Jump to content

Urs_Wildermuth

Supporter
  • Posts

    315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Urs_Wildermuth last won the day on March 23 2018

Urs_Wildermuth had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Urs_Wildermuth

  • Birthday 12/27/1962

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.hbdwc.ch
  • Skype
    urswildermuth

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    LSZH
  • Interests
    Flying, travel, music,
  • Reg #
    HB-DWC
  • Model
    M20C, 1965

Recent Profile Visitors

2,667 profile views

Urs_Wildermuth's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

212

Reputation

  1. Interesting reading indeed. Yes, partial panel skills are often not given the importance they should have. And even people who are proficient in training and checks have fallen victim to spatial disorientation and not many of those lived to tell the tale. Apart from the questions asked by the report, I am wondering what can cause 2 GI275 to fail in such a situation at the same time. I think many of us, myself included, tend to think of safety in numbers, so 2 independent EFIS should give redundancy they obviously do not. So maybe not such a bad idea to keep that old vaccum horizon after all? I still have mine, thanks to the fact that my C needs vaccum to pump up the stairs... Would I have kept it otherwise? Not so sure. But I sure am glad i did after this report.
  2. As I think my thread disappeared due to the forum outage, I'll post it again. A Mooney 205, occupied by a single pilot, crashed in the Swiss mountains in IMC conditions on Sunday .The airplane was enroute from Dahmler Binz (Germany) to Locarno (Switzerland). By the looks of it, the pilot tried to cross the Alps by the Gotthard route, which at the time was unflyable due to convective clouds. The aircraft involved was D-EMPE. The owner/pilot was a very prominent veterinarian from Germany. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/265655
  3. Great to hear you are getting on. The engine is getting overhauled, right?
  4. What about handluggage... Do you know what the current averages are? And how are they determined?
  5. In my impression it goes more like "I'd rather not know". Kidding one self is easy. CAT scales would also be a possibility, yes. Many are also very reluctant to ask for passenger weights, particularly when ladies are involved. Gives "don't ask, don't tell" another meaning.
  6. This reminds me of the AN2 I used to fly. Sounds like a lot of fun. Enjoy!!
  7. This is a major problem and, as a former loadmaster and load controller, my pet peeve, something I've never understood. What is the point having 4 or 6 or whatever seats in an airplane when you can't fill them. Yes, with my experience I do know that the idea is that you do your calcs, don't lie about your weight and weigh down everything bla bla, but the harsh reality is, even those who do a WnB document before every flight would get a lot of it wrong if the plane was put on a a scale before departure. As one other guy here said, human nature. There is 4 seats, so it must be good for 4 people. Only that very few planes are. But yea, you can take 2 adults and two kids, so those two seats do have their function at times, but most of the time, they are just a vain temptation to do the obvious. Passenger weights on GA planes (and your own): You have to ask. ok. What are they goona tell ya? Even if they are honest, they will tell you what they weighed last time after shower and toilet in the early morning in their flesh. What about clothes, what about the fact that you gain weight during the day? How many will actually fly naked to have the proper weight? If you have not done it, do a quick check and step on your scale once fully dressed and ready to fly, with all the stuff in your pockets, your coat, hat, shoes, walking stick and 3 work and private mobile phones in your pocket?.... 10 kgs on top? Easy. This starts with the obvious C150, which has a full fuel payload of 150 kg, which is exactly 2 IATA of 1980's standard weight males. And there are such, but unfortunately few and far between. Add the tremendous baggage space and voila, I'd claim that a huge number of those planes even on standard training sorties are flown overweight. Mooneys are excellent 2 seaters with full tanks, some are not even that. I've seen Acclaims and Ovations which can not be legally flown with full fuel by two even average people. There are Jetprops which have a full fuel payload of 100 kg, that is ONE guy at best. That plane is a 6 seater! What good does a plane do, which, fully fuelled must be piloted by an infant? Or, worse, is overweight fully fuelled without anyone sitting inside? Yes folks, that exists. Also airliners exist which have such funny arrangements. And then: What about all the nick-nack stuff in the plane before even one guy sits in it? 20 kg? Optimistic maybe. Tool box, covers, this, that, head sets, replacement oil bottles, what else not, do they ever find