Urs_Wildermuth

Basic Member
  • Content count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Urs_Wildermuth last won the day on November 20 2015

Urs_Wildermuth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

60 Excellent

About Urs_Wildermuth

  • Rank
    Full Member
  • 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
  1. Oh yes, on ground leaning is absolutely a must in the C. Also agressive leaning in any phase of flight is quite necessary to keep fuel flow and performance going. Much different from certain Cessnas where the effect of leaning is hardly noticable.
  2. I get this all the time when using the electric pump, but only then. The pressure goes way over red then, up to 6.5 or 7. Always been like this, even after the engine overhaul (with new pump) nothing changed. During flight it's normal.
  3. ELLX 271050Z 20003KT 130V250 4000 BR BKN030 09/07 Q1034 BECMG 6000 NSW ELLX 271020Z VRB02KT 4000 BR BKN028 08/07 Q1034 BECMG 6000 NSW ELLX 270950Z VRB02KT 3000 BR BKN028 08/07 Q1034 BECMG 6000 NSW ELLX 270920Z VRB02KT 3500 BR BKN030 07/06 Q1034 BECMG 6000 NSW
  4. The question has been rised about alternates nearby. The closest open one was Luxembourg international which is 43 NM GC Dist away.
  5. Updated news paper report. http://www.saarbruecker-zeitung.de/saarland/saarbruecken/saarbruecken/ensheim/Ensheim-Saarbruecken-Flughafen-Saarbruecken-Flughaefen-Flugungluecke-Kleinflugzeuge-Landebahnen-Nebel-Tod-und-Trauer-Unfallursachen;art446405,6287947 According to this, the pilot had decided to try an approach despite the conditions, which were way below the approach minima. The TAF for EDDR was very optimistic as opposed to what happened in the end. EDDR 270500Z 2706/2806 VRB03KT 0100 FG VV000 BECMG 2707/2709 1500 BCFG BKN002 BECMG 2709/2712 6000 BKN010 BECMG 2712/2714 SCT010 BECMG 2721/2724 3000 BCFG PROB30 TEMPO 2800/2806 0300 FG VV001= The crash occurred at 9-50 UTC, for which the forecast was 1.5km vis and a ceiling of 200 ft. In fact, this never happened, it stayed foggy all day. Conditions only became CAT I at 1250 UTC, 3 hours after the crash and deteriorated quickly again after 1350. EDDR 271350Z VRB02KT 1600 BR BKN001 08/08 Q1034 TEMPO BKN002 EDDR 271320Z VRB02KT 0900 R27/0900V1800U FG FEW001 BKN002 08/08 Q1034 TEMPO 1500 EDDR 271250Z VRB02KT 0350 R27/0550V0900U FG VV/// 07/07 Q1034 TEMPO 1200 EDDR 271220Z VRB02KT 0200 R27/0500N FG VV/// 07/07 Q1034 BECMG 0600 EDDR 271150Z VRB02KT 0150 R27/0375N FG VV/// 07/07 Q1035 BECMG 0600 EDDR 271120Z VRB02KT 0150 R27/0300N FG VV/// 06/06 Q1035 BECMG 0600 EDDR 271050Z VRB02KT 0150 R27/0275N FG VV/// 06/06 Q1035 BECMG 0600 EDDR 271020Z 25002KT 0150 R27/0225N FG VV/// 05/05 Q1035 BECMG 0600 EDDR 270950Z 28003KT 240V330 0150 R27/0225N FG VV/// 05/05 Q1035 NOSIG EDDR 270920Z VRB02KT 0150 R27/0225N FG VV/// 05/05 Q1035 NOSIG EDDR 270850Z VRB02KT 0150 R27/0250N FG VV/// 04/04 Q1034 NOSIG EDDR 270820Z VRB01KT 0150 R27/0300N FG VV/// 04/04 Q1034 NOSIG EDDR 270750Z VRB01KT 0150 R27/0275N FG VV/// 03/03 Q1034 NOSIG EDDR 270720Z VRB01KT 0150 R27/0250V0450N FG VV/// 03/03 Q1034 NOSIG EDDR 270650Z 08002KT 0150 R27/0300N FG VV/// 03/03 Q1033 NOSIG With a TAF like that, it is clear why the pilot thought he'd be able to land. Which does not explain why he tried anyway in the actual conditions. Someone with this kind of experience should know better?
  6. Foggy indeed. 225 m RVR is CAT IIIb. I don't think there is any Mooney which can handle that. I wonder why a landing in this condition was attempted at all.
  7. Weather: EDDR 271020Z 25002KT 0150 R27/0225N FG VV/// 05/05 Q1035 BECMG 0600 EDDR 270950Z 28003KT 240V330 0150 R27/0225N FG VV/// 05/05 Q1035 NOSIG EDDR 270920Z VRB02KT 0150 R27/0225N FG VV/// 05/05 Q1035 NOSIG Souce see below. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=190950 According to ASN, destination was EDDR. FR24 shows him circling before the approach.
  8. When I read this, I am really happy with my Aspen / S-Tec / GNS430W installation. Fully LPV authorized at a fraction of the price.
