jetdriven

I dont see how anyone would need speedbraked an a non turbocharged Mooney. A J can descend 1000 FPM and slow from 175 KTS to 100 in about 2 miles or less even with 18" of MP set.

IM with Ross, make one short flight to check for leaks, then a hour over the airport circling at 200 knots before setting off.

watch again. secondary stall. no mooney has that roll rate at 70 kts. no way

Thats one reason not to weigh your airplane, I would guess that most airplanes on this forum would be 40-50 or more pounds overweight from what the paperwork says. Why shoot yourself in the foot? The orioginal weight was an estimate to begin with. If the prospective buyer raises cain about, let him reweigh it. Right now, its legal. Commercial aircraft aere required to be reweighed every 36 months. They also use estimated weights for passengers (includes carryons), and checked bags. I had a fed ramp check me on the Beech 1900 once. We were flying out of Denver in the winter with lots of bags, coats, carryons, the works. He asked me if the aircraft may be over gross and I replied "I'm certain it is.". he asked what I was going to do about it, I replied "I'm flying this airplane to Wichita." I reminded him that on paper it was legal and it was the FAA who approved the carry on baggage program and estimated weights. Its legal. Its legal. We departed on time. Quote: Skyatty I just came through annual and decided to have my J reweighed. The IA said, that like most people, most airplanes gain weight as they age. We reweighed the aircraft largely because he found that five 337s had not been completed and he was concerned that W&B changes had not been updated correctly. The aircraft was painted in the late 90s and has a relatively recent interior and much of the panel has been replaced. The bottom line is that the aircraft was that I lost 110 lbs. of useful load based on the new weight - down from about 970 to 860. Seemed like a huge amount to me and I may not have purchased the aircraft had I know the true empty weight.

oh so she is the 60-turn spin girl

Don, I added my name to the signature. I am also going to print out a screenshot of the stuff left of these words with my avatar, screen name, and location and put that on my nametag. Hope others do the same so I dont look like a dork. Quote: DonMuncy It's really too bad that not many people post under their real name. At Kerrville, by looking at name tags, I won't associate your name with the people I see posting on this forum. Don

Our plane was not reweighed after the new paint or the new leather interior installed by the previous owner, so it must have not added anything I think that leather and fabric are similar in weight per SQ YD, IE 6-8 OZ leather will weight the same at 6-8 OZ fabric. I think where the real weight gets added is soundproofing and the trend of covering the interior plastic with fabric or leather. That adds weight and in a few years when it wears or the glue loosens up its not such a great idea anymore. I also think getting into a brawl over 30 LBS useful load is ridiculous seeing as how later M20Js got a 160 LB gross weight increase with nothing more than a rudder balance check, a revised airspeed indicator, and paperwork. A Bravo can weight 3368 LB. Thats 628 LB more than a J with the same wing, tail, etc. I'm not advocating flying over gross but I can say the wings won't fall off, either.

The only snag I can think of it that Eldon is going with the G500, which has to have a standby attitude, and airspeed. The S-TEC 30, being a rate based autopilot, is going to need the turn coordinator, and thus, another hole in the panel, another instrument, etc.

There is a photo of the airplane when it was upside down, the pilot is leaned over pretty far forward, head a little sideways, and no aileron input. The photo of it vertical just before crashing shows no visible helmet and the tailwheel out (from the G force perhaps?). Likely the extreme and sudden onset of G rendered him uncapacitated immediately. It was all physics from there.

I thik a hydrostat is due every ten years on the bottles unles they are composite. Check that.

S-Tec 30 is a rumored to be good. ou can get it 1-axis or 2. I have the 30ALT which is the altitude hold only and it works great.

Our Beech friends have figured out how to make one. Doctors sure are smart. http://csobeech.com/cylinder-camera.html

Jim, if that is the case I would spriung for the extra capacity. One, you get the extra capacity. two, the C.G. moving slightly aft is bound to help your cruise speed enough to offset the two pounds. Does it fit?

