johnggreen

That still doesn't get away from a pitot system failure as you would lose your airspeed indicator at a minimum. I actually have a vacuum AI which I had to keep to drive my A/P. Also, the A* panel is fairly small and room becomes an issue. The Aspen will only take two 3" holes. Besides, how cool is glass on both sides? Jgreen

Thanks for the leads. I will definitely call Henry Weber. As anyone who has read the Aspen Pilot's manual knows, if something happens to the P/S system, the Aspen goes off line. Of course so would any back up airspeed or altimeter. No question that the P/S system has, by elimination, become the weak link. The A* is a high workload aircraft anytime, but IFR and no P/S system would be no time to be flying by the seat of your pants. Jgreen

Gentlemen, I need information and am hoping that some of my old Mooney friends might have experience or knowledge that can help. As many of you know, I now fly a 601P Aerostar, sort of a twin engined Mooney. I recently installed an Aspen 2000 glass panel and GTN-650's. It is quite a change after flying steam gauges for 50 years, but I'm getting there and besides that's not the topic in question. The topic is that I want to install a 2nd Pitot/Static system. Without one, the P/S system is the weak link in my redundancy. I want to put a single Aspen or other back up AHRS device on the co-pilot's panel and want it to be on a completely separate P/S system. From the best information I can get, the A* is not certified with a back up pitot. Has anyone ever had this situation on any other airplane? What are my options? Jgreen

Turbochargers wear. I had to bump my MP up twice or three times in the 800 hours I flew it. Even then, I never let it get over 36.5". Didn't need it and felt like I was helping the engine. Jgreen

My 8 years operation of the Bravo gave me comparable numbers to the above posters. I generally flew at 2200/30" in the mid teens, burned 14-15 gallons, 1650 TIT or below. The only thing that I can't "compare" to is the CHT numbers. Most of you fellows really need to look at your baffling because your numbers are way over what I ever saw. Even in climb, I would rarely see at cylinder over 350. At cruise, using the numbers I just gave, 300 degrees was the average. Yes, I had an engine monitor. The ship's gauge was always 50+ degrees higher than the engine monitor and we could never figure out why. As to useful load, my Bravo was 875 with full TKS. It was hard not to overload by a "few" pounds at times, but rarely more than 75. I never worried about the airframe, but the gear was another matter. If the Mooney has a weak spot, the gear was it which, IMO, is a direct cause of so much of an issue with leaking tanks. Bravo: one hell of a capable airplane. Jgreen