  9. There may be a way to do a deadstick landing automatically or manually and be reasonably safe in many cases. http://xavion.com/ The answer to that may be Xavion or a similar app which would have to work with the avionic of the plane or be installed in such a way that it can drive the flight director and/or Autopilot. What this does is that it calculates a safe flight path to either the nearest runway or the nearest flat piece of real estate in it's database and then guides the pilot there using "Windows in the sky" indicators. It works astonishingly well, of course the chances for success are much higher, the higher you fly. I've talked to people who tried it assuming it to be a toy and came away amazed. Now, to make that a parashute replacement, it would have to be certified, would have to interface with most autopilots and glass cockpits. But if so, it would be one heck of a tool.
  10. True. My question is: Where are todays designs which will do these kind of things. Mooney got big because they chased every knot out of every horsepower but still produced a plane a normal pilot can fly good. Today I see such kind of efficient planes only in the kit market and most of them would not be certifyable today. It should be very attainable to design economical and efficient airframes like the M20 which will run 1kt/hp or more. But certification has become a major hurdle in that effort. That is why we still have the M20 type certificate for airplanes which are VERY different than the original M20.
  11. Yes, but it is an experimental, isn't it? Which means, certified it would cost at least twice that much. And as an experimental, that means, Day VFR only in Europe. And that makes a plane like that useless. Maybe what this does show however is that the certification process worldwide is quite fatally flawed. It can't be that people have to resort to kit planes in order to satisfy their needs for new designs, because just about any company trying to certify a new GA plane goes bust over it and needs to be rescued by foreign money or simply vanish. Certification should not become a reason why there is no more innovation in that market and what is there is totally unreasonably expensive. I do hope this will not put an end to the M10 project though, even though I keep reading that the process of certification is much slower than anticipated... now there's a surprise.
  12. The case for the parashute is overwhelming looking at todays sales figures. Basically, only Cirrus sells airplanes in real numbers today. Everyone else doesn't. The parashute is comparable to the sugarless chewing gum many years ago. It became a hit with kids, not because they liked it, but because it was the one gum mummy allowed. Today, if flying partners are confronted with the idea that they should fly on a small plane, they will have the parashute any time over a non equipped plane. Look at the time when Cirrus came out with the idea. There were several other designs around, all superior in speed, economy and performance, but all of them lost out to Cirrus. Since then, Cirrus have managed to keep the pressure on the market by bringing up new versions regularly, by upgrading their product and by keeping a real good marketing going all these years. The Columbia/Corvalis is basically a dead product today and the Mooneys we see sell to people who have had Mooneys before because only they know what a wonderful product they really are. Wifes (ok, spouses) won't care for that, they see the parashute and say IF they have to put up with a wannabe airline captain who only recently hit his thumb hanging a picture on the wall, then hand me a parashute please! So what would Mooney have to do? 1 to 10 th priority: Get all their planes equipped with a BRS system. 2nd: The M10 is a good new start, but the M20 cell is outdated for new customers. Even while it is wider than Cessnas and Pipers, today in the day and age of the 50" cabin width a Cirrus or even TB20 has, people want to sit like in a car, not a sportster, especcially if that plane has an endurance of 6+ hours. 