I dunno, John, it looks like an incipient spin to me. That looks like too much roll rate for ailerons ony. You can see he is holding about 1/2 to 1/3rd left aileron as they go vertical. Still, this is not a place you want to be in a Mooney.

If you watch that video, the Mooney spin was actually from a secondary stall. Id love to see his airspeed indicator when he recovered, he was going straight down and with full power for a while. He should also use his shoulder harness for takeoff and landing, unless he was saving it for when he needs it.

restaurants, hill country, Fredricksburg is cool. I am not big on waiting for a van to pick me up and take me to the hotel at 9 and 5.

I seocnd John in this, a Mooney with its laminar flow wing does not stall like a 172 or even a Bonanza. You must unload the wing to reattach airflow, and carefully load it up again. A secondary stall is violent. If you stall a Mooney anywhere near the ground its very likely to kill you. It just goes down like a stone. You must add power and lower the nose if getting near a stall situation. Point being fly this thing like a jet, hard on the numbers and have a healthy respect for the stall. As Ross says, you can land it short and at 1.1 Vso, but you must be very precise with airspeed control and G-loading. There is no "stretching the glide" if behind the power curve. The drag curve there is very steep. It ends suddenly. The highest time Mooney pilot in the world, Joel Smith, was killed in a 201. They stalled turning to final. He had 25,000 hours in Mooneys, and if you look in your airframe logbook page 1, likely his signature is there. Here is some good reading starting on page 30. Credit to Coy Jacobs and MOA for the article, found in Sept 2004 Mooney Pilot. http://www.moapilot.com/pdf/Sept04/Sept04ALL.pdf

Anybody interested in splitting a rental car 2 or 3 ways? I'd like to get around a little but justifying a car to go to the airport and mess about a bit is hard.

Make sure your instructor has a copy of your sylllabus. I taught plenty of students, and it didnt matter to me which curriculum they used, (they all are pretty good), but if I had a copy of it I could prepare for the next lesson also, and mark progress.

That tailpipe looks like a J tailpipe, and the hanger looks like it was cut from an old tire and is a bit long. If you shorten that rear hanger the pipe will be more parallel with the fuselage. Here are pictures of my J exhaust. I am REALLY liking the idea of a ceramic coated tailpipe. It will look like chrome and never get rusty. Thing is how can we get it approved?

A stopped prop will have vastly less drag that a windmilling prop, but at the speeds a Mooney glides at, it would be near impossible to stop the prop. A windmilling prop in coarse pitch will extend the glide somewhat. In fact, there is a way to cheat the commercial maneuver for the 180 degree power off landing in a Bonanza. If you get a little low or slow, pull the prop back, its the same as adding power. George got it right, when its time for a go-around, real carefully bring the prop forward, then carefully add power. Firewalling the prop lever on a Mooney can result in a nasty overspeed. On a Lycoming 360, SB369J says an overspeed of more than 2970 RPM warrants a teardown and inspection.

I dont think the prop RPM will chage at all, the 201 prop is on the low pitch stop below around 90 KIAS and pulling the prop lever back I dont think will change that. In a Bonanza, its different, it makes a huge difference in glide ratio. You can try it slowly, and see how it goes. It won't hurt an A36 at 1400 RPM, it won't hurt yours.

In the 201, a go around with full flaps, VFR, was a non-event. I do not trim below 80 knots, reason being if a go around is warranted and the trim is full nose up from "trimming in" the flare, yeah its going to be a handful. If you trim to 80, and use your arm to land the airplane, a go around doesnt require much forward force, if any. This is for a 201, a Bravo may be different. Half flaps for a crosswind landing on a long runway as Ross says. Every jet and turboprop airplane I have ever flown is full configured at the FAF or before. This means full flaps as well. landing is a landing, and a missed is max power, pitch up, flaps to (20, half, takeoff depending on airplane) All that said, I use 90 knots and half flaps for an approach in a 201 and after breaking out, go full flaps and land. Less pitch forces and conficuration changes while IMC the better. An ILS is more like cruise flight than a VFR landing pattern. A missed is as well.

