jetdriven

...nope its just getting started

Somehow the evil government made the big banks do it. "Forced" is the newest version of history. Government made them issue bad loans in the trillions, pushed them as AAA rated CDO's (rated by the same S&P that downgraded the US Debt) while secretly taking odds against them, and then praising the "invisible hand of the market" right up until the entire world melted down. Suddenly screw capitalism and risk taking, help us out! Read that book "the big short". All the US Government's fault. Tell you what, ask Somalia how their "freedom from government regulation" is going. Perhaps you can get a glimpse of why the protesters in NYC are so upset. Doesnt seem this thread is done yet.

Didnt we just have a discussion about "catch phrases" and name calling? Go look up the definition of socialism, marxism, and communisn and have your 3 page report on my desk tomorrow afternoon. Quote: triple8s WOW, I thought this was site was for the promtion of the sport of flying and specifically about MOONEY aircraft. Guess Communist/Liberal propaganda always finds a way to get in no matter where you seek refuge.

If you slow to 1.1 or 1.15 Vso the airplane will sink so well you won't have issues landing in a bowl. Get this laminar fow wing behind the power curve and the drag adds up terrible quick. You can use this to your advantage. Quote: orangemtl I don't think the failure rate is a substantial concern; as posted, getting them out there isn't the problem. Strictly for my own use, I don't put them out until I'm over the numbers: retracting the half flaps has been noted as potentially a better method, and I can't dispute the point. It's not so much a method to ENABLE landing (all planes eventually land...); rather, simply a means by which to make it a bit cleaner, minus the 'hop'. For most people, flap retraction (or, just being a more experienced pilot) is probably a more palatable method. In a circumstance where you need a relatively rapid descent in final, perhaps the speed brakes would be more useful (e.g. the 'airstrip in a bowl' that we occasionally see here in the western US, and no doubt in Europe as well).

I wouldnt get into the habit of changing configuration or moving anything but the throttle until at taxi speed.

Taxiing on grass gives me this uneasy feeling, like running LOP, running a tank dry, or a ten mile final

Hey Dan, if you are going to post something, don't post something false and look like a fool. Churchil never did say that. So if you were trying to prove a point, you missed. Paehaps you saw that on Fox News. They do that often. "Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." Often attributed to Winston Churchill. [5], The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." from: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations Quote: N1026F “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” ? Winston S. Churchill

error

I think in his case flying a Rocket 900 NM, that was at full fuel. A 54 gallon J is in a worse situaton, around 750 NM with no wind (65% power). VFR mins are 30 minutes, and as long as there is an exit strategy, and very close attention is paid to FOB, he completed the mission legally and safely. Perhaps you aren't aware of it but commercial jets routinely land with an hour of fuel and sometimes right at 45 minutes.

I do wish i had the extra ten gallons but for 3K in parts plus labor (hours) we have to pass.

How much do each of those patch jobs cost?

Ours are about 19 years old. No leaks and no log entries showing work done to them. Yes the 54 gallon system is alittle short, and nowhere in the history of aviation has someone made more of a big deal than 33 lbs.

Certainly. Perhaps even more inclined to do it, an IFR approach is a high workload task and a missed is even more. Switching tanks is one less thing to do in that situation. I would just pay more attention to not shut down the engine doing it.

Right, Dave. Switch fuel as you wish. If going prety far, plan your fuel strategy to run one tank empty at top of descent. Switch there. Your other 10-15 gallons is in one place, has been sampled, and is one less thing to mess with in the terminal environment. This procedure only comes into play if you are flying more than about 4.5 hours in a 67 gallon airplane.