I picked the A* up from the avionics shop Friday, Cumberland in Nashville, and have been flying it everyday to try to get used to the Aspen 2000 and GTN-650's. I also had installed an EDM 760 engine monitor so with the Aspen and monitor, I feel more secure in the numbers I quote. Coming home from Nashville, I was at 12.5, burning 26 gph and truing 191 knots. That concurs with the numbers I was getting from the old AS and fuel flow. At 17,000 that will give me a little over 200 knots at the same fuel consumption. That is right on book at 55% power. I do have intercoolers which seem to add a little speed and LOTS of cooling. My cht's are all about 325 even in this heat. What would she do at 17k and 75%? The book says 240 and now, I have no reason to doubt it. Those figures are at best economy so I suppose best power would inch it up some. As to flying the A*, I will give some of my impressions and observations; some now, some later. The "numbers" which I posted earlier like VMC, stall speed, blue line, etc. are very comparable with both the pressurized Baron and Duke. Performance, likewise, seems to be similar with an edge to the A* but neither of the Beech products are anywhere near the fuel economy of the A*. The 601P has turbo normalized engines with a max MP of 30". Due to a higher compression, when they first came out, detonation was sometimes an issue. Piper solved it with the 602P which is a true turbo engine but with lower compression. Machen came out with intercoolers for the 601P that solved the detonation issue and greatly lowered operating temps; that is what I have. The A* is, in my opinion, a very straight forward airplane both in flying and maintenance. There are a few "quirks" and I will address those. But first, let's talk about something it has in common with the Mooney design; both have laminar flow wings. Interestingly, where the Mooney's laminar flow is fairly thick and has a substantial amount of dihedral, the A* wind is much thinner, and has only one degree of dihedral. You would think that this design would make the airplane a little unstable in roll, but the opposite it true. Unless you have a fuel imbalance in the wing tanks, more on this later, the airplane is rock solid in roll, noticeably so compared to my Bravo. Also in contrast, where the Bravo was "heavy" on the elevator, and therefore very stable in pitch, the A* though stable has very, very light elevator response. It is, to me, the challenge of hand flying it compared to the Bravo. Another peculiarity is that the A* was certified without a stall warning device. Not a problem I think as it gives ample warning from buffet alone. That being said, an angle of attack instrument is on my wish list; not quite as simple with the pressurized fuselage though. As far as the flying characteristics, in my opinion, there is only one "gotcha". The flaps on the airplane are the fowler variety where they come back and down and really, really provide lots of drag when you go past 30 degrees, 45 degrees being max flap. You DO NOT use full flaps except on landing on short final. Extending full flaps is like throwing your mother in law and her car out the door tethered to the tail; the airplane slows down NOW. The good thing is that once you have full flaps, you come up on power and point the airplane at the end of the runway. It is like pointing a laser and as long as you don't get behind the power curve, it is like riding a cable to flare. The book and, I think, most instructors say 100 on final with full flaps; 95 seems to be better at light weights. For flare, you simply level the airplane out and pull the power. What looks to be level is actually a perfect flare and unlike the Mooney, unless you didn't pull the power, there is no float. Now, the "gotcha". Look at these figures, all arrived at by me as I was exploring the envelope of the airplane. With gear down and 20 degrees of flap, it requires 2400 rpm and 22" of manifold pressure to maintain altitude and blue line, 109 knots. With gear down and 30 degrees, 2400 and 24" to maintain altitude and blue line. With gear down and full flaps, 2500 rpm's and 29" MP which is full throttle, you can maintain altitude but only 105 knots. What that means, in my evaluation, is that a go around on final with gear down and full flaps should be under emergency procedures. I actually had to do this early on when a crop duster cut in front of me on final. I eased the power up and raised the nose to level and the speed fell from 105 to 85 in a few short seconds. Boy, did that get my attention!! I would never willingly fly or land the airplane on a low IFR approach with more than 20 degrees of flaps. I can't imagine having to deal with that scenario in instrument conditions. The good thing is that the stall speed at typical landing weights is only 8 knots faster, about 74, than with full flaps. For a "typical" VFR landing, this is my method. First I pull the power back to about 18" and try to be at pattern altitude with less than 145 knots. That is not really hard to do as you can lower 20 degrees of flaps at 174. Gear speed is 156, but to save wear, I always try to be at less than 145. So, 20 degrees of flaps and gear down on downwind. If you are light, 15"-18" seems to work well as you work around to final. By the time I line up on final, I want to be at blue line, but no less, which I will hold until short final when all the flaps come down. 100 knots until maybe 100' AGL and then 95 unless it's gusty or I'm heavy, even then 100 seems too fast. Like I said, pull power, level off, and she is on the ground. I would guess touchdown speed to be about 80 knots, but i intend to confirm this. The airplane actually sits nose down so you need to try to hold it level on initial roll out. When the airplane slows to about 65, you can pull full up elevator without lifting the nose wheel and it works almost like a speed brake. The nose wheel casters "some" with no connection to the rudders. I have found directional control to be no issue either in the takeoff or landing mode. What the big rudder won't do, the seven puck Clevelands will, that too is a Machen add on over the standard brakes. For tight maneuvering, you have an electric toggle switch on the console, but I only use it when I need to literally spin the airplane almost in its own length. That should sate those with interest for awhile. I need to eat supper. And yes, Carusoam, I'm still a Mooniac. The Bravo was a true pleasure and one that I REALLY COULD AFFORD. Lots to be said for that. Jgreen

