Urs_Wildermuth

Done. Thank you Mike for organizing this.

I fly a C model in Switzerland where there are a lot of rather short places. It is not a problem to operate a C model (as well as an E or F) into any of those provided you know what you are doing. Wangen Lachen (LSPV) has a 500x18m runway, which translates into 1640 ft. I've been there many times, no problem either in or out. There are quite a few Mooneys based there including a M22 Mustang and an Eagle which belongs to the local flying group. I've seen J, K's and others there. The original Mooney dealership in Switzerland was based in Bad Ragaz LSZE. Its runway is 1624 m long and 33 ft wide. For many years all Mooneys coming into Switzerland for sale (quite a few) passed through there. Shortest I know of that my airplane has operated in and out of was Helgoland in Germany, whose longest runway is 1570 ft long. It did operate out of there with 3 POB. The simple thing is: Open the POH and see what it can do. Take Off is rarely the problem, landing on short runways you have to get it right of course. But I would not hesitate to take my C model into 1600 ft provided there are no other factors like obstacles or else which make it a problem. And btw: Mooneys also regularly operate into places like Courchevel or Megeve.

That looks very much like the former HB-DEW...

No, the one I have seen at Wangen Lachen is white/red. It is HB-DVZ. That is the one which appeared on planecheck a few weeks ago. That is one pic I found of it, by Tino Dietsche. The other one is HB-DVY, red/orange/beige Both are active as far as I know. The metallic/blue one was HB-DEW but that one got sold a few years ago. Some pics can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/Mooney-M22-Mustang-423324937740112/

Ask Don Maxwell.

There are two I believe in Switzerland, one of which was recently up for sale. It lives in Wangen Lachen, a small 500m long runway at the lake of ZRH. I was very tempted as it was also annoucned cheap, but it disappeared from planecheck very fast. I hope someone got himself a one in a lifetime deal. I think it only had some 1400 hours TT and was in like new condition with older avionics.

This is how my C's panel looks like: Aspen PFD, 430W, Stec 55X, Shadin Fuel Computer. That is what she looks like airborne.

Wonderful.... so basically it is off the market for any plane based outside the US. How can Mooney ask that of an existing STC? Maybe for new planes or those in warranty, but not for planes which are 50+ years sold? Does Blue Sky have an installation facility in Europe?

I spent several years working out whether my C model was doing ok or not. I always felt it was slow compared to the book. Then I installed an Aspen which delivers TAS all the time. First thing I got was this: 6500 ft, WOT, 2500 RPM and 9.8 GPH, leaned to 50°f ROP. Now that is not how I usually fly, my usual regime is WOT, 2300 RPM and LOP which gives me some 145 kts at this altitude. You can calculate, do math, most of the time our gauges are not accurate enough to really give proper TAS values. If at all, you need to have all parameters available and calculate using the E6B app or something like this, which most of the time is not ideal either. The Aspen (and other EFIS including an ADC) will deliver pretty straightforward TAS which is quite accurate. Or you can do the 4 way ground speed test Bob Kromer used to do for the planes he tested for mooney. His M20C test is here. In the end, what you need to do is "testfly" your particular airframe and note down the values regularly, then you can see how much it differs from the poh and update your flight planning app with correct figures. However, what I have found is that while the POH is quite optimistic in top speeds, it becomes much more realistic when you look at more normal values such as fixed percentage power (55/65/75%) which does take a bit of numbercrunching but it comes out not bad usually. Also you need to take into account that all speeds in the POH are ISA, which hardly ever exists. So you need to always know your DA as well to be able to say whether your plane is close to POH or not. It is also interesting to calculate the sweet spots for your plane, that is where speed, range and economy deliver the best bang for buck. And to know the high-speed cruise, economy cruies, best range cruise parameters. These don't come in the POH listed as such, you need to read them out of the performance tables and figure them out. Lots of work but also lots of fun.

Digging up this old thread... I just found that there apparently are 2 M22 still operating in Switzerland. One of them had a narrow escape on a runway overrun at Wangen Lachen (500m long) where it's been based at for decades. Question: Has somebody got a PDF copy of the POH of this airplane? I am particularly looking for the performance part for my collection.

You need treatment for this, can't be that you can not do this movement. I had a similar problem with my elbow and got treatment by a good chiropractic, never had a problem since.

Mike, I do not have any information on them. You might want to try to contact EMOPA, they might know more. http://www.empoa.eu/index.php/en/

A German M20K has crashed about 70km west of Reus in Spain yesterday. All 3 on board died. They were on a VFR flight from Portugal to Reus when their way was blocked by a cold front over the coastal mountains. Last com said they lost the engine. Weather at destination was marginal VFR. Flight track by FR24 https://fr24.com/data/aircraft/d-etft#115a22ed

really? Wow. Well, I am very happy with it. Particularly since they slashed some prices for their addons like VT recently.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

Done it right now. Thank you for providing this excellent platform!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.