orangemtl

Hey, can someone out there help me? See, I was pushing my plane into the hangar, and accidentally reached up and pushed on the prop. Bent it right over the cowling like a coffee stirrer. So, here's the question: do I just reach up and bend it back into shape, or should I leave it to a qualified A&P mechanic? I think it has something to do with the elastic modulus of the alloy, divided by the angle of deflection, or something. But I'm no engineer, so your guess is as good as mine.

Only viable counterargument: Acclaim. Else: no contest. More fast, but more gas.

Well, I've learned three things in this string: 1. Pushing on the blade root: Probably fine. Better than pushing on the spinner, which I will follow. 2. People get needlessly wound up and sometimes very snippy in semi-anonymous blog strings, about very narrow issues. 3. I know less physics than many people: but, probably just enough to get by. Thanks.

Regarding A/C: I live and fly in western AZ. Much drier than TX, of course: but hotter than Venus in the summer. As we know, it's cooler 'up there'. I do whatever preflight procedures I can in the shadow of the FBO or hangars, and then get off the ground ASAP. I rejected the cost and weight penalty of A/C---although when I bought my plane, I lived in N Illinois, and didn't foresee life in AZ. I am still happy w/o it. Regarding 'the best' Mooney for your mission: Ignoring cost, the Acclaim will spoil you. Taking cost into account however, the Acclaim will bankrupt you! Exaggerating of course, but: I'll be the last to suggest that it is the ideal compromise between speed and fuel efficiency. Awfully darned fast, though: at 24 inches and <18gph, I'm usually over 180knots. If I leaned it further, I could likely glean another gph less. I'd like to see one of the converted PFMs sometime: the Porsche Mooney was my dream aircraft when they came out, although the dream apparently never matched the reality and ultimately led to their demise.

This really seems like an "It Depends" sort of issue. Yanking on the blades at the distal tips, or pushing on same to initiate a move seems like a uniquely stupid idea. But, if you are using a towbar as the primary mover, I'm hard pressed to imagine that my bristling, muscle bound 163 pounds (at 51) is going to crush the nosecone into the engine by using it as a secondary guide. Pulling on the blade roots? Perhaps not ideal, but I suspect not particularly detrimental, so long as it is secondary to hauling the plane via towbar. If the engine/prop was that delicate, maybe we should pack our planes in piles of fluffy pillows in the hangar, so sparrows don't sit on the roof and crush them.

I have the same problem, only it's typically on the ground that I notice it. Comes and goes.

Not quite the same, but: I sent the best photo of my plane to CanvasOnDemand.com, and had a framed photo canvas made for my office. Nothing like a 24x36 image to produce a focal point. Fast work, and reasonably priced.

Quote: 201er But isn't the survivability with the parachute still only like 50/50? Is there any control of the parachute or does it plop you wherever it takes you be it power lines, lake, or edge of a cliff?

Quote: eldeano It's all about sex appeal. The car like interior and flat panel screens. If you put a Cirrus SR20 next to a Mooney Acclaim and ask the general public which one they would rather have, they would pick the SR20 every time. Then throw in the parachute. We know the parachute can only be used in situations that you probably could make an emergency landing from, but the other half of the buying decision likes to know it's there.

I agree that it's not an absolute black/white question: but i suspect one coud close towers below a certain daily/monthly volume of landings and have no impact on safety wahtsoever. Everyone says "We need to cut the budget and eliminate waste......except for MY little niche, because that's different." No; it's not. Everyne's ox will get gored a bit, if the Federal government ever learns the term 'austerity'. Money is finite. So is safety, security, health, etc. It's very easy for appointed or elected officials to wave the 'safety' flag: I see it all the time in hospitals, when they publish reams and reams of safety guidelines that are well meant at their core, but ultimately provide in some cases marginal benefit at enormous cost. It's right up there with "But we have to do it for the children!" Everyone has heard about the NTSB wanting to eliminate cellphone use---even hands-free--in cars for safety. Does that mean that I can no longer have a conversation with my wife in the car while driving? Same thing, after all---and yet, never let common sense intrude upon a Federal initiative. This is a simple risk/benefit analysis. Identify the level of activity above which, say 80% of GA traffic is centered. Keep those towers. Eliminate the rest. One can parse the breakpoint endlessly, but the point still stands. It seems that AOPA has chosen this battle rather poorly, but: I'm unaware of the details. Perhaps they can propose something along these lines and keep half a loaf, rather than losing both the loaf and the battle.

I'll be interested as well to hear from pilots who have installed the upgrade. Does it alter the TBO? I know the engine is already rated to 310 in other applications. As in all things, it comes down to $: if it was free, we'd all do it; if it's $20,000, then: that would buy quite a bit of fuel, and I can't really see the difference between 200kts and 204 kts looking out the window. I recall speaking to an instructor/operator in Texas about this a few years ago, and his opinion was "meh". Not, however exactly a thorough, articulate analysis!