Mike: In addition to the long post I made above, American stuffed a 757 into the side of a mountain in Columbia back in 1995 because they did a GPWS escape maneuver and forgot to stow the spoilers. The hit near the top of a mountain. Not that you are going to Columbia soon, but forgetting to stow the spoilers on a real life go around or missed approach is going to make a huge dent in your climb rate. Quote: ScubaMan I too am trying to get the landings figured out in my Ovation 3. I have just about 30 hours in the Mooney and probably 80 landings by now. I have learned that proper approach speed and flare height seem to be the ticket to a smooth landing. I have only used full flaps and think I'm ready to try some new techniques. Has anyone tried landing with the Speed Brakes? I just read an article in a year old Plane and Pilot where the author of the article claims landing speed is less critcal when using speed brakes. If we use them to land do we still use full flaps? What happens on the go around? Any suggestions would be appreciated.... Thanks Mike Johnson

I have only used speed brakes on a Mooney once, in a J, and I didnt really notice much drag below 90 KTS. Thart said, they do blank out a percentage of the wing area and are going to raise the stall speed a couple knots. So if you come in a couple knots faster to compensate for that, well , you negated the benefit on landing with them deployed. If you are that comfortable losing a couple knots of stall margin, then come in without spoilers a couple knots slower. I do agree with Jose, raise the flaps in the flare. Just get it right and know what you are doing. This is not SOP, but however, a technique to deal with extremely short landings. We used to do this in the Beech 1900D and we could stop a 12,000 lb airplane in 800 feet. As in, turn off the runway before the aiming point markings. John, a 747 does not land with the spoilers out. In fact, you are not alowed to have the spoilers out with any flap extension at all. A short field landing in that airplane is flaps 30, Vref +5/-0, landing in the touchdown zone with little float, and max autobrakes and reverse until stop. The airplane raises half of the slats on touchdown to add weight to the wheels. Fedex does not have Airbus A320s and the general rule on stabilized approaches is based on altitude, which is 500' VFR and 1000' IFR. These are 1.6 and 3.3 miles from the aiming point markings respectively. Some airlines are 1000' VFR and FAF inbound IFR. You can also be stabilized on a circling approach from which you depart the circle at 400 AGL and roll out on final at 1/2 mile. Your friend is right in the fact that unstabilized approaches preceed most landing accidents. It is a great predictor. Quote: johnggreen Docket, Please don't take this personally, but I think you have mis-spoken. Setting an aircraft up for a stabilized approach and using the equipment provided to create that stability is not a crutch. I don't think you meant it the way it came out, but let me elaborate. It would be an over simplification to ask how you would like to land a 747 clean, without using the "crutches" of spoilers and flaps, but it would be an accurate over simplification. A Mooney is clean, very clean, with I understand less than four square feet of frontal surface for drag. There are many considerations depending on the circumstances affecting a particular landing as to how you should set the airplane up, but in short, the pilot should do whatever he can to have a stabilized approach. That becomes even more critical during an instrument approach when you consider the workload you would face in a go-around or missed approach. That being said, on my Bravo, I can not tell whether the speed brakes are deployed at all below about 90 knots. If they did provide additional drag at approach speeds, I would probably use them. I remember a friend of mine was beefing up for his semi-annual check ride in the Airbus 320 one time and I asked what caused most busted check rides. His reply; failure to establish a stabilized approach. I believe he said that Fed Ex wanted the approach "stabilized" at least 3 miles out, but it may have been 5. Anyway, I would encourage any pilot to use all the tools at his disposal to create a low work load and a stabilized aircraft in all flight regimines but especially on approach. As an instructor, I insist on it.