the way into your loadsheet? If so, congratulations. Yes I know all the haarumph about it, of course you can use the filler neck on some planes, of course you can calculate properly, of course it can be done with 1- 2 hours of fuel, but let's get real folks: Way too many won't. The situation is not better in airliners either, only those beasts will not fall out of the sky so quickly. Still, it's worth looking at. Being out of the airline business for 20 years by now I don't know what todays IATA standard pax weights are, only that they have gone up over the years. When I started, they were 75 kg for males (yes really), 65 for females, 35 for kids and 10 for babies. The calculatory hand bag was 3 kgs (yes, T H R E E) . Honestly? When I left, most airlines had gone up to between 78 and 85 kgs but now included hand luggage. Seriously? Handluggage: Airlines today say 6 kg. ROFLOL. Yea right. I'd say 99% of the roller bags nobody weighs or counts are 15 kg or more. The only airlines who do weigh and cash on them are LLC's, like Ryan Air or some similar outfits. Get it: even if we assume that the average they use for load sheets including the 6 kgs is remotely correct, a 300 pax airliner will be 3 tons overweight only from excess handluggage, duty free, nick nacks and burger bags. Every day. Any full 737 at max TOW will be 1.5 tons over gross. Every day. When I was in dispaching, we counted 100 kgs per passenger including baggage. Given that the standard bag allowance is 23 kgs, that is 77 average weight. If we get a plane with 50/50 male females and a couple of kids, we MAY achieve that. More likely not. Handbaggage? See above. If that was me, I'd be planning the average adult today with 90 kg dressed, 20 kgs hand luggage and 23 kgs check in baggage for the airlines. That is 133 kgs and that is what most people drag on board a plane. For light planes, plan with 100 kg per person and 50 per kid. If we look at the real world, the only way to stop people flying overweight is to put a sensor in each landing gear and have an indicator in the airplane which gives you a clear indication and inhibits engine start if overweight. And I am sure: If such a system would ever become available or mandated, many of us would get the shock of a lifetime the first time we use it. (BTW, preciously few people are aware that also cars have maximum allowable weights.... and it is the holiday season. Every year in Europe, thousands of cars get weighed at border stations and get taken out of circulation because the family has once again overdone the holiday baggage BIG time. Most cars are not better than planes, only nobody cares. But if you have an accident and the lawyers start doing what they do best...... you'd better care even there. )
  8. Hello, ok, I am here. Based LSZH, M20C. Hello Brian, yes, I agree with @carusoam in order to give proper advice we need to know a bit more. If you are in Europe, at least insurance won't be a problem, if not cheap but at least you'll get it. It would be helpful to know which the route is you wish to fly, at least region to region. If we are talking Europe, you are talking Alps and crossing those regularly and IFR a Turbo Mooney (preferrably FIKI) would be the lowest denominator I'd even consider. But it depends very strongly on the actual route. Your helo time will cetainly help but you will need fixed wing experience to attempt regular alpine crossings, even in a turbo airplane. Given the route structure and regulated route availability, it will be vital to really check out the options here. So let us know a bit more and we can talk.
  9. Nothing surprises me anymore. The market has really turned in the last two years. This certainly is a nice example and may, for the right person, be the one buy and fly airplane they are looking for. Actually, it is quite motivating to see this. 3-4 years ago, a plane like this would have maybe fetched half of that. My panel does not have an engine analyzer but Aspen and STEC 55x as well as WAAS 430 and some other stuff and when I was considering selling 2-3 years ago, I got duff offers of 20-30k, so I kept it. Valuations have gone way up and imho more where they belong than before.
  10. It is and I am quite sure the main reason for that is sour grapes and armchair experts who have never flown a twin but heard from a friend of a friends 2nd cousin that they are dangerous. And you know, some of this is true. Yes, they are dangerous in those few first minutes of flight and they WERE more dangerous than now when Vmca demonstrations while in training were still forced and killed quite a lot of people. The fact is, that the twin fleet operates quite safely in capable hands. If you are not capable, then clearly the airplane does not belong into your hands. That is why we have a MEP rating, which includes quite a lot of training and includes a lot of single engine flying. In my experience, when I started flying twins I was initially horrified and uncomfortable, because the actual training is