WardHolbrook

It’s common and perfectly legal to modify the "normal procedures" checklists in the aircraft we fly. Let’s face it, some of the original factory checklists have you unnecessarily bouncing all over the panel and around the cockpit with little or no logic to the flow. 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. If you're operating under Part 135, any modifications will require approval from the feds, but this is normally not a big deal. If you're flying something that requires more than CIGARS and GUMPS, it's quite useful to spend some quality time sitting in the cockpit with the 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 reasonable. Years ago I flew MU-2s for LifeFlight. Our two particular airplanes had been leased by the US Air Force and flown by 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 FlightSafety issued 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. You’re eyes need to be outside the cockpit, not buried in a unnecessarily lengthy checklist. If approached correctly, you will instill a certain level of redundancy (read: enhance safety) by developing memorized "flows" which are used to accomplish each particular "Normal" procedure checklist task from memory. (Abnormal and Emergency checklists are different animals and are handled a differently - they are basically "to do" lists, with certain specific checklists being committed to memory on transport category airplanes.) Once you've developed your memorized checklist flow you perform the flow prior to going to your "hardcopy". The hard copy checklist is used to verify the flow and confirm that everything has been accomplished. If you use a checklist as a "To Do List", human nature being what it is, you will - from time to time - leave something out or skip over it. Using a flow followed by the checklist gives you two passes at your required actions and greatly minimizes the risk of inadvertently missing something. Do you need to check some items more than twice? Probably not, but then that's a personal prerogative. Checking things three and four times almost borders on obsessive compulsive behavior. A good checklist doesn't need to be a long checklist. On basic airplanes, pneumonic checklists are probably more than adequate; but that being said, using checklists is a very important habit to develop as you more up the ladder into more complex aircraft. When I put together a written checklist, I print it out using a MS Word or Excel template then simply take the completed checklist down to Staples and have them laminated for a buck a page. They even have a rounded corner punch to put a nice finishing touch to it. Finally, a checklist is probably never complete, but rather a work in progress. They have a tendency to evolve over time. Again, the whole 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, the pilot not flying does the After Takeoff Flow as soon as possible after takeoff, but waits until we're out of 10,000 to run the After Takeoff checklist. That way we minimize the heads down time in the airspace where most VFR traffic is. Do the flow then 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 or a G4 it all works the same.

Quote: aviatoreb -Is avgas about to go away? What will the high compression turbo mooneys do if avgas goes away? Low compression engines can often just switch to 94UL if nothing but a paper STC. But these high strung engines would need either an excellent fuel alternative, or perhaps some major electronic timing that has yet to be developed (such as the recent turbo SR22 has allowing it to run 94UL). -Can we expect to keep a mooney flying for several years to come with the product line essentially currently orphaned? Yes, 100LL is going away at some point in the next few years. When that time finally arrives, those of us who operate aircraft with NA low compression engines will probably have the easiest time finding a suitable replacement. For the rest of us, there will PROBABLY be multiple economically viable options; however, all of those options are still in development. So yes, it should be a concern - it is for me. (I'm looking for a "retirement" airplane and it would sure be nice to have that warm fuzzy feeling that when all is said and done, there is going to be a suitable "drop in" 100LL replacement fuel widely available for less than $7 or $8 per gallon. IMHO, the only sure bet at this time is to find something that burns Jet-A. However, that really isn't a viable option for most of us. As far as maintenance goes, it will be no harder to maintain a Mooney than any other out of production aircraft.

Quote: jelswick And Lew, I don't think you're being too conservative. I know I've seen on Discovery, Animal Planet or Nat Geo where some insects and spiders migrate by flying or hitchhiking a ride in air currents at pretty high altitudes (don't remember their preferred flight levels). Weather baloons have also found insect skeletons as high as 45,000 feet and I'm assuming our engines don't really care if they're ingesting a live bug or just his skeleton.

OK, so how do you guys who fly night XC (VFR or IFR) avoid them?

Here's my idea of the perfect Mooney for my wife and me.

Quote: flight2000 1967 M20E = 941.1 I can get my current family of four with full fuel and 120 pounds of baggage into our aircraft. Kids are growing like weeds, so that will change on a weekly basis... Brian

Quote: FlyDave Just curious - anyone had a current W&B done on a 25-30 year old plane that has been upgraded over the years and found a major discrepancy from the current W&B docs ?

