Z W

No official reference, I read it on the internet somewhere, probably on this site. However, you can confirm it with the plane's flight characteristics. Also, the performance charts for my C model specified that to reach Vy above about 10,000 ft, you must extend takeoff flaps. I did that and verified that is the case. If takeoff flaps increase climb rate, they must add more lift than they do drag. I also know that full flaps decrease climb, so I know they add more drag than lift. I know, not exactly a scientific, peer-reviewed and published article by an aeronautical engineer, but those are hard to come by for our planes. This is easy enough to test yourself. Go compare your climb rates at a constant IAS and power setting both at no flaps, takeoff flaps, and full flaps. You should takeoff with whatever flap setting gives you the highest rate of climb at Vx, which is your target airspeed until obstacle clearance is achieved. Guess what? It's the setting labeled "takeoff." Seems like a no-brainer to me. But if you just like taking off without flaps because of the rocket-like feeling in the seat of your pants as the plane accelerates to cruise speed, that actually makes plenty of sense to me too.

At the risk of interrupting a pretty funny thread there at the end... The "take off" marker on your flaps is the point at which the flaps start to add more drag than they do lift. Up to and including that point, the flaps add more lift than drag. Using "take off" flaps will result in a shorter takeoff roll and a steeper angle of climb, meaning your ratio of upward travel to forward travel will improve. This is helpful for obstacle clearance. It is also helpful for quickly putting distance between you and the ground and minimizing the amount of time you spend under 1000 AGL, which is the most dangerous time to have an engine failure. That's the theory you can read on these forums. I've verified it in both an M20C and an M20K. I use takeoff flaps as a habit unless there's more than about 20 kts of wind. I will then leave them up to minimize the gusting effect, and with those winds, takeoff roll and angle of climb are great anyways. I spent quite a bit of time on the C model with inop flaps because of a pesky hydraulic leak. It would take off just fine without them, but rolled longer and didn't climb as well. It actually does have a nice feel to it that way. The plane accelerates faster once you get in the air without the flaps. But it doesn't perform as well. You never know when your engine might quit shortly after takeoff, and I prefer to be as high as possible and as close to the airport as possible when it does. No-flaps puts you lower and farther away.

My 68C with all the speed mods and a 3 blade prop did 140-145kts true at 7k-9k ft. Honest flight planning. Lower or higher altitude and true airspeed would decrease. It would also vary with outside air temperature and gross weight. Some do a little better, some worse, but 135-150kts true seems to be normal for a C model.

Budget $10k per year for ownership. That will cover hangar, insurance, annual inspection, and some random maintenance. Some years will be $6k, some will be $15k. Gas and oil changes not included. Engine reserve not included. If hangars are expensive where you are, adjust upwards. Welcome to the GA lifestyle. It will be the best $10k you spend next year, second possibly to the $10k you spend on the PPL.

Some caution items on that F: 1. Plan to rebuild the engine within a year or two of purchase, based on high time. You might get lucky. You might not. 2. The 430 is probably not a 430W. A WAAS GPS is a huge value, and honestly, is now considered essential for IFR flight by most buyers. Not a deal breaker, but if I were shopping, I would either buy a plane with WAAS or plan to put it in first thing. It's an expensive upgrade, but it's a great safety improvement for single-pilot IFR into small rural airports. It does look like a nice plane. Just two factors to consider. If you want a turbo, you should expand your search to early K model 231's.

Today is actually an interesting case. The front you show, Chris, is not all convective. It's convective over Texas where you are, so I would not fly there either. It's also convective up to the north around Michigan, Indiana, and eastern Kentucky. If I were trying to cross in the Midwest, through Missouri / Illinois / Western Kentucky / Tennessee, where it where it is not convective, I would probably go. But watch out for the ice, which is also typical for a front this time of year... I would file low, at 4-5k, and try to stay VMC in temps well above freezing. The ceilings are 1k behind the front, and 3-6k in front of it. At some places today, you could likely cross the front no problem with an hour or so of IMC time. I would also be primed to turn around and land if that plan didn't work out. And I wouldn't take a skittish passenger.

