johnggreen

Excuse me, I forgot to sign. Jgreen

With no malice intended, some of you fellows need to settle down. I am a CFII and will say the I am often stunned at how little some pilots know. That was a legitimate question for discussion. What are the ways you can get "unlost"? What if you were in my J-3 and didn't have a GPS or a VOR. A good pilot could explan a lot of his real knowledge and understanding with a full discussion of the various scenarios. The suggestion of calling flighwatch was the first thing to hit my mind that most of you would have never considered it though few will admit it. Safe flying is about repetition, about making habits that are so second nature that you never have to think about it. How about this question? If your engine quits, what's the first thing you do if you are in a fuel injection airplane, in a carbureted aircraft? if you couldn't answer those in two seconds, you failed. This is not the place to take offense at the first intimation that you are not Sky King, but it happens a lot. Truth is that the greatest pilotage capability of 80% of the members of this blog is that they have a computer and no face, no name. This is, can be, a hugely valuable site for the discussion of pilotage skills and maintenance issues for out aircraft. If you need to let off steam, go to a bar, suck down a couple of bottles of courage and spit in the face of the biggest bastard there; preferably an Army Ranger or a Seal, but don't use this faceless site to satiate your macho needs. Please and no insult intended.

Nice to meet you Erik, The Beech guys, Continental drivers, look at it this way. The Continental is overall cheaper to overhaul than a Lyc. The cylinder problems, in the vast majority of cases, show themselves slowly and without any catastrophic failure. (I have personally seen an older Skylane that didn't have one compression over 50 and flew fine.) So, they start out with a cheaper to rebuild engine and then the repalcement of cylinders at say 800 hours is not an overwhelming expense, so what the heck. They fly them and top them and live happily ever after. Jgreen

Brazil? Man you are lost! Jgreen

Aviatoreb, Join up on the Beechtalk site and do a search. I assure you, there is all the technical information you can ever digest there from lots and lots of pilots with lots and lots of experience with the Continental Cylinder issue. Most of the highly respected engine shops and gurus such as the guys with Advanced Pilot Seminars are sponsors and contribute regularly. It is a very professional blog that requires pilot's full names and identifications and they don't put up with any E-net thugs, but they are extremely nice, courteous, professional and helpful even if you own a Mooney. Jgreen

I have used this procedure in small engines, like lawn mowers, that do not have oil pumps to "stir" the oil. Small engines that rely completely on splash from the crank seem to build up sludge more in the sumps than larger engines with oil pumps. As to whether it is any value in a horozontally opposed air cooled engine or not, a rebuild mechanic could probably give an "educated" guess. As to whether there is some danger from the fuel in the crankcase. I do have an educated opinion. If you do it, it might wash oil from some bearings so, if you do, change the oil and run the engine immediately to reoil all bearings so that no rust can start. A small amount of fule mixed in the oil will not matter. It will burn out almost instantly. In World War II radial engines, a fuel/oil mixer was standard equipment. I owned an AT-6, the first flying airplane I bought after law school, that had the system. In cold weather, before you shut down, you turned a valve and let fuel flow into the oil reservoir to increase the viscosity of the oil for the next start up. Otherwise, the 60 weight oil just wouldn't let the engine turn over if it was below freezing. The fuel burned out as the engine warmed and everything went back to normal for flight. That AT-6 also had an inertia starter that had to be the coolest thing I ever owned. The sound of that starter spinning up then the cough of that radial engine and the belching smoke was just next to sex as a thrill. You couldn't fire up that enigne without grinning from ear to ear. And you poor souls think a Mooney is cool!!! Jgreen

Job and Scott, A little off the thread of Bravo for a Mirage, but I'll have to comment about your comfort factors with the "J". You're right. In a similar sense, I am in a comfort zone with the Bravo. I don't want to bring out another mule, kill it, and then beat it to death, but for all the reasons that general aviation is in the dumps, it is a good time to err on the side of caution. Human beings have a real problem in clearly defining the line between "I need" and "I want". Truth is, I don't "need" a Bravo, but it certainly makes my life more interesting and my travels more pleasant. Right now, with all the threats on the value and use of our airplanes, a Mooney is a good choice and a J is a great choice. I recently read a statement that "humans are programmed to want, not appreciate". I guess a part of wisdom is overcoming that trait. Eighteem months from now, I may decide that "I want" something other than a Bravo, but right now, I'm just going to "appreciate". Jgreen