Completion of the avionics work was delayed waiting for a 3rd party to finish the panel. I'm picking it up tomorrow but will need to fly with a technician for calibrating of the Aspen. The air speed readouts from the Aspen should be much more accurate and I'll be able to lean more efficiently with the addition of an engine monitor. I know some of you are really interested in the flying techniques and characteristic of the A* and I will comply. Perhaps not immediately, but I will as time allows. I will admit that I'm entering the ownership of the A* with a little trepidation simply because my Bravo was so reliable and relatively inexpensive to fly. It seems that the 601P will cost about 70% more to fly and maintain. All in all, not that bad considering the benefits that will accrue. It's just really been nice to own an airplane, the Bravo, where the costs were almost insignificant. I have budgeted $17,000 year for annuals and maintenance with the A*. That does not include fuel. With the performance that the A* delivers, I will be able to fly it at about 60% power, get a full 200 knots at 15,000' and burn about 24 gph. Though I have made only one long cross country to date, I can assure you that A/C and pressurization are more than just amenities; they put the comfort of flying into a new realm. I'm scheduled for another X-C next week and I am truly looking forward to it. I will have to admit, that in my first month of ownership, when I was "teaching" myself how to fly, I ran up a fuel bill that made my wife, who oversees all the book keeping for the company, ask if $3600 was going to be the norm. Anyway, I will soon be posting the details of flying the A* and hope you all enjoy. Jgreen

Thankfully, ownership and operating costs are not the sole consideration for aircraft ownership; were they, we would all be flying 1946 Aeronca Champs. J's and Bravos are aircraft of completely different capabilities and therefore not of equivalent operating costs. Systems cost money but increase capability. Bravos are replete with systems. That being said, I flew my Bravo for 8 years without a single instance of scrubbing a flight for mechanical reasons. It gave me 185 knots on 15 gallons in the mid to high teens where I flew above lots of weather. With TKS, icing was no issue. Will the Bravo cost more to fly than a J, of course, but it's capabilities put in in a completely different realm than any non-turboed, lesser equipped aircraft. For hard IFR I had dual alternators, dual vacuum, TKS, oxygen, and the ability to fly, EASILY, at 24,000 if the situation required. The operational costs of the Bravo were, thankfully, a non-issue to me. Had they been an issue, I too would have been forced to have flown a less capable aircraft. I regularly fly 800 mile trips, over mountains, in or over solid and low overcast, that usually take me through at least two separate weather systems. In those flight parameters, a J model Mooney, or a naturally aspirated Bonanza for that matter, would be as much use as a Volkswagen bus. It's simple; initial and operating costs are a limiting factor for most of us, but that is not a valid reason to disparage the capabilities of an aircraft simply because any particular pilot cannot afford an aircraft of greater capability. When I sold my Bravo, which I truly loved, I increased my mission capability with an Aerostar. If a J model had been my only option, Delta Airlines would have been the better choice. If I could afford a King Air, one would be in my hangar at this moment. That is not a valid argument against the ownership of a King Air for one who can afford it. "More power to the man that can" is my motto. Jgreen