3rd: Go back to the efficiency sales argument which did sell them a lot of airplanes before. The Mooneys easily are the fastest and most economical planes around even now, but they could be better if the philosophy of the 201-252 series were revived more vigorously. That will mean digging into new propulsion systems, as they do with the M10. A 200 kt airplane which will do those 200 kts on a 5 gph diesel and which will have truely intercontinental range even with current tanks would rise an eyebrow or two. And be prepared for the post fossile fuel area. In the car market, people like Tesla own the future, while the rest are on a dying battle. Germany and some other countries have now decided to ban petrol fuelled cars by 2030. What is your bet they won't ban not only cars but airplanes as well? So we need to be ready. Short term I agree with Mooney however that putting the 2nd door in is a great design choice. It does make the cabin more accessible and it does give the airplane something it has been lacking for ever. It should have been done in 1960 or latest when the 201 came out. But it's never too late. For me, the M10 is a step in the right direction but it lacks that all important parashute. The M10 would have had the possibility to include it, it wasn't done, which imho will break this design in the European and US market. It may still work in China. I still think especcially the M10J is a wonderful airplane and I'd be in the market for one to replace my C model if I ever win the lottery, as it does exactly what I think Mooney should be all about: Economy, efficiency and performance. Maybe, as a two and 3 seater, it can get away without the shute, because Cirrus doesn't have a comparable plane, we'll see. Price and bang for buck might still win this one.
  13. I was shopping for an easy to maintain and economical airplane I could afford to buy with the money I had. After looking at many Cherokees and others, I came across a well equipped C model which was for sale for much less money. I did an introductory flight and was hooked immediately. 150 kts at 9 gph for the same money as a 90 kt Cherokee 140 and for approximately the same upkeep costs? Sign me up. Never regretted this step. The vintage Mooneys are imho the very best choice for people who want to travel fast at the same or slightly higher cost than with a fixed gear/prop plane.
  14. Thanks for all the very useful inputs. @Hank, no I am not at all concerned. I've taken my C Model into 1500 ft concrete strips and I know it will behave as advertized on take off. Also, my C model was based on a 1800 ft grass runway for almost 40 years. The original Mooney dealership in Switzerland was based at Bad Ragaz, one of the shortest and most obstacle infested airfields I know. As a former flight operations officer (flight dispatcher) I have dealt with loads of airplanes much bigger and they do have book values for just about everything. Likewise, I've seen similar figures for some Pipers and Cessnas too. I just wondered why Mooney was so economical about this. Also, my only real concern so to speak would be that if I ever was challenged by a friendly inspector as to my take of calculation on such a field, I'd have to say it is a guestimate based on experience. If that would sell? The way I know folks around here, they'd say, if you don't have figures then you can't operate. Which means, Mooneys would be restricted to operate from fields for which data are available (that is dry concrete for the M20C and dry concrete and dry grass for the M20J) and nothing else. That is definitly not what I want. The M20J Manual states 7% increase on a dry grass field. Again, there are no indications on factors for stuff like wet grass, let alone slush or compacted snow. Looking at a table I received a few hours ago from the UK CAA, they recommend as a general rule: 20% increase for dry grass 30% increase for wet grass as well as compacted snow or soft ground on that, they will then once again add 30% safety margin. I think this is way over the top, clearly, it will increase safety but so does a 10'000 ft runway. What I'd like is something I can get a proper idea to calculate with for my airplane (and the rest of the Mooney fleet, as I keep advising people on them). So any experience values or if there are some test folks around here would be highly appreciated.
  15. Well, we do have some 1500 ft strips here, some gras some concrete.. and we do have airports up at 6000 ft.