talking about the purchase of a USED piece of complex machinery. All you can really do is stack the odds in your favor. Find someone to do the prebuy who has your best interests at heart. Then, when you've done all of the "due diligence" you'll want to set aside an amount equal to 5% to 10% of the purchase price to cover the inevitable "surprises" that will pop up after the purchase. Over the years, I've owned my share of aircraft, from gliders to classic tail-draggers, to pressurized piston twins. I've also been involved in the purchase negotiations for several others including a few business jets. Here's what I've learned... 1. Never, ever trust a seller or his mechanic. It’s not about honesty, it’s just that they might not be telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth if you get my drift. Like President Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.” 2. All but the minimum amount of absolutely necessary maintenance ceases once the decision to sell has been made, if not earlier. 3. A good trustworthy mechanic is worth his weight in gold. Pay him whatever it takes to keep him. 4. Pay whatever it takes to get a good non-biased evaluation. If you're lucky, you pay good money to confirm what the seller was telling you. If you're really lucky, you'll find out that the airplane has problems and should be passed on. Either way, it's money well spent. 5. Run away from a recent field overhauled engine. They can be very high quality, but if they did a cheapo overhaul on a runout engine just to make it easier to sell the chances are very great that you’ll end up with problems. Remember, you generally get exactly what you pay for and you'll eventually pay for a factory remanufactured (or equivalent quality) engine whether you get one or not. Either up front, or over the course of time due to unscheduled maintenance, downtime, etc. Of course there will be exceptions to the above five items. If you've been on the receiving end of one of the exceptions - good on ya. You're very lucky. The rest of us, don't count on it.

No argument with any of the above, however the limitations and conditions that the insurance company would probably set on the guy would take care of all of those concerns. They'll write the policy and set the conditions and they would be pretty strict and the policy wouldn't be cheap. I could easily foresee PVT w/IR and 150 hours TT including 100+ hours dual before they let him do anything other than supervised solos. In other words, it's not going to be practical to do.

Can guys learn to fly in complex airplanes? Of course, one of my CFI buddies has a couple of primary students learning how to fly in their rich daddy's DA-42 Twinstar. They're actually OK I hear. In years past, actor Danny Kay learned to fly in a Beech Queen Air (twin-engine) and military students have been doing it for decades. But, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Without knowing you and your "abilities" as a student, my fist inclination would be to get you license in what you're flying now, then take another pass at this question with the input of an honest assessment of your CFI and after having a heart to heart with an aircraft insurance guy. All that being said, I've trained a few primary students in C182s and it was no big deal. A constant speed prop doesn't add a lot of complexity to the equation and was quite easily handled by my students. Again, discuss the possibility with your CFI.

I clean my windshield whenever it needs it. I only use pure pharmaceutical grade dihydrogen monoxide and a clean microfiber cloth, use anything else and you run a risk of damage.

That's the one I use. It's easy to customize the performance files and once you dial it in it's bang on accurate. In the Falcon 900 it's typically within 2 minutes and less than 100 pounds of fuel (0.8%) on a non-stop coast-to-coast trip. It's no less accurate with piston-powered aircraft. I like FltPlan.com, but, for jets at least, you've got to take some of the fuel burn numbers with a grain of salt if you're flying "atypical" (unusually low or high cruise altitudes) flight profiles or in ISA+ temperatures.

If the prop comes off "cleanly" then the airplane would be flyable - as shown by the Malibu incident in Aspen. I've got to wonder what shape the engine would be in if the prop comes off during high-power operations? I've got to believe that the resulting engine overspeed would render the engine trash.

I like CloudAhoy and use it, but I haven't seen where it would be accurate enough to use to develop a takeoff performance chart.

Good, don't be. It's not all that simple. Modern light aircraft are certified to Part 23 requirements, prior to 1965 they were certified under the old CAR Part 3 rules. These certification rules establish all of the many parameters that must be met - structural loading, airframe, performance, stability, controllability and many others. As far as addressing whether or not the idea you heard has any merit... Think about it, if the reason for the particular MGTOW was purely a self-imposed marketing department limitation, wouldn't some enterprising individual have gone out and developed an STC to allow operations at the higher weight? Not everybody needs their airplane to be able to clear a 50' obstacle at the end of a 2000' runway. If you need to do that, they give you performance charts that will tell you what the weight limitation would be to allow that to happen. Now what did happen back in the 1970's was some IRS involvement in the maximum certification weights of some light aircraft. Back then they had federal excise taxes based upon certain arbitrary aircraft weights and manufacturers would manipulate the MGTOW to keep the aircraft out of the higher FET bracket. Nowadays you see this same thing too. Take the King Air 200 for example . Civilian versions are limited to 12,500 pounds for no other reason than the requirement that anything over 12,500 requires a type rating. The military flies their "off the shelf" King Airs at much higher weights.