Gentlemen, I haven't posted lately as the A* has been in the avionics shop for a "new" panel. I finally decided on Aspen Evolution 2000, two new GTN-650's, EDM 760 engine monitor and a new PMA 8000 audio panel. Kept the weather radar and Stormscope, of course.. Oh, and did I say a new panel. Supposed to pick it up Friday. I had it scheduled for the paint shop for next week but got bumped by a Falcon 50 that the shop was charging $65,000 to paint, seems cheap to me? My sons are home after finishing grad school and getting ready to go out on the world. One has never gotten his PPL so we've been working in the Skylane to get him ready for his check ride; next Tuesday probably. That will make me the recommending instructor for both my boys; great feeling. Now, if I can just live long enough for the grandson to do the same; not likely though. For those of you who are interested, I am going to write up a short "flying brief" of takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, and landing for the A*. I'll be able to post my first impressions of the Aspen and 650's as well. I suspect that I'll have some learning curve there. FYI. I'm almost embarrassed to say this, but my training in the A* got really side tracked. I go to shoot 8 landings with the broker who handled the transaction and that was about it. I memorized the POH, familiarized myself with the systems and frankly spent the next 15 hours teaching myself how to fly it. The A* has one real "gotcha" that I will reveal at a later date. Finally I got to fly with an approved A* instructor for 1.5 hours and by then, he confessed that as foolish as it was, I had been a pretty good teacher. The insurance company covered me but said they wanted me to have a IPC before September 1. Yes that means my first 15 hours was without coverage. Last week, I went to Recurrent Training Center in Champagne, Illinois and got A* recurrent, IPC, Bi-annual, and high altitude certification. I spent an entire afternoon in a simulator doing engine outs just after wheels up that I think was very valuable. We literally did them until I developed some "muscle memory" from the repetition, always SHOUTING, "left foot dead feather left engine" and vice versa. I recommend RTC for those of you who want to brush up your instrument skills. They have good sims and will fly with you in your airplane as well. Champagne, Ill, is one nice town as well. Not a bad place to spend three days. By the way, the price for the 3 days was only $1700. Understand, I do not recommend this self instruction business and don't intend to do it again. More on the A* later. With pics hopefully. Jgreen

I won't try to do this in one or two or probably even three posts, but I'll try to convey the interesting and different aspects of the Aerostar without being too verbose or too many posts. In a word, the Aerostar is simply about speed. As I have referenced before, I have been a member of the Beechtalk forum for a couple of years now. When I started looking at selling the Bravo, my first, almost exclusive, interest was in a turbo Baron, P-Baron, or Duke. One of my friends, an avid Mooney enthusiast and knowledgeable aviator, kept suggesting the Aerostar. I was less than receptive. I just didn't have any faith in the support structure for the airplane. The more I looked at the Barons and Dukes, the less comfortable I became. Even the owners carped about the maintenance challenges. One Duke owner said that the best way to own a Duke was to own two; one to fly, one for parts. A friend of mine had purchased a P-Baron about the same time I bought the Bravo. The maintenance ate him alive. His chosen shop was 250 miles away and I almost wore the Bravo out taking him to and from there to deliver or pick up the Baron. The horror stories that were posted on BT about Duke ownership were not encouraging either; not even mentioning the 45 gallon per hour fuel burn to get maybe 220 knots at altitude. It was a series of small events that pushed me to look into the Aerostar, but what finally provided the information I needed and the comfort factor I demanded was the Aerostar Owners Association. Without the obvious support structure of that organization, I would probably be flying a B-55 Baron today. The Aerostar will outrun the "comparable" Baron by at least 20 knots. That is with the standard 295 horse engines. The upgraded 700's will best even that by another 15 knots but at one hell of an increase in fuel burn. The normally aspirated 600 will give a real world 215 knot cruise any day burning just over 30 gph. My 601P has TIO-540 Lycomings that are actually turbo normalized. My max manifold pressure on takeoff is 30". The 602P is the same airplane but Piper decided to go to lower compression engines that were true turbocharged with higher manifold pressures. The issue was to alleviate detonation problems with the higher compression, turbo normalized engines of the 601P. Machen solved the problem in a much better way, they STC'd intercoolers for the high compression engines that eliminated detonation and upped the performance to boot. My A*, which has intercoolers, will legitimately deliver 240 knots at altitude burning 35 gph, but the most impressive numbers come at 55% in the mid teens where 200+ knots and 24 gph is everyday performance. The range of the speed numbers is almost unheard of in other aircraft. Top of the green arc is 215 knots with a Vne of 241. Coming down from altitude is usually just lowering the nose and hauling ass since you will almost never get to the yellow arc. If you do need to slow down, 10% flaps are allowed anywhere in the green and 20% @ 175 indicated. Full flaps are allowed at 148 but full flaps are something you don't use until very short final because it's like throwing out a boat anchor. Another "interesting" speed is Va, maneuvering, 167 knots !! At the modest power settings I use, I would usually have to speed up to be at maneuvering speeds. The V speeds are: Vne-241; Vno, top of green, 215 Va-166 Vf, full flaps 148 Vf20, 20 degree flaps 174 Vle, gear extension, 156 Vmc, 84 Blue Line: Best single engine climb speed-109 knots. Stall speeds at gross: Clean-86 knots Gear down, Flaps 45 degrees-77 knots Next post, i'll give a recitation of the takeoff and landing procedures. That's enough for now. It's late and I have a very busy day tomorrow. More later. Jgreen

