WardHolbrook

I like the comment about not using the phrase "soft-field" and Mooney in the same sentence. The Mooney wing is fantastic, it's one of the best designs out there - just about perfectly matched to the rest of the airframe. But... It's probably not the airfoil of choice for serious "off roading" if you get my drift. The Mooney wing likes airspeed and it achieves its efficiencies when it's flying fast. Not all wings are like that, take for example the Clark Y airfoil that is found on a lot of "bush" planes like the J-3, Super Cub, and even some twins light the Apache and Aztec. It's pretty hard to coerce that airfoil to do anything fast, but it doesn't mind low speeds and relatively high angles of attack - that's one of the reasons that you see that airfoil on so many working airplanes. The Mooney wing isn't fond of low-speed, high AoA flight. It likes airspeed. You mix that with comparatively low prop clearance and landing gear doors that have a tendency to snag things (Read: can get bent and cost $$$ to fix or replace) and you see why it's probably best to not mention soft field and Mooney in the same sentance. If your mission description involves that type of flying it might be prudent to rethink your choice of aircraft.

Quote: Hank Good point, Ward. Partial carb heat works well if you have the "optional Carb Temp Gage" otherwise it should be all or nothing, as in the 172's I trained in. My Carb Temp Gage is an obvious aftermarket, marked in ºC where the OAT is in ºF. But it is functional, I've seen it move around. When it gets into the orange stripe, if the weather is hazy, below freezing and threatening, or in IMC I crack the carb heat until it moves out of the orange. So far, so good.

Quote: DaV8or I'm wondering, why did turn the carb heat on? It sounds like you want to cruise with carb heat on and this puzzles me. Carb heat causes the engine to run richer and at altitude, it can make it too rich for proper combustion. Also, the carb heat is not an all or nothing proposition. It is variable. So if you apply it full in cruise and the engine complains, set it somewhere inbetween full and off. You should be able to find a setting that will allow you to cruise with the carb heat on. Again though, I'm not sure why you want to. On the other hand, if you do have carb ice, when the carb heat starts to melt the ice, the engine will run really bad until it's all gone, then it should run smooth again.

Quote: carusoam We need a GPS function to measure these details accurately. We could build our experience and personal data base. Any suggestions? Maybe Hilton at WingX might have an idea... Best regards, -a-

Inadvertant Duplicate Post

Quote: Kwixdraw There is quite a bit of back and forth among Bonanza pilots over the TO/ldg performance of the various models. Generally the older lighter ones seem to be the best for unpaved, tight space locations. The only time I ever felt the J was a runway hog was one time when the temp was 107 f and it was trying hard to rain. There was no way to see what the TO performance/distance was supposed to be, it was off the chart. I calculated the density altitude and loading and the climb chart said she would go up at 350 FPM. It was a long roll to get airborne but she did indeed go up at 350 fpm.

Quote: co2bruce I have owned 3 Mooneys, and I love the brand, but they do take up a lot of runway compared to some other planes. At higher density altitudes the landing, and take off distance can be longer than the Piper or Cessna. It may have something to do with the shape of our wings. I know we are much more efficient in cruise. Just stiring the pot??

Quote: jetdriven perhaps its easier to get the airplane up on the step in winter?

All airplanes know is density altitude. They don't know what month it is. What you're seeing is the effect that subtle changes in temperature, altitude and humidity have on aircraft performance. Airplanes like cold, dry air. There is more cold, dry air around in winter than in summer. *Edited for clarity.

Hmmm... It sure sounds like a case of "Don't confuse me with the facts because my mind is already made up." Oh well, thank goodness for guys like him - the buyers pool for quality Mooneys is large enough.

Quote: DaV8or Not saying that it does or doesn't damage the exhaust, only that some have had exhaust failures with LOP ops. Consider this- aluminum melts at what, nearly 1000F and Lycoming says you can safely operate up to 500F, but everyone seems to agree that keeping temps 380F and below really helps cylinders. Could not the same thinking apply to exhaust systems? Less heat = longer life?