gruelling. It is only once you get to fly the thing enroute when you get to experience what it is to actually fly normal ops, and quite some folks are sitting in quiet wonder why they have not had that critical engine failure after the first few months of flying... the large part of twin pilots see failures only during training or recurrency checks. Have you ever actually done a MEP training? Or how do you come to this conclusion? If you can fly a SEP safely, if you have the presence of mind to figure out an engine failure scenario in your SEP to the point where you know what to do if it happens, then you can learn to fly a twin. But clearly, if you are convinced that all twins are flying death traps and you are incapable of flying them, then you will most probably go into a twin transition training with so much negative expectation, that it won't work out for you. Where I agree is that Twins need serious training and serious recurrency training to actually profit from the increase in safety that 2nd engine brings. Most folks do this with their IR recurrency flights, where they also refresh their OEI skills. But then, twins definitly can provide a level of safety which as SEP per definition can't reach.
  11. I wonder what exactly you mean by this, for me this example shows exactly that in capable hands twins are a lot safer. You loose an engine in cruise in a SEP, you are going down to ground level, no matter what. If you are lucky, you will reach an airport. If not, you will land whereever. In a twin, no matter which one, you will also descend, depending on the airplane will determine how fast and to what level. Some of the 160-180 hp normally aspirated twins will descend to about 4000 ft DA at MTOW of 4200lb, which in cruise by definition it can't have. Most turbocharged twins will maintain anywhere between 10 and 17 k ft OEI. I've flown some hours in Seneca I's and at the time we tried out what can be done and what not. At about 4000 lb, the Seneca I drifted down to about 5500 ft. If we put the Rajay Turbocharger to use on the "live" engine, we were able to hold almost 10'000 ft with one engine in the presecribed zero power setting. My FI at the time told me he had actually shut down engines before and the values improved slightly with the feathered prop. A guy I know well used to own a BE95, the 180 hp powered Travel Air. He claims that in an actual shut down situation being about half ways in a trip from Switzerland to Algiers (long time ago) he was able to drift down to about 6000 ft, where the pane held altitude. I heard similar values from people with Twin Commanches, the Turbo version of that plane being one of my pipe dreams to own, and a lot higher values from the Turbo TC. The Seneca II was a totally different beast. Not only will it climb quite high on one engine if it has to (about 13000 ft) it is generally a much better airplane than the Seneca I. So in practice, if you have to shut one down in cruise, where also flying skills are not massively taxed OEI, I'd rate your chances of landing at some airport rather high. If you have to shut down over the sea, your chances of staying dry will massively improve. That goes for all of them with the possible exception of the original Apache, which I have never flown but am told that in some conditions may not hold any altitude above terra firma at all. Even over mountains like the Alps and even on one of the 4000 ft OEI celing wonders your chances are bigger. If you fly at, say, 16000 ft and loose an engine in mid weights, you will descent at about 200 fpm to 500 fpm towards whatever altitude it will eventually manage to keep. Chances in todays age with GPS based terrain awareness e.t.c. are massively higher than they used to be to find yourself terrain where you can safely descend into the lower areas or to follow valleys e.t.c. No, it is not a out of jail card in all circumstances, but im most of them, I'd say with pilot competence it is much better than in a single to reach landable ground. The most accidents twins do is either with EFATO where people loose control or simply fail to realize that below a certain height and before it is cleaned up, a twin is naught but a SEP and needs a straight ahead landing. Unfortunately, it has also happened that people lost control on approach or n the circuit OEI as they fell victim to the Vmca trap when increasing power on the good engine or when attempting a single engine go around, which most manufacturers tell you not to attempt anyway. But out of cruise, as this situation here was, a twin will give you that landing at an airport under most circumstances where a single would not. If I were in the market for a light twin, I'd go either for a Turbo Twin Comanche or a Seneca II or III. But having said that, I saw a really nice Seneca I recently at a very low price but with new engines and props plus really good IFR cockpit (Aspen, dual GNS430W, 3 axis Ap and radar) which, had the owner bothered to return my mails, would have really have had me tempted, despite the measly range. The other one I saw recently which got me musing was a GA7 Cougar, also in excellent condition and with very low hours. But I have to say, the one thing which keeps me from making this step is that I own my C model Mooney for a reason: It is the one airplane with a decent performance I can afford. So no twins for me. But whoever can, should not get dissuaded by old wife's tales about people who mostly never flew one.