Many thanks to Hank for figuring out how to post those sketches. The symbols? Those are Bryan's, no significance. As for Bryan's charges, I feel guilty for the small amount I paid him. Now, as to Saturday's flight. I was taking my son back to CHO to pick up his car. He just finished his MBA at VA and had brought his things home in a U-Haul. The A* has on board radar but no XM so we took a XM enabled 796 along. When we took off from GNF, on climb out, we plugged the 796 into the power plug and it shut the autopilot down. Grant was nice enough to volunteer to hand fly on the leg to CHO, including my/our first approach into CHO. Found the problem with the power plug today. Some dufus put it on the same bus as the A/P and the A/P doesn't like any spikes. No damage and the A/P works fine. Only this dufus, being me, tried it again on the way home and "bingo", shut it down again so I got to hand fly it home. Thankfully, this is a very stable airplane and I didn't bust any assigned altitudes. Anyway, the flight was beautiful. Started at 15,000 and climbed to 17,000 for some build ups. Gentlemen, pressurization is nice. No cannula, no tickling nose, no hanging up on the hose everytime I reach for something behind me. You can look at the flight and return on Flightaware, N6DU. About 3.3 hours both ways. Had a big cross wind and averaged over 200 knots both ways. It took 95 gallons to top off at CHO. Didn't fill up on return so, don't know, but think probably 100 gallons, maybe 105. The Bravo, on the same trip would take about 65 gallons with no wind. Now, the impressive part is that we were at best power, at only 58% power. The "efficiency" of this airplane is well, unexpected???? It's no Mooney, but then, it's not a Mooney. Next week we install the engine monitor and I will feel good about LOP. I'm interested to see just how "efficient" she might be. The A* does, in many ways, remind me of the Bravo. There is nothing wrong with the way it flies or its systems, but it is certainly different. I am thinking that those of you who are following this will be very interested in the systems, flying characteristics, and flight parameters. I will post to those topics later. I think that anyone who flies a high performance airplane, like a Mooney, will find it all truly interesting. Jgreen

Well, a little, but Brian put his own touch to it. I sent the sketches to Hank to see if he could reduce and post.

Hank, PM me your email and i'll send the sketches to you. Maybe you can figure out how to reduce them. An update for you fellows who are interested. I had Ken Bacon, the head of the Aerostar Owners Association and a very knowledgeable fellow on the intricacies of the A* come and go over my airplane with a fine tooth comb. He spent two days with the guys at my shop and pronounced it a solid aircraft. They did find a few discrepancies to add to our list, but overall, it is as expected. This A* has never been out of annual, but like so many twins today, it had been flown sparingly and the maintenance was not nearly up to my standards. Like I said, nothing major but for instance; replace all lower engine mounts (found one cracked), replace a leaking crank seal, a bad plug, A/C compressor, some chaffed wiring, loose turbo wastegate controller, etc. All told, so far, on mechanical items about $12,000 including the inspection. Next week, an engine monitor, then gamis if needed. Still trying to decide on what avionics upgrades. I have a 530, 430, C-IV AP/FD, weather radar, but no download weather. I suspect that I will put in an Aspen PFD, and replace the 530 with a 750 with the 530 going to the Skylane. The 530 and 430 were advertised as WAAS but were not; that's about $7,200, ouch ! My youngest son, age 27 and a pilot, was home today and flew in the A* for the first time. He flew from the right seat and made a better first landing than I did. I won't bore you further, but at some point if any are interested, I'll give some details of the systems and flying characteristics. Expect to make my first long X-C to VA Saturday. Really looking forward to it. More later. Jgreen

