Urs_Wildermuth

Supporter
  • Content count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Urs_Wildermuth last won the day on March 23

Urs_Wildermuth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

101 Excellent

About Urs_Wildermuth

  • Rank
    Senior 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. Long Mooney trip to South America

    I have not heard of Flaemming Pedersen for a long time but Honey Mooney is still registered to his name. I never met him, but some other Mooneyacs in Switzerland have. I'd love to get together with him at some stage. HoneyMooney is a heavily modified E Model. It's got Monroy tanks for starters and was equipped with varying ferry tank configurations over time, up to 150USG total at some stage. It has all the LoPresti speed mods and looks more like a J than an E from the outside. It must be the most travelled E model ever having done the round the world trip plus several other long range trips.
  2. Ovation down north of San Antonio

    Naah... but that is the average size of most airfields in Europe. My plane has been to Helgoland. Ok, these are meters. Ok, it is not a Mooney but a Seneca and a PA28. TB20...
  3. Ovation down north of San Antonio

    It depends strongly how the strip is and which Mooney. I´ve never flown an Ovation but I am regularly going into a 1500 ft strip for training with my C. And on that airfield there are several other Mooneys based, 201, 231 and even one M22. I don´t know what the LDA is at the accident airfield, but with 2200 ft total lenght I reckon it is more than 1500 ft. In comparison to this airfield however, the one I fly to has plenty of space around the runway. What I do notice from the movies about this airfield however is that it is extremely tight sideways. Also I notice that nobody lands on the centerline of the asphalt but rather off center in the grass. With the owner living there one would assume that he had plenty experience going in and out of this airfield...
  4. New Member - Need Trusted Advice

    Don't know, my CFI did give me very sound advice on buying my Mooney. I am not quite clear on whether the pics the OP shows here are of the airplane he wants to buy or some other. If they are of some other airplane, they have no significance to what he wants to buy. There are neglected planes around all over the place and once neglect has set in, brand does not matter too much. The most important thing when looking for a used plane is to find one which is technically sound and well cared for. I agree that a well cared for M20C is as dependable and a sight cheaper to run and maintain than a lot of other planes, it is the plane with most bang for buck in the GA market. The primary thing any new owner has to look for is a well kept model which does not need too many upgrades and has decent engine/prop time left. Any airplane you might want to purchase should pass a pre-purchase inspection by an independent Mooney-savvy mechanic or better a Mooney Service Center.
  5. Mooney down in Petaluma CA

    From the pics it looks as if the airplane has not had much horizontal movement over the terrain when it hit but the damage appears to show that the cabin must have been pretty intact until consumed by the fire. I wonder what the orientation is and what track he was on when the accident occurred. It's also not clear on which runway the aircraft took off from. But from the departure procs posted above it does not appear that the location is in sync with any of them. Clearly we don't know much at this stage but asking questions why is one way of coping with the news of the tragic loss of a fellow aviator and mooneyac. RIP and condolences to the family and friends... The scenario reminds me of the loss of another Mooney in Italy a while back which hit a stone wall at the end of a runway. Onlookers fully expected the crew to evacuate the airplane as it was intact when a fire broke out and destroyed the cell before anyone could react.
  6. Donation Drive 2015

    Done it right now. Thank you for providing this excellent platform!
  7. Can fuel flow be calibrated?

    Most fuel flow sensors have a k-factor stenciled onto them, as not two are really the same. Before doing calculations, see if the k-factor given at the transducer corresponds to the one set in the electronics. If that is the case, you need to conduct a series of test flights where you can really check out what is happening. Full fuel, then do the flight, note down all parameters and compare calculated vs real uplift at destination. If you can find out that it is consistently wrong by the same percentage then you have a base to work from. In your current case, the FF errs on the safe side so changing the k-factor might change that to something unsafe if it's not done with due diligence. I would in any case consult the manufacturer of your ff computer as well. Quite possibly, the transducer itself may be faulty which means however that you will not get better results with a new k-factor but could instead be setting yourself up for a situation where it shows less than it should. The implications of that do not need much explanation I guess.
  8. “fuel management” techniques

    I think the original Mooney Idea was about as good as it gets. It is very simple and at the same time logical. It accomplishes quite a lot of things by approximation. In the first hour after departure you will have climbed to cruise altitude and been running there for a while. In my C this means I will have burnt of about 10-12 USG climbing to 10'000 ft and running some 40 minutes there at 8-9 GPH, so there are some 15 USG left in that tank. The other will have 26 USG, which then with appropriate power setting will equalize in about 1.5 hours and then empty within 2.5 to 3 hours depending on fuel flow. The other thank will then have some 1.5 hours left itself, including a final reserve of 45' which corresponds to 6-7 USG, so landing should occur after the 2nd tank switch within about 45 minutes to an hour. So in practice and using a 4 hour endurance (52 USG usable) with one hour reserve based on 10 GPH conservatively, it's a very easy way of doing fuel management which will not get you in any trouble. Switch tanks after 1 hours, then again when the other is empty or near empty and plan on landing within 1 hour of the last switch is a concept most of us can memorize without too many tech toys. What this does is it keeps a reasonable balance between left and right tanks and it does it with a minimum of switching. Of course totalizers and fuel flow gauges help with the above figures which are easy to remember as a backup. Using totalizers and exact fuel flow will do one thing primarily, it will optimize the range and use of your airplane and it will give you a much better idea about the way you run your engine and it will give you the possibility to achieve much larger range than simply running WOT and best power. Instead of just "knowing" that there will be fuel for "what the other tank had - 1 hour" you will have a clear indication of how long you actually have continuing on the same fuel flow. Or, e.g. with a GNS430 or similar GPS coupled to a fuel computer, get the expected fuel at destination. So all you really need to do is to keep the engine configured so that the fuel at destination never goes below the 45' final reserve or, if diversion is a real possibility, 45' plus the alternate fuel. All in all, I think the Mooney offer on how to switch our tanks is easy and actually quite practicable. Seeing where most of our fuel valves are located, I do avoid switching in any situation but in cruise and on AP when you can do the acrobatics involved to get there without having to do much else. The Mooney suggestion pretty much takes care of that too.
  9. Long Mooney trip to South America