Our air cooled engines aren't always. During certain phases of flight (high power, low IAS) like takeoff and climb they need fuel to keep cool as well. Unless you've got the proper equipment installed and the proper training, you really have no choice but to operate the engine according to the POH. That's OK, it's way GA engines were operated for decades, but we've learned that there are better ways to do it . Operating LOP isn't blackmagic voodoo, but it does have to be done correctly. Google GAMI and you'll find links to a couple of training options that you have. It's worth the investment, at today's fuel prices the ROI is pretty attractive.

Quote: aerobat95 Well its listed in the manual. Required for flight: Cyl Head Temp Gauge but the Mooney EGT gauge is not listed. So that would be one gauge I would not need to replace. So here is a question for you guys......what temperature does this gauge read seeing as how there are 4?

Quote: aerobat95 Hey guys I was wondering what engine instruments are required for flight? In my Mooney I have the strip guage that has Fuel Qty L&R, CYL TEMP, OIL PRESS, OIL TEMP, AMPS. I also have a Mooney EGT guage. My question is this....I am looking at E.I. Engine guages to replace the current ones and was wondering if it is Required to have the CYL TEMP and Mooney EGT guage. I have a JPI EDM 700 that does this. What temp is the CYL TEMP and EGT guage reading?? On the JPI it reads each CYL tem and each EGT.

I currently fly behind a 24" dish with dopler and an integrated spherics detector (Honeywell LSS). As good as that system is, the best system I ever flew behind was a Lear that had a new vertical profile radar and stormscope combination. I flew that airplane all over the US, including a lot of trips in the mid-west, for nearly 3,000 hours and never once did that combination lead us where we didn't want to be or shouldn't have gone. Like I said earlier, the stormscope does a very good job of allowing you to plan strategically and the on board wx radar allows you to fly tactically. I've flown with XM weather and we currently have Nexrad on our airplanes as well. They are a poor substitute for airborne wx radar, but the kicker there is that without proper training in the use of radar, you're better off not even turning it on. Proper training means attending on of the weather radar courses. There are many ways onboard weather radar can get you killed if you're not proficient and up to speed with basic stuff like range, tilt, gain, attinuation, STC range etc... If I ever buy a personal twin, it will have a VP radar and a Stormscope. XM weather would be nice for other things (Metars, TAFs, Winds Aloft, etc.) but to use it tactically for thunderstorm avoidence isn't necessarily one of them.

I use the Stormscope to decide what to avoid and the wx radar preferably and NEXRAD, et.al. to avoid them. As for the visual part of it, I've found that how clouds look on the outside is one of the least accurate ways to determine how they are on the inside - I've seen some relatively benign looking clouds that packed a mean wallop and I've flown through some mean looking stuff that was benign. That's where the the stormscope comes in, to help you differentiate between the good stuff and the bad stuff. In 25 years and 10,000 hours of flying behind them, they've never once steered me wrong. As for discounting the outside appearance of a cloud, I'll just say that if you were flying at night, how would you ever know how the cloud looked anyway? Screwing around with buildups isn't something you want to be doing without the proper equipment and the skill and experience to use it correctly. As long as the spherics detector isn't showing any discharges, I'm usually up for continuing. A little rain never hurt anybody, green and yellow returns together with a clear Stormscope display will only result in an airplane "pressure wash". However, I do draw the line at red or greater returns. My technique doesn't vary with the type of equipment I’m flying. As I have said previously, personally I use the Stormscope to determine if the area is safe to transit (NO Discharges showing on the display) and then some sort of weather radar to circumnavigate the area. The reason being is that while it's good at detecting areas of convective turbulence, a Stormscope lacks the close-in resolution to be able to pick your way safely through it. When it comes to tackling weather like this, whether you’re IFR in a jet or VFR in a light single you DO have to be able to see it - however, you can see it using on board avionics just as well as you can see it with your own two eyes. That is where the Stormscope / Radar combination comes into play. You need to remember this about weather radar (airborne and ground based) - essentially all it can show you is dirt and water. If all you're seeing is dirt then you've got the tilt set too low. As for water, the assumption is made that where there's atmospheric water (rain) that's being displayed it is accompanied by turbulence. In other words, if you've got precipitation you've got turbulence and that's not always true. The spherics detectors (Stormscopes) detect electrical discharges in the atmosphere generated by turbulence - a much more reliable way to detect it. Some of the ground based dopler radars that we can receive in the cockpit are very capable at detecting turbulence, the only problem there is that by the time you actually get the updated information into the cockpit it can become "stale". Refresh rates are problematic. Bottom line for me is this... 1. Any time you screw around with convective turbulence you've got to be visual. However, you can see it with your avionics just as well as you can see it with your own two eyes. The operative words are SEE and AVOID. 2. Red/magenta returns whether or not associated with turbulence (as indicated by the stormscope) are always too much. Anything less, when accompanied with a "clear" Stormscope display is a just free airplane power wash. Precipitation on the radar and no "dots" on the stormscope = smooth, but wet ride. No precipitation on the radar and dots on the stormscope = bumps, you don't want to be there. Precipitation on the radar and dots on the stormscope = big bumps and you really don't want to be there. 3. I'll take a stormscope and on board wx radar as my first choice any day. If on board wx radar isn't an option then XM radar can be a workable substitute. 4. XM weather by itself is not a substitute for the stormscope / radar combination, but it's better than nothing.