Hank, I think that is the problem. I have the sketches downloaded from Brian's email. There is a very computer literate lady in my office. I'll see if she knows how to do it tomorrow. Jgreen

Hank, Tried that and it said it could not download the pic. Go figure. I'll try again. Jgreen

KS, I had Brian design a custom scheme, but he is also doing a couple of "standards" just for funsies. The custom looks terrific and is unique without being too much so. I'll see if I can down load one for your thoughts. Jgreen OK, somebody remind me of how to download on here.

Hello to all, Yes, I'm still hanging around here and BT, just not saying much. You know I have never regretted what I didn't say. I have the Aerostar and flying it almost everyday. I have not gotten the required instruction yet to satisfy the insurance company, but I'm legal, and comfortable with the airplane. Lots of debugging to do and upgrade panel and paint yet to come. I think that when I "get it right", I'm going to really enjoy the airplane. It is a joy to fly and very, very stable. Roll stability better than Bravo but a little sensitive on pitch. No bad habits that I have found so far, just fast. Rotate at VMC of 83 knots is hauling ***. Very comfortable. Yesterday coming back from Vicksburg, I was at 7,500, 50% power and truing almost 180 knots at 24 gallons, not bad. I'll stay in touch as things progress and post some pics. Scheduled for the paint shop in early September at Cimarron. Jgreen

The details of the NASA spin test have not been made public so far as I know. It is highly unlikely that an unmodified Bonanza got into an unrecoverable spin with an experienced test pilot. As to the video of the guy "spinning" the Mooney in the previous post. That was not a spin. Not even a break into a spin. He simply pushed the nose down and spiraled. The break into a spin would have included a roll of at least 120 degrees to inverted and the rotation many times faster. I would love to put that witless bozo into an aerobatic airplane and do a five turn spin, but only if he was required to clean out the back seat. Jgreen

Byron, Come on man, I'm trying to explain the basics to guys trying not to stall their M20C on approach. You have the knowledge and ability to significantly add to this discussion. Help me out. jgreen

Back when the discussion of this thread was about stalling Mooneys, I said that I would address "deep stalls". For those of you still interested in the subject, here it is. Airplane wings stall when the angle of attack approaches 17 degrees. Interestingly, that applies, for the most part, to all wings. Some perhaps begin their stall at 16 degrees, perhaps some at 18, but it varies little in anything that I have ever read. It is at this point that the airflow is disrupted to the point that it begins to degrade lift. When you first feel the buffet of a stall, you are simply feeling the turbulence created from the airflow breaking up. Instead of flowing over the wing, the airflow is striking the top of it. As you enter a stall, i.e. 17 degrees of attack the wing begins to lose lift and if you don't decrease that AOA, the wing will finally "break". The abruptness/severity of that break is determined by how far past 17 degrees your AOA has progressed. If 18 or 19 degrees, the break will be fairly slow, smooth and easily controlled, at least on most GA airplanes. If you have for any reason and by any means, pulled the wing far past 17 degrees before the break, you are in a deep stall and the break will be much more abrupt. A snap roll in an aerobatic airplane is done by abruptly pulling (or pushing) on the stick to "jerk" the wing into a deep stall. At the same time, you push full rudder in the desired direction of the spin, and the airplane stalls and spins in that direction. It can be done from level flight, inverted flight, going straight up or going straight down. Another concept not usually understood about stalls it that speed is not a direct component or cause. Don't believe that? Then, consider this. You are sitting on the runway ready to begin your takeoff roll. Your wing is producing no lift. Are you stalled? No. You being the takeoff roll in your M20C and at 30 knots the wing is definitely producing some life, not enough for flight but some lift. Are you stalled? No. At 70 you rotate and begin your climb. Obviously the wing is not stalled, you have simply gotten enough speed and created enough angle of attack (of less than 17 degrees) to create more lift than the weight of your airplane. OK, you are at cruise, indicating 140 mph. You abruptly pull the airplane into an angle of attack of 20 degrees. Will you keep flying? No. But you have 140 mph of speed! Yes, but you have exceeded the AOA at which the wing stalls. Any maneuver in which you pull the wing far beyond 17 degrees will result in a deep stall from which the aircraft will easily enter into a spin. Two scenarios where you can do this in your normal flight: Pulling hard into a turn on final from a deep bank and with opposite rudder and when recovering from a stall too early, i.e. the secondary stall. Third scenario, turbulence which is why you have a Va, maneuvering speed. Jgreen A concept not fully understood by some pilots is that AOA has nothing to do with your airplane's relative angle to mother earth. An airplane will stall going straight up or straight down.

