Shadrach

I too see numbers much over book some times. This is just the first time that my initial ROC has been captured by flightaware.

94mph or 82kts is Vx in my F. Not a problem to retract at that speed but noticeably different from retracting at say positive rate. I think the difficulty in retracting the gear at higher speeds is overstated though it does get heavy as you approach VLO

Freaking out over that makes one wonder how he would handle an actual emergency. It makes perfect sense to raise gear first and it’s not uncommon.

So what would be “grin making” numbers? This is my box stock 67F, 1200smoh with me (220lbs) baggage (50lbs) and 300lbs of fuel climbing out at Albany International last Friday. This was close to standard day, about 51°F and 29.5 in. The drop in climb through 5000 was me beginning to reduce pitch to cruise climb.

That was my take from your first explanation. Power on paper and power at the crank are not the same.

Thank you for the explanation. I understand the relationship between RPM and volumetric efficiency. I also understand the relationship between torque and horsepower. While the torque per cumbustion event may decrease as rpm increases, the cumulative effect is still typically an increase in power due to the increased number of combustion events. This was why I wondered how a higher compression (10:1) angle valve, spinning 500rpm faster, would make less power than a the the lower compression (8.7:1) engine while turning 500rpm slower.

Yes, I’m familiar with their work. The 14.7 multiplier you mention does not match any number that I’ve seen them use. As was pointed out earlier, these multipliers are approximations, but given we’re using math we might as well apply the right numbers. For what it’s worth, the 8.7 CR would use a multiplier of 15.1 not 14.7. The multipliers are driven by compression ratio. Thermal efficiency increases with compression ratio.

I don't really like to sit in the plane for more than about 4 hrs. I do not have a hard and fast rule regarding flight time. I fly "on condition". If things are not going well, I pick the safest, easiest, and fastest way to terminate the flight. That being said, I have had 7-10hr days with fuel stop in between that left me feeling really good about my progress as opposed to exhausted. My family appreciates that traveling by Mooney is faster than commercial up to about 1000nm so they're also willing to put in some time.

I understand what derating is and I have a basic understanding of physics/combustion science. Normally when an engine is derated steps are taken to decrease power like say limiting RPM (eg the M20S’s IO550 is limited to 2400rpm which derates it to 244hp). Increasing the C/R and spinning an engine faster seems like an odd way to make less power. I’m sure there is more to the story.

What is the WB? Are you referring to the Writers' War Board?

I’ve never understood why the Helo engines with 10:1 CR make less power at higher RPM than 8.7:1CR fixed wing engines at 2700rpm. Timing is retarded a bit to 20° But that should not make a huge difference.

Translation: I know nothing about this accident beyond what’s in the media. I have know idea what caused the failure and if the failure could have been mitigated by the pilot’s control inputs. I will not qualify any of my statements with anything that approaches an informed response but I want to make sure that I list as many pathways to liability as possible rather than wait for the investigation to conclude.

Are you running low compression pistons?

200hp Lyc is actually 8.7:1 so a calculated multiplayer of 15.13. Trivial I know but good for a few little less fuel on the same power.

I was going to say the same but thought I would be flamed.