Shadrach

Almost but they never built more than one. 190kts plus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoPresti_Fury

Must be in the air. I’m down to about 5 mins a day.

As it turns out it was a Lattitude and appearently it wasn’t plenty of runway for this particular crew in this particular airplane on this particular day. I’m assuming your numbers are sea level, standard day and not 1600’msl, Tennessee in August.

Just order the reseal kit from LASAR and let your IA R&R.

A leaking flap system will not affect the brake system but it could drain the reservoir (which would not hinder braking).

Vso in my aircraft is actually 54kts at gross. I am border line religious about speed control but not every one is. Any hydroplaning I’ve experiences has been minimal and has occurred in the first few seconds of landing or the last few seconds prior to take off. This likely stems from the fact that I rarely operate out of poorly maintained (read poorly graded) strips in foul weather. I agree that hydroplaning occurs in little aircraft but much of that risk can be mitigated with airmanship.

Interesting observation. What’s more interesting is that any Mooney model from the oldest to the newest would still be flying at 63kts if configured for landing. If a Mooney pilot doesn’t fly onto the runway at ?xVso then hydroplaning will never be a problem.

How bad is the leak? If it’s just seeping a little bit I would order the kit and defer until it worsens. The pump is easy to reseal but there are a few caveats during the rebuild and reinstallation.

They had 4100’ with the displaced threshold. The DA was probably ~5000 on mid August Tennessee day. Does not seem like a lot of margin for the very reasons you’ve mentioned and more. I'm not surprised at your experience instructing. If pros don’t train for short fields then those pros are not trained for short fields. It’s not like they can grab the keys, find a little airport and go practice. I can do that in my little airplane because practice is inexpensive. Although given the outcome and expense of this over run, practice likely looks comparatively inexpensive in this case as well.

This thread has been interesting. While I do appreciate the subjective post installation impressions (feels more “solid” at XXKTS), I’m really hoping for some actual same airplane before/after data.

You’re right. Media report I read said 680 but a little digging shows it was a 680A. Seems on the tight side either way. More so on takeoff but if they landed 24 the also had a 429’ displaced threshold. Doesn’t seem like a lot of margin for a passenger flight but you’d know better than I.

4500 is not a tremendous amount of runway for a Soveriegn.

Your friend is correct. When cleared to land the aircraft is cleared for the entire landing sequence. A go around can occur at any time in that sequence (I do not believe that commercial jets will initiate a go around after brakes and or TRs have been used). Larger aircraft sometimes touchdown briefly even when a go around has been initiated on short final. All of the above being said, if it’s descovered that a pilot is deliberately not communicating intentions there’s a case to be made for a violation under 91.13 careless or reckless.

Me too...

My dad did that to a full can of Sunkist when I was about 11. We were IMC and had just crossed the FAF. While the approach was otherwise uneventful it ended badly for the Sunkist and also for me and my brother. We were week two into an airborne family cross country vacation. The unstowed Sunkist was minor compared to some of our other behavior.