Proper maintenance is the correct answer for an lot of questions having to do with airplanes. One thing that a lot of guys don't realize is that propellers have recommended times between overhaul just like engines do. Some folks tend to turn a blind eye towards propeller maintenance. To answer the OP's question, if the entire propeller comes off, the airplane would turn itself into a glider with about the same L/D as an old Schweitzer 2-22 and would fly just fine. (The Mooney Rocket conversion uses engines and propellers from Cessna 340s. I've seen pictures of a Mooney Rocket in-flight with its prop feathered.) If the entire prop didn't leave the airplane then you're survivability likely would depend upon how much of the prop you lost. If it's just a piece and you can shut the engine down fast enough then you'll end up with a "glider with about the same L/D as an old Schweitzer 2-22" assuming that you can stop the prop from windmilling. If you throw an entire blade, then you ain't going to be able to react fast enough... That engine is going to tear itself from the mounts and unless you're incredibly lucky your last few minutes of life will be as a passenger in an aerodynamically unstable, out of control, airplane fluttering to the ground. (A couple of years back I did read in one of the flying magazines about some crew in a Metroliner commuter that threw a blade and somehow the cowling kept the engine with the airplane. They manged to get the airplane safely back to the airport.) Scott has the best answer, just maintain your propeller properly then you'll be able to spend your time worrying about other stuff.

It was in a pusher design. It belonged to my friend who to this day is involved in the production of several designs. He sews the wing covers and has a couple two or three of his covers on aircraft on display at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum and Museum Annex. One of the well-known UL propeller builders have him the prototype propeller to test on his UL. It was a composite, ground adjustable design that worked very well up until the point that it threw the blade from the hub. The engine was torn from the mounts but some how ended up tangled up in the aircraft structure so there was really no major change to the center of gravity. I didn't have too long to worry about it though, it had amphibious floats and I was over a cornfield on downwind to a farm pond at 400' agl. It was right before harvest time and the corn was pretty tall. I remember going into the tops of the corn and the next thing I know, I was upside-down and rolled up into a big ball - me, that UL and a bunch of corn. Luckily, I wasn't hurt. Did I mention that was my last UL flight?

Thirty years ago I was flying a friend's ultralight when it threw a blade. The resulting vibration tore the engine from the mounts. I don't imagine that the mounts on a Mooney (or any other airplane) would be able to stand up to that intense vibration either. A few years ago there was a Malibu that lost the entire propeller on climb out out of Aspen (KASE). That guy was able to return to the airport and land safely.

For what it's worth, I'd be very careful about using any automotive or household cleaners that I didn't know the pH of on airplanes. There are some cleaners on the market that are VERY caustic (pH 12+) and aren't something that I'd be using on anything made out of aluminium. Also, be very leery of using pressure washers on airplanes, The pressure can spread lap joints and force caustic cleaner up between the seams - that's not something that you'd want to be doing if you're interested in having a corrosion-free airframe. Not too long ago, Cessna sent out an informational service letter (SEL-51-01) entitled "Standard Practices - Structures - Use of Corrosion Inhibiting Compounds". The product it recommends for cleaning is "Extreme Simple Green Aircraft & Precision Cleaner, or approved equivalent". Just saying...

I've sat in the back of a M20C for a few 2 hour legs. At the time I was 180 lbs and 5'9". It was adequate. My wife has spent a lot of time in the back seat of a M20E and she didn't mind it at all. We had 2 couples on board - the guys up front and the gals in the back. I like to think of it as about as roomy as a VW Bug. By the way, I'll second the suggestion to take a look at an E model. All things being equal, the fuel injection is something worth having. However, I'd rather have a nice clean updated C model with a few performance mods as opposed to a tired straight E model.