WardHolbrook

Take on more fuel next time.

Which is just another reason why you do want your fuel reserve in one tank, not spread out over multiple tanks.

You got'a luv sims. My technique is to use minimum flaps to raise the 1.3 Vso a few knots. The extra speed also increases the rudder's effectiveness. (It also eliminates the need to screw around with getting the flaps up during the rollout.) As long as I've got any rudder left I'm golden. If I hit the rudder stops at any time on final, it's time to look for another runway.

I just posted this on another thread and it pertains to this one as well. (I love "cut & paste".) Consistency is probably the single most important element when it comes to getting good landings - crosswind or otherwise. Remember, regardless of what the winds are doing, you always use the ailerons, as much as necessary throughout the flare, to keep the airplane from drifting laterally - left or right - from over the runway centerline. If you've got a strong crosswind, it's simply going to take more aileron. If you've got little or no crosswind, it will take little or no aileron input. As far as rudder input goes, that's just as simple too - you add enough to keep the airplane aligned parallel to the runway. If you don't have much crosswind, it won't take much rudder. If you've got a lot of crosswind it will take a lot of rudder. If you've got so much crosswind that you hit the stops on the rudder and you're still not able to keep the airplane aligned you've reached the crosswind limit for that airplane. What I've just described is the "wing low" method for crosswind landings. Flying an airplane is dynamic. You're always moving the flight controls to make the airplane do exactly what you want it to do. (Remember: "FTDA" - Fly The D@mn Airplane) However, as your speed slows during the flare, you will need to increase control deflection to compensate for the loss of airflow over the control surface. It is not a "set it and forget it" scenario. (There is also a "crab and kickout" method, but unless you happen to be flying a jet transport with the engines mounted below the wings there's really not too much need to use that particular method. Although some guys like it, its use is in most cases purely personal preference.) As far as gusts go, the usual technique is to add 1/2 of the gust value to your approach speed. You also need to look at the maximum gust value - you wouldn't want to be in the flare when the wind decided it was time to "gust to 25 knots" if you weren't comfortable with that strong of a crosswind. The biggest mistakes I see people make is that they fly the approach way too fast - they're using the Max Gross Weight approach speed when they significantly lighter, then they add 1/2 the gust factor plus a bit more for the wife and kids, then they add just a little bit more "just to be safe". Then instead of flying the approach at 1.3 VS + 1/2 the gust value, you'll see guys 5 to 15 knots too fast. And then they float and float and float... And of course the more time you spend floating down the runway, the more time there is to screw up the landing.

Consistency is probably the single most important element when it comes to getting good landings - crosswind or otherwise. Remember, regardless of what the winds are doing, you always use the ailerons, as much as necessary throughout the flare, to keep the airplane from drifting laterally - left or right - from over the runway centerline. If you've got a strong crosswind, it's simply going to take more aileron. If you've got little or no crosswind, it will take little or no aileron input. As far as rudder input goes, that's just as simple too - you add enough to keep the airplane aligned parallel to the runway. If you don't have much crosswind, it won't take much rudder. If you've got a lot of crosswind it will take a lot of rudder. If you've got so much crosswind that you hit the stops on the rudder and you're still not able to keep the airplane aligned you've reached the crosswind limit for that airplane. What I've just described is the "wing low" method for crosswind landings. Flying an airplane is dynamic. You're always moving the flight controls to make the airplane do exactly what you want it to do. (Remember: "FTDA" - Fly The D@mn Airplane) However, as your speed slows during the flare, you will need to increase control deflection to compensate for the loss of airflow over the control surface. It is not a "set it and forget it" scenario. (There is also a "crab and kickout" method, but unless you happen to be flying a jet transport with the engines mounted below the wings there's really not too much need to use that particular method. Although some guys like it, its use is in most cases purely personal preference.) As far as gusts go, the usual technique is to add 1/2 of the gust value to your approach speed. You also need to look at the maximum gust value - you wouldn't want to be in the flare when the wind decided it was time to "gust to 25 knots" if you weren't comfortable with that strong of a crosswind. The biggest mistakes I see people make is that they fly the approach way too fast - they're using the Max Gross Weight approach speed when they significantly lighter, then they add 1/2 the gust factor plus a bit more for the wife and kids, then they add just a little bit more "just to be safe". Then instead of flying the approach at 1.3 VS + 1/2 the gust value, you'll see guys 5 to 15 knots too fast. And then they float and float and float... And of course the more time you spend floating down the runway, the more time there is to screw up the landing.

I keep hearing that "test pilots are quite capable of exceeding it and probably have during testing." That may be true, but when it comes to the data in your POH, Alan Average Private Pilot should have no problem achieving the performance numbers. Here's an interesting video which illustrates the way the FAA approaches test flying. Granted, a 747 is about as far away as you can get performance and size wise from any GA light airplane, but notice what they did to the airplane prior to the certification test flights... http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/..._05_04_11.html Notice how they changed brakes prior to the test. Contrary to common belief, they don't use new brakes, etc. when these tests are run. It's max allowable takeoff weight and brakes, tires, etc that are at their service limits. Also, the crews "sit on their hands" so to speak for enough time to simulate the reaction time of the average pilot. They don't even use the thrust reversers. So much for the theory that only super human test pilots in brand new airplanes can achieve AFM/POH performance. Even I can do it if I fly the airplane by the book. However, all of that goes out the window if you start substituting your own pet procedures.