231flyer's preference list has been sop for many years and I think still correct. This has been a valuable discussion and truly lots of good points without anyone getting on a high horse. Congrats!! I will add two things, well three, that come to mind. First: Plowed fields. You almost never see them anymore. Low till and no-till planting is almost universal in the United States so furrows are not the issue they were twenty years ago. Secondly A VERY INTERESTING SIDE NOTE. As I have pointed out, one of the true advantages of a Mooney is its in-flight integrity. You almost never hear of a structural failure. That's good. I read, actually on the Beech blog, a survey of exactly how many Bonanzas of various models had suffered in-flight structural failures; usually, of course, from encounters with thunder storms. In most instances the first structural failure to occur on the Bonanza is the horozontal stabilizer. That causes the nose to pitch down, the wings to fail in a downward motion, the fuselage then splits on top just aft of the windshield and the occupants are usually ejected from the airplane. The good news is, that in that scenario, the occupants are either killed instantly or rendered unconscious. The bad thing is that if a structural failure does occur in a Mooney, you are probably going to have, as your last experience, one hell of a ride down to the ground. The answer; avoid thunderstorms. Which brings me to a final point on this post. In 1989, I owned a Twin Bonanza. I had owned it for several years but had not installed a Stormscope or on-board radar. One night, on an IFR flight with my wife and a friend of hers in the back seat, a controller vectored me directly into a thunderstorm. I flew in at 6,000'. When I realized what had happened, I did indeed make a 180 degree turn because I had no idea of what lay ahead and knew there was clear air behind. I had to disengage the autopilot as it could not handle the gusts. In the process of the turn, the ATC controller called to tell me that I was 4,000' above my assigend altitude. To which I replied, "yea, and there ain't shit I can do about it." That is an exact quote. He didn't bother me further. We got out safely. A T-bone is truly a tank as it was built to military standards, Thank God. The next week I had a Stormscope installed. Trust me. That is an experience you don't ever want to have. Jgreen

Apologies to all for the long blank page at the end of my post. I pasted the link from the Beech site and don't really know what happened. I think, hope, that the people who contributed and read this thread picked up on the point I was trying to make; in the event of a crash, nothing is going to save you if the impact is severe enough or you are thrown around inside whatever shell you might be sitting. A review of the death of Dale Earnhart and the safety changes that came about because of that accident might be in order. An occupant can ride through an "event" fully enclosed in a shell of whatever that protects them from outside objects, but if the deceleration is great enough, or if they strike objects inside the shell, they will die. Breaking a person's neck is unfortunately a fairly easy thing to do if the angle is just right. Blunt trauma to the organs from the front of the torso will stop the heart or cause organs to burst causing one to bleed to death. A relatively minor blow to the head can be fatal if it induces internal bleeding. Fire? let's not even go there. Many years ago I came up on an auto accident that looked almost minor. The car had run off the road and hit a tree in the front yard of a house in a small town just west of here. The driver was walking around a little shaken when I got there. The ambulance drivers couldn't get the passenger out because the car was crumpled slightly in the right and the passenger door would not open. I was in a work truck with a winch and winched the door open. The driver, a very robust looking young man was concious, showing little pain or stress, and talking to us the whole time. The passenger was removed with what looked like nothing but a broken leg. I was shocked to learn the next day that he bled to death from internal injuries. There are, I am sure, plenty of docs and EMT's on this forum who could give countless examples of instances of fatal accidents where the victim appeared to be unscathed. The point, well, I made my point. Every pilot should have scenarios in his head about having to put a disabled aircraft on the ground with minimum deceleration to the occupants. Otherwise, as Byron points out, no cabin, of any structural design is going to save you; regardless of your brand loyalty. Jgreen

Aviatoreb, Your post is a correct and interesting read, but I didn't see that we disagreed on anything. You can go to any aircraft make website, especially Beech, and see countless and repetitious statements of Brand superiority that have no basis in fact, statistics, or engineering data. In fact, the link listed below is of a Beech A-36 that went down recently with no injuries. That was, of course, according to all the Beech commenters based on the superiority of the Beech airframe!! I have heard repetitive and mind numbing claims of how wonderful the Mooney tube structure is and all types of conjecture as to how and why it was built that way and that's the way they build race cars on to infinitum. As of yet, I have not seen one piece of hard evidence that it is true. Not one. On the other hand, there is one statistic (piece of hard evidence I propose) as to a Mooney superiority; inflight structural integrity. There are almost zero instances of a Mooney coming apart in the air. That certainly cannot be said for the Bonanza of any model. I just think that pilots should be a cut above the fanciful conclusions of the general populace. Unfortunately, I rarely see it. Whatever airplane one chooses to fly, you should know it's strengths and weaknesses. You should also know that if and when things go bump in the night (so to speak) that you had better do everything possible to save your ass. In the case of a forced landing, that means reaching terra firma at minimum airspeed, the airplane under control, and wings level. If you cartwheel, for instance, the g forces you will encounter will kill you perhaps without so much as putting a scratch anywhere on your body. I believe that with the help of the various commenters, some of whom appeared to disagree with me (but in fact did not) several very valuable points have been made. That was my intent. Jgreen http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/04/20/ ... er-county/