This is extremely straightforward: even for a political position. DUI. Certifiably drunk. High ranking position in US transportation, which includes rule making for impaired operators. Gone. Now, if only it was Ted Kennedy, upside down in a creek with a dead passenger, he'd be at his FAA desk the next morning. DUI? What DUI? Never happened. Move along, folks; nothing to see.

Wow. Quite a bit of vitriol in this string. Sounds like the original poster/ranter would be more comfortable in Business Class on United. Plenty o' space for an ample frame, no issues with delicate gear, infinitesimal accident rates: in short, everything that would make Grandma a happy, safe, commercial passenger. Enjoy that. Meanwhile, we'll all stick with our uncomfortable, 'dime-ass', rinky-dink Mooneys.

Very, very nice. Excellent paint scheme, and restrained but sophisticated colors. Enjoy!

Excellent info: I'll be sure to give him a call, once I put some more time on the logs and 730ML. Thank you!

Quote: jetdriven It sounds like popping the speed brakes in the flare is a crutch, just like raising the flaps in the flare. I'm with Scott, if you have so much extra energy you need to do such things to land, perhaps you are too fast. I tried my first real effors short field landing in the J the other day. 3 people, 3/4 tanks, etc. 72 MPH over the fence, land on the first brick, flaps up after touchdown, and heavy braking. I stopped in 900-950 feet. Anyways, 1.2 Vso for normal landing, 1.1 Vso for short field. end rant.

Quote: KSMooniac Michael, I believe 90 KIAS on final is way too fast, and you're likely developing a bad habit. That kind of speed can lead to porpoising and prop strikes very easily.

Excellent question. I never put them out until I am physically PAST the numbers, and within spitting distance of the ground. I would never have them deployed in the pattern; they would not provide me personally with any utility. Can/will it land w/o them? Of course. In my narrow and relatively inexperienced opinion however, it largely eliminates any tendency to porpoise. Speed brakes are less effective at low speeds by all accounts; perhaps they're doing nothing at all, and simply lend a false sense of stability once on the ground. It follows, however IMO the same logic as removing a notch of flaps upon touchdown: get rid of lift. I've bounced a few times before doing this; I don't believe I've ever done so thereafter, and floating is a thing of the past. May simply be increasing experience with the aircraft rather than any contribution from speedbrakes. Works for me, however.

Acclaim's a bit different from the Ovation, but: downwind I'm at 16-17", and drop from 110 to 95 when i put in a notch of flaps; maintain 95KIAS until I'm on final, and continue to trim the nose up until at thenumbers, I'm at 90KIAS. I drop to 13-15 on base and final, and adjust as needed on final. Personally, I use electric trim to near maximum on final, while manually holding the nose down as needed until I'm at the numbers; once I'm there, I've taken to deploying the speed brakes, and upon touchdown, returning flaps to baseline. I've the luxury of a long home runway, and so I'm not too worried about having to reverse all of the above for a go around. Might be a little too irreversible for someone on a shorter runway with the speedbrakes and no flaps, 'n all. Your mileage may vary. I don't worry too much about 'spoiling' myself for future airplanes with this routine. There will be no future airplanes, after this one. Just ask my wife.

Acclaim's a bit different from the Ovation, but: downwind I'm at 16-17", and drop from 110 to 95 when i put in a notch of flaps; maintain 95KIAS until I'm on final, and continue to trim the nose up until at thenumbers, I'm at 90KIAS. I drop to 13-15 on base and final, and adjust as needed on final. Personally, I use electric trim to near maximum on final, while manually holding the nose down as needed until I'm at the numbers; once I'm there, I've taken to deploying the speed brakes, and upon touchdown, returning flaps to baseline. I've the luxury of a long home runway, and so I'm not too worried about having to reverse all of the above for a go around. Might be a little too irreversible for someone on a shorter runway with the speedbrakes and no flaps, 'n all. Your mileage may vary. I don't worry too much about 'spoiling' myself for future airplanes with this routine. There will be no future airplanes, after this one. Just ask my wife.

FYI: I've no idea what just happened to my last post. I wrote about two Mooney incidents locally in the last 10 days, and "Re: EDM700 in M20J..." gets posted. I'll repost later: HATE retyping things!

It gets worse: two MORE, that I was just made aware of. Just spent some time flying locally after two weeks out of the air; spoke to acquaintances at the FBO. A 1987 M20J had a gear-up within the last 10 days at KHII. Very senior pilot; family decided that he was done flying, and the plane was purchased by Havasu Air. Engine torn down; usual process underway to render the plane safe and functional. For anyone interested, I believe Havasu Air will end up putting it on the market, once finished (NOTE: I have no personal interest in this). In Bullhead City AZ, a 2007 Acclaim had a VERY hard landing; owner and instructor onboard, and thankfully unhurt. Nosegear collapsed, and one or both gear damaged as well. It will be trucked overland to Havasu for repair (should make for an interesting Youtube video). Sounds like it was forced onto the runway, but: I was not there, and it is purely surmising on my part. The three good things that come out of all this: 1. Nobody was injured. 2. Somebody is going to get themselves an M20J at an attractive price. 3. Neither of the above incidents were me!