Personally, I believe that a stormscope is a very valuable tool, but I would not install one on any airplane without skinmapping the particular airframe. Have you checked to see if your avionics shop could borrow or rent the skinmapping equipment? The additional cost would be well worth it.

The demonstrated crosswind shown in the POH may be nothing more than a weather report. The number is derived one of four ways: 1. Achievement of the 0.2 Vso requirement of 23.233 (absolute minimum) 2. The greatest crosswind available. 3. The resources available for the testing. 4. The limit of the ability of the test pilot to safely land in a crosswind using normal skill and technique. The number listed in the POH is not a limitation, but unless you're willing to go out and do some testing yourself, you're not going to know how the factory came up with the number. My guess it that, in the case of the Mooney, it's probably a weather report. Evidently it was blowing 11 knots on the day they got around to flying the certification flights pertaining to crosswind operations. In the real world, the maximum crosswind that you can fly a Mooney (or any airplane for that matter) is a function of rudder authority. As long as you have enough rudder authority to keep the nose lined up with the runway the crosswind is very flyable and safe. If you limit the amount of flaps during crosswind landings you are able to fly the approach at a higher speed and that in turn increases the airflow over the rudder making it more effective which increases your crosswind capabilities. Now, if you're not sure of your abilities you'll need to work up to it carefully. Technique is important and things that aren't all that critical with 10 to 15 knot winds become critically important as the wind goes above 20 knots.Get with a CFI and go expand your personal envelope.

I'm sure you guys have all heard this analogy before, but the easiest way to visualize that the air movement in the atmosphere is to liken it to water flowing in a river. Water flowing over and around a rock or boulder will disturb the water flow for quite a distance downstream. Up in the flight levels we'll occasionally run into mountain wave several hundred miles from the mountain range. The effects of mountain wave can be quite dramatic - the altitude record for a glider in mountain wave is just under 51,000 feet msl.

The best way that I know of to find what other guys are doing - routing and altitude wise - between any two city pairs is to look on sites like FlightAware and FltPlan.com. I refer to those site all of the time - there's little point in constantly trying to reinvent the wheel. That being said, it's impossible to properly calculate the most efficient altitude for any given trip without factoring in the winds aloft except for those occasional city pair where ATC handles that detail for you. (For example the SOCAL Tec Routes and the like.)

Several years ago I made 3 or 4 coast-to-coast flights in a Lear 35, that had the FMS removed for repair, doing that exact same thing. I filed via jet airways as a /A with VFR GPS on board. (I had an OLD Magellan handheld aviation GPS.) Invariably they would offer me "radar vectors direct" to some point way downrange and offer me an initial heading. I would then tell them that "from where I'm at it looks like I need another XX degrees left or right". They would always concur and when I was handed off the new controller would always tell me that my heading looked correct. Easy peasy and legal. You got'a luv radar vectors. What you DO NOT want to do is file as something that you are not or tell them that you have capabilities that you do not LEGALLY have based upon what is installed and certified in your airplane or accept a clearance that requires the use of the above mentioned legally installed and certified equipment. As the say in the barrio, that is no bueno and will get you some quality one on one time with a friendly local representative of the administrator as well as some time on the ground to ponder your transgression.

When I'm at TEB and I hear the words "Cleared for takeoff".

I might comment on it too if you're coming in 5 to 10 knots too fast and landing with partial flaps to compensate for it.

For what it's worth, that's the first thing I'd look at too, but then I always check the rigging of older airplanes.

Get your airplane flying correctly before you start working on your IR. There's no point in making it any more difficult than it is. Honestly, a Mooney is just another airplane when it comes to instrument flying so don't get too wrapped around the axle looking for a Mooney master who also is a CFII. The instrument flying basics are the same in all airplanes - even the jets that I fly at work. Any CFII that is competent in any of the complex high-performance piston singles or twins will be right at home in the Mooney when it comes to the instrument part of it. You just might have to show him the need for proper airspeed control as you're crossing the fence. (Some of those Bonanza pilots can get pretty sloppy. ) However, like I said, make sure he's fluent in whatever avionics package you've got. Good luck. Enjoy the process and keep us updated.