Larry, Thank you. You understand what I was trying to say. Jgreen

Larry, Thank you. You understand what I was trying to say. Jgreen

Parker, I'm not doubting you or calling you out as the "Punks" say, but I would really like to see insurance rates broken down to the single variable of aircraft brand and models. Rate schedules which would show a Mooney to have lower rates would run counter to the statistics that show a higher fatal accident rate (for example) of the J model Mooney compared to a Skyhawk or Skylane. My personal experience in paying for aircraft insurance does not, on first blush, indicate any reduced rate schedule favoring my Mooney. That is even in comparison to my aerobatic Decathlon that sat in the hangar with it for most of the time of my ownership. YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP A TRULY INTERESTING POINT. If you will look up some rating schdules on your end, I will call my agent, Frank Kimmel, on Monday and ask for supporting information. Thank you, Jgreen

Mooneygirl, And obviously, you missed the whole point. The trees impacting the structure slowed the airplane at a rate that did not create sufficient G force to break you necks. I am very happy for your well being, but do you have any engineering data that would support the idea that the outcome would have been different in a Cessna, Piper, or Beech, or just brand loyalty? Jgreen

Byron, You know that I like you and respect your comments and opinions, seriously. So when I point out this "foible" you won't be offended, I hope. The comment as to the "strength of these rugged airplanes" is a little humorous to me. On the Beech site, an A-36 just went down in New York and brought forth the same comments about the integrity of the Beech design; bull******. As much as "we all" like to profess the superiority of the airplanes we fly, truth is, they are all built to the same specs. AND--- In the event of a crash, if the impact is great enough, the integrity of the structure surrounding you is almost irrelevant. If you will review recent accidents, there was one a couple of months ago with a cabin class Cessn that was making an IFR approach, I believe to Aspen. The airplane didn't crash, but it hit the runway so hard that, I believe, two occupants were killed and another had a broken back; a real trajedy as all but the pilot were members of the same family. The airplane is shown there sitting on its collapsed landing gear nearly intact. One commenter said it looked like the airplane could be jacked up and flown away. Well, I doubt that. Truth is, if you impact the ground with enough G force, your are probably going to break your neck, or hit the instrument panel hard enough to stop your heart, or smash your head with enough trauma that you are dead instantly. In MANY cases, the seat belt and shoulder harness will cut into you hard enough to cause a fatal injury without any obvious external injuries. My point, well, I guess I'm just a purveyor of truth and have ABSOLUTELY NOT BRAND LOYALTY. You are obviously a very intelligent person (as I judge from your writing) and a damn skilful pilot. So, let's not contribute to complacency with the idea that the tube frame of a Mooney is going to save your ass from a bad crash. Now, remember, I like and respect you, so don't overreact or get mad. Just making a point. Still friends I hope. Jgreen

I spend a lot of time on the Beech site. It has over 15,000 members and lots of participation by people in the industry including lots of engine rebuilders. I have owned a Bonanza, but never a turbo version, but here is the consensus that I see from the Beech forum. The B-36 TC from the factory is not a desireable engine set up. Engine temps are a huge limiting factor to the use of the airplane over 12,000' and engine reliability is pretty weak from cylinder problems, i.e. HEAT. On the other hand. A turbonormalized 520 or 550 is a good airplane that will give good performance numbers and the same reliability of the NA version. The ideal conversion is the B-36 to a 550 and turbonormalizing because the B-36 has longer wings and higher fuel capacity. Lots of owners are buying new or almost new G-36 Bonanzas and having turbo-normalizing put on with tip tanks for additional fuel capacity. If I were selling my Bravo for another single engine airplane, that is about the only one that would be in consideration. Today, that set-up with a new G-36 would probably go over $700,000. Rob, I don't mean to insult you, but you have obviously never flown a turbo Lance. They are truly one of the sorriest airplanes ever built. They burn fuel prodigiously and go nowhere. I flew one new from the factory back in the day and almost laughed in the salesman's face that he thought I would be stupid enough to buy one. If i'm not mistaken, they were only built for a couple of years even in the heyday of GA. There was good reason!! Jgreen

Scott, Man, that didn't take long. I posed the question on the Beechtalk site and got immediate responses from several guys with lots of experience including Charles Melot of Zephyr Aircraft Engines. The absolute consensus, no difference in cylinder issues between the 520 and 550. In fact, it seems that the engines utilize the identical cylinders! One respondent used the ratio of 8 out of 10 Continentals having cylinder issues before reaching TBO. Nobody disagreed. From my reading on that site, it is just assumed that you replace cylinders at mid-time and no big deal. Now, understand, I don't care. If I were shopping for another airplane, whether it had Continentals or Lycomings would be of such insignificance that it would not be in the equation. Still, I prefer Lycomings. Jgreen