Hail damage? Any seller worth his salt would tell you that those dimples are a speed mod... just like a golf ball, they'll make it fly faster, further, truer. [Wink] Personally, I think it destroys the esthetics of an airplane but probably doesn't hurt the performance much if any. Unless the acquisition price is your big driver (pardon the golf pun), I'd walk away from this one, there are a lot of airplanes on the market and you can afford to be somewhat picky.

Pretty impressive.

Quote: ehscott Comment on the statement and then a comment on the youtube video. Statement: I think whoever made this comment must have been taking a specific event and using it to create a generalization. As the saying goes, "All generalizations are false, including this one". If you use proper technique with a power on stall (75% or otherwise), keep the ball centered and properly recover, the airplane will not roll over on its back (I assume from a rolling motion). If you cross control like any other plane watch out. Video: Without knowing the skill level of this pilot if that were my son and I were sitting in the back seat when we landed I would be inclined to punch his lights out. I tend to think that the spin was intentional because he recovered very quickly although the addition of power and his comment makes you wonder. We can't see the rudder or the ball but it seemed to me that he did have the yoke turned. If it was unintentional he sorely needs some air work. Also bugs me that there were no shoulder harnesses being worn. This is a pilot who is way too cavalier about his flying. Old pilots and bold pilots........

As of tonight, I am at exactly 11,628 landings (thanks Logbook Pro) - if you don't count the bounces. I have finally discovered the secret to making good landings, every time, in any airplane. In the beginning, I figured that it had to do with maintaining a stabilized approach and proper airspeed control; but, alas, 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.

Quote: JimR I thought that this video on YouTube was interesting. It is of a pilot demonstrating a power off stall in a Mooney. He then, either purposefully or accidentally, enters what appears to be a spin before recovering. Jim

Quote: Mitch During a conversation at a nearby airport this morning with a former Mooney owner/pilot, the fellow stated that "performing a power on stall with 75% power in a Mooney will cause the aircraft to roll over on its back". I have never heard of this. Opinions/experiences of such are welcome please.

It's a roll of the dice. It's one thing to take a busy, well monitored, flight school airplane past TBO, but trying to get another couple of hundred hours or so out of a run-out personally owned, infrequently flown (less than say 200 hours/year) is something else. It could very easily turn out to be false economy if those extra hours result in additional costs come overhaul time. Score a $12K crankshaft to the point that it's not salvageable and then calculate what those extra hours ended up costing you. I'm not saying that it can't be done prudently, but make sure you understand what the risks are vs the possible benefits. In most cases, you're just deferring the inevitable and even if you don't incure any significant additional expenses come overhaul time, your cost per hour is not changed my much. Is $1 or $2 per hour worth it? Not to me.

Quote: KJATCt I would guess the controller made a mistake. If you don’t get a clearance limit (cleared to XXX). Make sure you ask for clarification.

Quote: Qwalton Hey Ward! fancy seeing you here. I didn't know you were into Mooneys.

Quote: Mitch Welcome Ward. The fact that you have admirable credentials with many hours of flying, and you chose a Mooney for your future aircraft, speaks volumes for Mooney airplanes.

Hello everyone! I've been lurking on this forum, off and on, for quite a while but I'm getting closer to getting back into aircraft ownership and it's time that I formally become involved. I've been flying Mooneys, off and on, for over 40 years - my first Mooney flight was back right after I got my Private license in 1967. I got some dual in a brand-new M20C Ranger. If I remember correctly, it cost me $16/hr to rent. My first Mooney PIC time was back in 1968 in a M20E. Since then, I've logged several hundred hours in M20Cs and Es. I love Mooneys and hope to be able to get my hands on either a J or 252 at some point. I've been flying for 44 years, I learned in an Aeronca 7AC Champ and I've owned several aircraft including a Luscombe, Cessna 421 and a couple of gliders. I've been a corporate pilot for over 30 years and I currently fly a Falcon 50 and 900 for a company in Santa Barbara. I'm an ATP and a CFI and have just under 15000 hours. I look forward to learning more about these great airplanes from you guys.