In response to some of the above, and Ward, add your comments freely PLEASE.. Remember my first post on this thread? That you can fly a Mooney like a Cessna, only it will kill you. There are dramatic differences in the way different GA aircraft behave "at the edge of the envelope". That is, or should be, the point I am trying to make. Most of us learn to fly in Cessnas or the Cherokee derivatives. They are all puppies in the air, especially the Cessna. I rarely take on students, but recently, I did, as sort of a special favor. The student, a 50ish old gentleman had been made a nervous wreck by his first instructor. After 39 hours of dual, he was not ready to solo. The first thing that I had to teach him was that, properly trimmed and powered, the airplane would fly itself. We went up and I made him put that 172 in the most extreme attitudes, then MADE him turn loose of the yoke. What happened? Nothing. The Cessna just simply went back to flying. At times, we would do this from a 40 degree pitch up in a 40 degree bank. Before he soloed, I was determined to make him abuse the controls to the point that the 172 would spin. He is a large man, over 300# so we were well forward CG. It was almost impossible to make the aircraft enter an unintentional spin. In fact, the flight configuration from which we finally kicked over could hardly be called unintentional. We were full power, 30 degree bank, yoke full back, as in an exaggerated departure stall. Finally, I told him to kick full opposite rudder and FINALLY, she broke. I talked him through the recovery and it was hardly even a stall/spin event. So, what I'm saying is: That's the problem. You learn in a bullet proof airplane like the 172 and you get complacent. Now, if I may, let me reference Mikefox's comment. "Stalls in a Mooney should not be feared." I agree to a point. Onset stalls should not be feared. Deep stalls and secondary stalls should be feared. I fear them. Understand, a secondary stall is a deep stall. What is a deep stall? I think I should take the time to define that, but I can't right now. Tonight I will. Ward and others who understand these concepts might wish to give their interpretation. You all have a good, safe, productive day and we will talk more tonight., Jgreen

Gene Beggs, a well known aerobatics competitor/instructor and air show performer actually pioneered the Beggs spin recovery technique. It was to simply pull power and take your hands off the yoke/stick, push opposite rudder (the one that gives resistance) and when it stops turning, neutralize rudder and pull out. I spoke with Gene many years ago when I first started aerobatics in earnest. He had tried the maneuver on scores of airplanes and had not found one on which it didn't work. Whether he tried it on a Mooney, I don't know. Personally, I'm not going to try. 201er, you have every right to be apprehensive about stalls, but I think you might be a little too much so. Get ten hours of spin training and I think you will be about as prepared as you need to be. I hate I sold the Decathlon or I'd invite you down for a free intro. That is not to say that I consider myself an aerobatics instructor. There are some really good ones out there. Personally, I always try to err on the conservative side. No matter what the airplane, I never bank more than 30 degrees in the pattern and never slow to final approach speed until, uh, final approach. And don't ever be too proud to simply go around and try again. Jgreen