Scott, I am NOT THE AUTHORITY on the Continental jug issue. I spend a lot of time on the Beech site, probably more than here and frankly, I can't see that much difference in the conversation about top overhauls between the 520 and 550, but maybe I am missing something. I'll pose the question. The Beech site has a huge registry and lots of people from the maintenance side including all the guys from Advanced Pilot Seminars, the gurus of LOP. As to the LOP issue, there are lots of Lycoming owners who use it too. It has frankly (it appears) been a god-save for the continental owners. I have GAMIs on my TIO-540 and it will run LOP, but in the case of the Bravo engine, it is simply not worth the trouble. The loss of power and speed pretty much offsets any gain in reduced fuel burn. I get 185 knots on 14 gph at gross and never see CHT's over 320-340, so why bother? The day another one or two miles per gallon is a big deal, I'll quit flying. Jgreen

In a word, "yes". In another word, they are in "capability" about the same airplane. I own a Bravo and when the Acclaim came out, thought about trading. The Acclaim is cleaned up somewhat, but primarily, it got the Continental engine with more horsepower and the Acclaim S, with even more. Another fellow based at my field owned an Acclaim for about a year and it would seem that he was about 5 knots faster. Now, I've got a fast Bravo and his Acclaim is/was a little on the slow side. Same room, same useful load. I just couldn't see shoveling out another three or four hundred grand for a few knots and a glass panel. Hearsay would indicate that the blazing speeds come at the price of high horsepower settings and it seems that there are some engine penalties coming as a result. I'm sure there are some Acclaim owners who can give us all much better and more accurate information. Personally, that's personally, I much prefer the Lycoming engine. There is hardly a Continental made that will make it even half way to TBO without a top overhaul. The guys on the Beechtalk forum just expect six new cylinders on their Bonanzas at 800 to a 1000 hours to be standard operating procedure. If the Acclaim and Bravo were sitting side by side and I could fly away in one without looking back would I chose the Acclaim? Of course. You can never have too much speed and the Continental properly handled is still a damn good engine. All my opinion of course and that isn't worth too much. Jgreen

David, Ralph Butcher's syllibi and flight training manuals are the biggest secret in aviation, in my opinion. I didn't buy either until I had been flying for, uh, many, many years and had 5,000 hours and when I read them I couldn't believe how many points he made that made ME a better pilot. Both the Private Pilot and Instrument Training manuals are incredibly insightful and explain things that every pilot should know. Let me know what you think after you peruse the material. Ralph Butcher is a genius at making things simple. And I swear, I have never met the man or recieve a commission from promoting his literature. Jgreen

Jim, I too use "scenario based training", like what to do if an engine fails on takeoff, a thunderstorm crops up in your way, etc., but I don't see how you "formalize" it and proclaim that stick and rudder is really not importiant. So, if you read a practical rendition of how this can be improved, please steer me toward it. Jgreen

David, First, let me say that I am not an active instructor. Secondly, the SBT sounds good, but to date, I haven't seen any material or presentation that makes a lick of sense. Thirdly, the best syllabus that I have seen to date, and I have looked at lots of them are by Ralph Butcher. Go to www.skyroamers.com. I don't think you will be disappointed. Jgreen PS: You are probably going to get LOTS of opinions. PPS: If you do buy Skyroamers, let me know what you think.

I too would love to own a Mirage, but before you get too excited: The latest data I have from Conklin & de Decker is from 2006. At that time, based on $3.91 fuel, the variable hourly cost of flying a Bravo was $146/hr., the Mirage was $216. I don't have the number on the P-Baron, but it would be slightly more than the Cessna 414 which was $370/hr. These numbers do not include fixed cost or depreciation. That Bravo keeps looking better and better. Jgreen

Dave, I was going to write the same thing and you beat me to it. Part of the value of this forum to a "newbie" is that he gets a give and take with older members. Some become real participants, others do not. On a similar note and something that I wrote on another thread, I think this would be a much better forum if it was required that everyone use their real name. Sometimes we are all guilty of being flippant or rude (ususally unintentionally) when we are sitting before a computer screen with most of the "human" elements removed from our interaction. Should I ever fall into that trap "again" you have my permission to smite me and ask for an apology. Jgreen

Brian, Sorry I missed your name. Thanks. Now, hello "Skywarrior", nice to meet you, and your name is? Oh, never mind, I'm kind of apathetic about the whole thing. Jgreen