Guys, don't misunderstand what I'm saying. A good Mooney instructor, may or may not be a good instrument instructor and a good instrument instructor may or may not be familiar with with Mooneys. As one who is both familiar with Mooneys and a CFII, I'm simply saying that I believe that Hedge would be best served by locating the best instrument instructor that is available to him. If he happens to find a good CFII who is familiar with Mooneys then that's nice, but his primary focus during his primary instrument training should be on just that - his instrument training. A good CFII will take the time necessary to familiarize him/herself with the idiosyncrasies of the particular airframe/avionics combo that they're using for the training. Which brings up another point - things have changed, a lot, over the past 5 to 10 years. The CFI that you end up selecting needs to be "fluent" with the type of panel that is in the airplane you're training in. There are a lot of new CFIs who have never flown anything but glass and there are some older CFIs who have had little/no experience with it. Don't assume - ask. Now, knowing what I know, how would I go about locating such a CFII? Simple, I would call the local FAA FDSO office and get of list of the local DPEs. Then I would contact a few of the DPEs and ask them for a list of a few CFIIs who they could recommend. It should not take very long to come up with a pool of good qualified CFIIs from which to select your instructor. (Especially if the DPEs' recommendations overlap.) Those DPEs know the active CFIIs in the area. They know, first hand, the quality of the students they turn out. They should be able to provide you with a list of a few candidate CFIIs that you can interview. Personally. what I would be looking for is someone who you can communicate with, whose teaching style meshes with your learning style and who has a lot of experience using "the system" in the real world - someone who has been there and done that out in the real world and can pass along those occasional nuggets gained through experience. The problem with many of the current crop of CFIs is that their experience is often limited to the training environment as they gain the hours necessary to move on. That's good for the overall system, but not necessarily the best for you as an individual student.

That's simply a CFI issue. Of course, every airplane will have slight differences in airspeeds and procedures, but a good CFI will do his/her homework before initiating the training.

As a CFII, I don't see where having a "Mooney specific CFI" would be necessary. The CFII is going to be teaching you how to fly instruments, not how to fly a Mooney.

Anymore, proper altitude selection is simply a matter of using one of the flight planning programs that incorporate winds aloft into the calculations and provide multiple, altitude based, calculations showing total times and fuel burns. One of the best and most popular free programs is fltplan.com. All that being said, 3 or 4 knots is simply inconsequential.

First off, welcome to the group! I'll add a few thoughts to what has been expressed above... 1. For 1000 nm trips you will likely want (or wish you had) one of the turbo-charged long-body airplanes with the known icing option. I don't know what you're flying, but lets assume that it's a turbojet powered transport aircraft. In your world, the higher you fly the better off you usually are. In the world of light piston-powered aircraft, that's not necessarily the case. Typically, it only makes sense to fly high when you've got tailwinds. The penalty for staying low, when battling headwinds is minimal. You will use the O2, but probably not on every flight. Nasal cannulas are an option below FL180, masks must be used higher. There are free online flight planning sites like fltplan.com that you can use to quickly determine the best altitudes and routing for your flight. They've got performance profiles for most any light aircraft. You can go online and work a lot of "what if" scenarios. 2. It's not too expensive to put together a rig to refill your own O2 system. Oxygen is readily available and you do not need to use "Aviators Breathing Oxygen". Anymore, it all comes out of the same tank. 3. The biggest issue you're going to have transitioning into something small like a Mooney (Other than the urge to flare 50 feet in the air. ) is not having all of the "switches" and performance that you're used to having when it comes to dealing with weather. In large transport aircraft, we've got a switch or two (or three) that we can use to deal with just about any problem or issue we might encounter - weather or otherwise - during a flight and if that doesn't work, you can always climb and go over the top. Not so in most light general aviation piston-powered aircraft, including Mooneys. In many ways, flying light GA aircraft will be much more demanding when it comes to planning and judgement than what you're flying now. I've got a good friend of mine who is a United Airlines 747 captain. He owns a Cessna T210 and he calls it his ultralight. He has mentioned the change in mindset that he has to make to keep from thinking of his Cessna as a "toy airplane". 4. Light GA aircraft have tremendous capabilities when it comes to personal travel, but they have very distinct limitations limitations, very different from those that you currently have. They are not 24/7 all-weather travel pods, but a prudent pilot will safely be able to go anywhere he wants to go the vast majority of the time. 5. The best speed mod you can have on any airplane is long-range tanks - assuming you have the bladder capacity.

I'd be VERY careful using any cleaner that you don't know the pH of.Some of these cleaners can be VERY caustic (pH 12+) and isn't something that I'd be using on aluminum. Also, be very leery of using pressure washers on airplanes. The pressure can spread the lap joints and force caustic cleaner up into the seams. Not something that you'd want to do if you're interested in maintaining a corrosion-free airframe.

Any wonder why we're so screwed?

One question that I would have is is this engine a first run or has it been overhauled previously? At 2400 hours, that engine doesn't owe anybody anything. My only concern would be the possibility of running some very expensive parts beyond limits and not being able to use them for the core credit. Sometimes a few hundred extra hours can be disproportionality expensive when you finally get around to overhaul.

One of the easiest things in the world to do is spend other people's money. So your vote does matter. Who you vote for matters. Their experience and background matters What policies they promote and support matters. Their personal integrity matters.

Yes and there was a long line to talk to those guys. I don't know how much "aviation" recruiting was going on but, since no one seemed to want to talk to us in our dedicated aviation booth, it really doubt it. It was pretty sad. My gut tells me that with all of the video games out there, the kids are getting all of the excitement they need in front of a computer screen. I don't know, I hope I'm wrong. Nobody seemed to really care. Sigh...