    Once again, wonderful trip terbang and many thanks for posting it here. It's well worth reading through the trip report through the link he posted guys. Very inspirational for all of us!
  10. First Mooney: 231 vs. 201

    Actually, speaking of "forum talk" it was maybe a bad acronym to use for the usual airport pub banter. Particularly in this forum it may well be totally inappropriate, as here there are mostly people who DO have the experience and therefore the foundation to talk about these things. What I was referring to is the stuff also Deakin refers to in his many excellent articles: Urban legends about engines, airplanes and other subjects where people debate about things they have no idea about. They have never flown an airplane with turbo engine yet they "know" Turbos are "difficult" and "expensive" e.t.c. because others told them so. I guess this is what makes the value of a forum like Mooneyspace, where people meet who actually KNOW what they are talking about and don't simply repeat urban (aviation) myths. There are other places which are outright damaging to people who inquire about ownership or learning to fly, getting an IR e.t.c. LOL, well, yea, there are people who work these kind of hours . I was just coming off duty when I took a bit of time on the forum to unwind.
  11. First Mooney: 231 vs. 201

    Hello again The K will give you more possibilities, is significantly faster and can go to altitudes no 201 can. The example you quote looks quite nice to me from what you wrote, operative words LB engine and intercooler. I would not shy away from a turbo because of forum talk. As for turbo engines, I've extensively flown the Seneca II which had fixed wastegate turbos, which means you have to be careful setting power on take off. In cruise, setting power is no different other than the numbers go higher. I suppose you could even fly a 231 LOP and get away with it. Ever since the early Malibu engine scandals which had nothing to do with the engine but with people being too stupid to use them properly, I am very wary of forum talk on turbos. You might want to look up John Deakin's take on "those firebreathing turbos" rather. What is true though is that the LB engine is better than the GB.
  12. 1962 M20C For Sale - Out of Annual

    Well, keep us informed of what has been going on. I'd love to see this resolved and that Mooney flying again.
  13. As far as I know not only for there but also for Canada to the southern Greenland airports. Only the Frobisher-Söndre route does not require HF. Or has that changed?
  14. Oliver, in order to fly Goose-Greenland you need HF. So realistically, the route open to you is Iqualuit - Kangerlussuaq - Kulusuk - Reykjavik. These are legs of 300-400 NM. From Iceland, you can either fly direct to the UK or, if the weather allows it, land at Faroer, which cuts the distance into two. Generally it is considered that you need about 1000 NM range to do the NATL in comfort and you need time. 64 USG should give you that. But there is no problem adding e.g. a turtlepack tank on your back seat which can easily give you more. https://www.turtlepac.com/products/bush-plane-long-range-fuelbladder/ You can connect them to the fuel system (there are many folks who know how) or you can carry it along and transfer the fuel on the ground, e.g. where you don't have Avgas but a runway available. You are right, the longest route on the trip is Iceland-Europe. Reikyavik to Wick is 639NM ground distance. If you divide up the legs with Vagar in between, you have 450 and 250 NM. In theory, you also have a jump off point at Hoefn (Iceland) and can cut short to Sumburgh or Kirkwall, which would shorten the leg to about 500 NM. So there are options. Also the E-model should be able to fly these ranges easily, particularly with 64 USG. You'd have to find out the sweet spot between speed and consumption, in the C it is between 7500 and 10'000 ft with rougly 8 GPH, which results in about 135-140 kts. I have never looked at the tables of the E model, but analyzing those carefully and flight testing those values should give you insight. With 64 USG and normal reserves, looking at a final reserve of 1 hr never to be touched, you end up with around 50 USG at top of climb. With the 150 kts/10 GPH you get 770 NM out of that, considering 20 NM climb distance. With 140 kts and the 9 GPH you get 790 NM out of it. But these are very much figures which need verifying with the book. I don't have a E performance section, if you have one, I can feed it into my dispatch sheet and look at the sweet spots for you. You will also need to consider life raft and exposure suits. In any event, an E can do the trip, but you need time to wait for the good weather. A turtlepack or something like this will enhance your options massively. On the other hand, after 10 hours in the plane, you might pre-advise for a chiropractic to help you out of the airplane
  15. 64 USG should be enough on the northern route. And as Jim sais, you can get a turtle tank temporarily installed.