Quote: DaV8or I don't think you're out of the woods until you quit flying. These motors can go at any time. Just the way it seems to be.

Quote: jetdriven Byron, That is not exactly a correct statement. It is correct if the twin stalls under 61knots. Over 61knots and there is a requirement for full gross altitude level flight at 6000feet on the critical engine. Andy

There is no argument that a Mooney will fly just fine with full flaps. Takekoff, cruise and land. Albeit the performance will suffer greatly. That's not the question. What is in question is the legality and consequencial liabilty exposure of knowingly and intentionally flying an airplane with the flaps inoperative and extended. There is no question that it can be done either, it's just that, to be done legally and with insurance coverage, it must be done with a ferry permit. The ferry permit will list the detailed stipulations and requirements to conduct the flight. (ie flaps manually retracted.) It would be foolish to attempt it any other way. But that never stops some folks.

Simple... If you want to know if it's airworthy to fly in that condition just call your friendly AI and ask him if's it's airworthy. While you're at it, ask him what it would take to get a ferry permit to fly it with the flaps full down. Let us know what he says. Better yet, call your insurance guy and ask him what he thinks of the idea. There's probably a clause in your policy about airworthiness and ferry permits. I'd read the fine print very closely before you decide to fly an airplane with inoperative secondary flight controls (flaps). Heck, why not cut to the chase, just call the maintenance guy at your local FSDO and ask him about it. If you can't conduct a proposed flight with their scrutiny then you probably ought not to be flying. They really are helpful if you let them. (Yes, I'm serious.) My point is that if you decide to fly it in this condition you've got everything hanging out. If anything were to happen with an intentional violation (Careless and wreckless to start and problably one or two others.) your insurance company might have second thoughts about extending coverage.

Quote: thinwing FULL FLAP TAKEOFF IN A LONG BODY...YOU WILL NEVER GET A FERRY PERMIT SIGNOFF ON THIS.THERE IS SIMPLY NO REASON TO EVEN CONSIDER IT.YOUR ONLY PRACTICAL OPTION IS TO GET A MECHANIC OUT TO THE PLANE WHERE EVER IT IS.WITH LUCK ITS JUST A DIRTY OR MISADJUSTED MICRSWITCH OR BAD GROUND...REGARDLESS IF YOU TAKEOFF WITH THAT KIND OF KNOWN FLIGHT CONTROL FAILURE YOU ARE GOING TO BE TOTALLY ON THE LINE FOR THE OUTCOME.lISTEN TO THE COMBINED KNOWLEDGE YOU ARE READING ON THIS FORUM AND DONT DO IT...KPC

Probe issue perhaps?

You've got non-functioning flight controls so the aircraft is unairworthy. This flight needs to be conducted under a ferry permit. Granted, a full flap takeoff shouldn't present any real problems, but it is technically illegal - show me the takeoff performance data. Additionally, should anything untoward happen during the flight how will you explain it to the FAA and your insurance company? Personally, I wouldn't do it.

Q. What's the difference between a helicopter pilot and a fixed-wing pilot? A. Fixed-wing pilots break ground and fly into the wind. Helicopter pilots break wind and fly into the ground.