George: You are confusing the practice of running a tank empty with fuel mismanagement. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Virtually every NASA ASRS incident report about fuel mismanagement begins with the tank running empty inadvertently and this startles the pilot. They then either switch tanks (continuing on), fail to switch tanks, or goof the procedure. The ones who conscientiously run tanks empty aren't the problem. The same pilots who practice stalls arent the same group of pilots who stall their aircraft inadvertently. It's the inadvertent running tank dry or wing stall that is the problem. You are applying the label of "fuel mismanagement" to the practice of intentionally running a tank dry in cruise. This is no more a mismanagement of fuel than a practice stall is a mismanagement of airspeed. The link the the MAPA pilot proficiency program said that "fuel mismanagement caused 7% of accidents. This accident invariably involved failure to switch tanks, or running borth tanks dry." I am not advocating running both tanks dry, nor an I offering advice to fail to switch tanks. The second photo you posted again, says fuel mismanagement. In every piston twin with aux tanks it is SOP to run the aux tanks dry, and then continue on to destination on the mains. Piper PA-31-350. Twin Cessna 402, 421, etc. Some essna 310's dont even have aux fuel tank guages! I am not advocating it if you are not nearing the range of the aicraft. I am not advocating running a tank dry to the point of engine stoppage. It can happen, yes, but the point of the technique is to get all the available fuel, and you can do that by watching the fuel pressure guage. Some aircraft give you a whole minute of warning. If my position and experience level isnt enough, well listen to John Deakin. Yes they ex-747 captain for JAL with 35,000 hours and (before his stroke) held FAA pilot examiner status on 43 different types of aircraft. Issued type ratings. He also advocates such crazy things such as running oversquare, LOP, and things like that. He also takes my side on running a tank dry. http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182044-1.html of note from Deakin: Is there a problem restoring the fuel flow? In a word, NO. The FAA certification rules require testing in this area. For example: FAR 23.955(e) Multiple fuel tanks. For reciprocating engines that are supplied with fuel from more than one tank, if engine power loss becomes apparent due to fuel depletion from the tank selected, it must be possible after switching to any full tank, in level flight, to obtain 75 percent maximum continuous power on that engine in not more than - (1) 10 seconds for naturally aspirated single engine airplanes; (2) 20 seconds for turbocharged single engine airplanes, provided that 75 percent maximum continuous naturally aspirated power is regained within 10 seconds; or (3) 20 seconds for multiengine airplanes. FAR 25.951(a) Each fuel system must be constructed and arranged to ensure a flow of fuel at a rate and pressure established for proper engine and auxiliary power unit functioning under each likely operating condition, including any maneuver for which certification is requested and during which the engine or auxiliary power unit is permitted to be in operation. ( Each fuel system must be arranged so that any air which is introduced into the system will not result in - (1) Power interruption for more than 20 seconds for reciprocating engines; or (2) Flameout for turbine engines. Have you actually ever ran a tank dry, and refilled it to verify the actual fuel capacity of the aircraft? Sure, you may never run below 15 gallons but are you sure there is really 15 galllons in there? All these years you might have been landing with 15 gallons but it might have only been 10. Here is the AOPA, "dogfight" column. Hirschmann, (who is against the practice) entire argument is "what if the engine doesnt come back to life". Thats a weak argument. http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/march/feature_dogfight_tank_dry.html?WT.mc_id=ebrief So, fine, you don't feel comfortable doing it, and I respect that. But your opinion is based on feelings and unfounded fear. Making operational decisions based solely on bad data, hangar talk, and feelings is "foolish". If you would find some sort of accident or NASA report showing where a pilot intentionally ran a tank dry, and then selected to a tank containing fuel and it would not restart when following the POH, I may change my mind. I would like some data points, because so far the only ones I have seen says its safe. Here is the link for the NASA ASRS search. http://www.37000feet.com/ here is some discussion on VAF http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=40875 I supose I go on the longest because I never give up. I think the facts and about 80 years of operational practice are behind me as well. Quote: GeorgePerry

Alright, I 'm heading over to AXH to see if this is possible with a 201. I think Mike has either an tail hook or a drag chute.

thats to keep all the sand, tank sealant, grass, sediment, debris, and sludge out of your fuel screen Quote: Shadrach Randy, I agree with you in theory, but I need to say that it is not possible to burn all of the unusable fuel out of a Mooney. The pick up is elevated ~1.5" to 2" off of the tank bottom. No way, no how... you're not going to get it..

Mine says Joel Smith.

here s rthe federal budget spending here http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2010USbt_10bs1n_4047#usgs302

Do you think that landing with almost two hours fuel is an unreasonable thing?

Mike that article is interesting but I cannot verify her source. For example, the government data lumps federal employee pensions, social security, and welfare payments all in the same category. I dont know how they broke those numbers out if at all. It sounds awful high.

I suppose either will kick the hell out of a B36TC Bonanza speed or fuel wise?

What paint / primer / clear are they using? warranty?

Always climb at 25 square, it's what I learned from my instructor in a Cutlass RG back in 1996. It saves your engine, everyone knows you cant redline your engine long and expect it to last....