  12. As a matter of fact that is the one bit I would REALLY like. My C has the conventional 2 piece windshield, meaning no glareshield to speak of at all. I once flew in a C which had the 201 mod and it is a world apart. I really like the space you get much better, be it for some electronics to put on or only to increase the distance between yourself and the windshield. Is the SWATA variant still available? I would love to eventually do that.
  13. There is nothing but a true TAS indicator, such as present in the Aspen PFD or similar to really know where you are at in speed. Ok, there are the old style analogue ASI's which have a TAS scale of sorts, those also work out sort of. Doing calcs and trying to work out tables in flight usually does not really work. Yes, there is the GPS method, 3 or 4 way and average, which also works out well. But having TAS on a display is simply a lot easier. I learnt a lot about my C-Model's performance after we got the Aspen installed.
  14. Frankly before I would trade my IFR equipped C model for a Cirrus, I'd go twin. As here in Europe there is the paywall of 1999 kg, I would most likely go for a Seneca II or a Turbo Twin Commanche if I can find one with de-icing. The Cirrus is a fantastic airplane, no question about it. The market has spoken abundantly clear, it is the only viable travel plane to sell new these days. I would say 80% of this is the shute, the rest is whatever else it has to make it attractive. Ramp appeal, it is large on the ramp, it is relatively comfortable to sit inside and it has that all important shute. For me it is perfectly clear that no SEP traveller which is expecting to carry wife and kids will be able to sell any significant numbers unless it features the shute.. The only Mooneys I'd upgrade to from my C is a J or K. The J has the better range the C lacks and slightly better speed with almost identical cost. The K is useful here in Europe due to the mountains. I've had the chance to sit in an Acclaim Ultra. For me, the Ultra would not be a plane I'd consider. The payload is absymal, the cabin looks nice but is as tight as any other Mooney and the panel is way too high even for me at 6'2, I can hardly see over the panel when taxiing. Yes, it has a superb performance but if I spend close to 1 million for a new airplane (or half for a recent used one) I'd have to ask myself if for this kind of money, if I stay in the SEP range, I'd not rather go for one with the parashute but very much rather go for a FIKI twin, which I can pick up for 10% of the price of a new Mooney or Cirrus and which gives that safety of the 2nd engine and a comfortable cabin for my family. Personally I think the J and the C were the two models which made Mooney the hit it was at the time. 180-200 hp, great performance and affordable for the lower income class of pilots. That is why I have a C and why I can afford to have it despite being in an income class where others wonder if they can afford a new bicycle. What I like in the J vs the C is the larger fuel capacity and the speed mods, which gives that magical 1000 NM number in range. They provide 150 kt for the money of a Cherokee 180. That is what I thought made Mooney really great. When they started to go into the Lamborghini class of airplanes, expensive, huge engines, much worse economy, one can easily choose something else. For me, dumping the J was the reason they went bust over and over again. So if I'd upgrade it would be either to a J or, with the money needed for a Cirrus or current Mooney, to a twin.
  15. Lovely airplane. I can see what you mean with the panel looking like a project. Personally, I think primarily the left hand side could profit from a proper re-arrangement into the basic T form plus the possible addition of an Aspen or a couple of G5's or their successors. One way to do that is to move the Stec-30 to the hole of the DG, get rid of the DG, move the horizon to the right a bit and fit an Aspen into the space vaccated. I guess that would be the least invasive way to upgrade. Obviously you can do something similar with G5's. An Aspen also will provide GPSS from the GNS430 for you, which is really nice to have cross country. My "C" looked like this when I got it We added an Aspen plus an AP to it (which you already have by the looks of it, to make it look like this: Quite pleased with the outcome. The beauty of it was that we did not have to change any existing holes other than for the remote AP display and the switches.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.