Yes, but the stall that will kill you will happen when you are distracted and pull the aircraft into a stall/spin configuration without being aware of it. I strongly encourage you to go to an aerobatic instructor and do some spins; even an hour or two will make a huge difference. If nothing else, you will learn just how disorienting the entry to a stall can be, usually a roll of at least 120 degrees, and just how much you will have to get the nose down to recover, BEFORE PULLING BACK ON THE YOKE. Non-aerobatic pilots are conditioned to, whenever they get in trouble, pulling the yoke back to avoid the ground and over speeding. If you are trying to recover from a deep stall or from an upset when you are inverted, pulling back on the yoke will kill you almost everytime. Oh, yea, learning what it feels like to "hang from the belts" is quite an eye opener too. Jgreen

201er, Whether it be a Mooney or other different aircraft, I would be moving the elevator past neutral to some degree. Your real focus should be on keeping the rudders neutral. You can be assured of this by making sure that you have pressure on both rudders and neutralizing them with even pressure. Referring to N74795 admonition, I understand what he is saying, but DO NOT apply full rudder during the break. Even if you have done so in the proper direction, i.e., opposite the break, if the wing is stalled, it will simply snap the other direction and enter a stall with the opposite rotation. It is amazingly easy, even in an aerobatic aircraft, while recovering from a spin to simply go from a spin in one direction to a spin in the other. Recover from a stall with a coordinated rudder, meaning a centered ball. This can usually be accomplished with neutral rudder. Remember. No REMEMBER!! That it takes two things to spin an aircraft, a stalled wing and yaw (uncoordinated rudder). Without those two elements, you may fall out of the sky, but you will not spin. Also remember PARE. POWER-off, AILERONS-neutral, RUDDER-opposite to rotation, ELEVATOR-forward to break stall. Power off is a biggie. Pull that sucker to the stop or the rest of your inputs may do nothing. If, Heaven forbid, you are ever in an inadvertent spin, merely moving the elevator forward may only produce an accelerated rotation. Push the yoke forward and break the stall. Jgreen

You can't fly a Mooney like you do a Cessna. Well, you can, only it will eventually kill you. The Mooney wing reacts rather abruptly from the effects of a deep stall. If it is uncoordinated in the least during a deep stall, it will make an instantaneous roll toward a spin condition. If the the pilot does not make the correct control inputs it will enter a spin. If this occurs at pattern altitude, recovery is not possible. Every Mooney pilot should read the NTSB report on the accident that killed Joel Smith in Texas a few years ago. Who was Joel Smith? He was the Mooney test pilot that probably signed off the initial flight of 90% of the Mooneys owned by the members of this site. No, Joel was not the pilot, he was in the right seat, but the scenario is the classic example of a pattern altitude stall/spin accident. We can talk about practicing stalls, which you should, and getting spin training, which you should, but the most important thing is to recognize the flight attitudes that can get you to the point of "no return". I have probably done a thousand spins in my flying hours, upright, inverted, accelerated, flat, etc. in Aeronca Champs, Pitts Specials, Waco's biplanes, Decathlons, Stearmans, and Cessna 172's to name a few. That doesn't make me an expert, but it does make me aware. Aware that I don't want to spin a Mooney from any altitude and especially from pattern altitude. In the last 25 fatal Mooney accidents, 5 were stall/spin. It is not an academic subject. It happens. The two characteristics that I have observed and will share here about stalling Mooneys is this. From a deep stall, the Mooney wing requires a sharp pitch down to recover. A pitch down that will fill the wind screen with mother earth which is a sight that most pilots are not used to seeing. Secondly, after the pitch down, if you try to recover too soon, you will enter a secondary stall that is ALWAYS a deep stall and the next break will be a close relative of violent and almost surely kick over into a spin entry. Finally, I will leave you with this observation. Most "instructors" don't know squat about spinning an airplane. As previously pointed out, they did at least one to get their rating and that's probably it. The Mooney is a very good and stable airplane, and predictable. Just know its flying characteristics and don't monkey with the monkey. Jgreen