Not all fronts are dangerous. A front is where two different air masses meet. The only thing that always defines a "front" is a change in temperature, usually of 10 dF or more. Sometimes you cross the front and that's all you will notice. Almost always there's a change in pressure as well, so you will need to reset your altimeter. Often a front also represents a change in wind direction. A wind out of the west can suddenly turn into a wind out of the south or north. That can result in some turbidity in the air, as the different air streams collide, and cause turbulence. The greater the wind speeds, and the greater the directional shift, the more turbulence you can expect. Check your winds aloft on both sides of the front to get an idea. If you are going from winds 270 at 40 kts to winds 180 at 50kts, you're likely to feel it. This can be clear air turbulence - no clouds or precipitation required. Outside the mountains, this does not stop me from trying to cross a front, but you can be prepared. The front Ned crossed looks benign on radar. Good call Ned. The dangerous fronts are those accompanied by convective activity. Those produce squall line thunderstorms, and I know that's on the current PPL exam. Trying to pick your way through a front that is producing squall line is where pilots can really get into trouble. Squall line storms are the kind that can cover the entire U.S. from Mexico to Canada. If you ever see a front, accompanied by a convective thunderstorm, check the convective forecast very closely. Severe icing is also most often found along a front in the winter months. Gotta watch for that too.

I can only climb full power (36" for me) on cold days. If it's warm outside, full throttle climb, even at 120 KIAS, will usually push the CHTs up past 380. So I typically set power at 32" 2500 RPM and pitch for 500 FPM. That yields about 110-120 KIAS, depending on weight, and CHTs of 380 or less, no matter what the outside temperature is. If I'm solo, it's cold outside, and I'm headed to the teens to catch a tailwind, I'll leave it full throttle to get on up there. But usually I'm heavy and its hot, so reduced power and 500 FPM keeps the engine happy. I do always climb to at least 2,000 AGL before any power reduction in the climb out. Edit: My point is, I don't think it matters how you do it, as long as you keep your engine temperatures cool. Anything over 380 on the CHTs is bad for cylinder life. As long as your temps are good, you aren't doing any damage to your engine, and the difference in fuel consumption is negligible.

You're going to have more variation in maintenance costs between individual airplanes than exists between the models. What I mean by that is a neglected O or O2 is going to cost you far more than a well-maintained Cirrus, but it has nothing to do with the design of the aircraft. I've seen this point debated a lot and nobody ever reaches any real conclusions backed up by math. Metal airplanes don't seem to break any less than composite ones. Retractable gear probably adds some maintenance cost, but then again so does a parachute. You may go through your entire ownership without rebuilding a motor, or it might start making metal in your first year. Generally people seem to agree that turbocharged aircraft are more expensive to maintain, but I've found from personal experience a newer turbo cost about the same as an older naturally aspirated, just because the older plane always had some older part wearing out. Or maybe that was just some bad luck for me (or good luck, that the turbo didn't have more problems?) The Mooney will save you money at the gas pump, probably. Assuming you run LOP or at some reduced fuel flow. By the same token, a Mooney at 150 ROP probably gets worse NMPG than a Cirrus or Columbia at 20 LOP. Fly what you like. Those three aircraft are all very similar.

Mountain flying sometimes produces the worst potential for shock cooling in the winter. You may have to be at 16k to clear the terrain, and then descend to an airport at 7k in a very short distance, meaning a very steep descent angle. The easiest way to accomplish that is to clear the terrain, pull the throttle to idle, drop the gear and flaps, and point the nose down. If there is such a thing as shock cooling, that's how you do it. In that circumstance it's more of an immediate safety concern than an engine wear concern. After 5 minutes with an idle engine and a high airspeed (nose pointed down) your engine will be very cold and may not produce full horsepower if you need to do a go-around when you get to the airport. Since density altitude is still high, with the airport at 7k or higher, you really need all the horsepower you can get. Failure to keep a warm engine has gotten more than one pilot in the mountains. You can do the same thing coming down from the high teens or flight levels on any given flight with a turbocharged aircraft in the winter. It's harder to do in a naturally aspirated plane cruising at 10-12k, but possible. The way to avoid it is to watch your CHTs and keep them in the green at all times. It's just good practice, and easy to do if you can plan your descent from far enough out. If you can't, due to ATC or terrain, use the tools your aircraft has - close the cowl flaps, keep some power in, pop the speed brakes, put the gear down, put the flaps down, etc. Some aircraft lack some of those tools and so have more trouble with this than others. Whether any of that relates to increased engine life, I have no idea, and I don't think anybody else does either. But you should keep your engine warm anyways.

I once landed without the "gear down" light. Put the gear down, but the light didn't come on. Cycled the gear a few times. No different. Checked the breakers. Didn't find any popped. Did the manual gear extension procedure. Still no light. The floor indicator said "Gear Down" but normally the light confirms it too. Flew over the runway and had somebody look and confirm the gear was down. Finally just landed, trying extra hard to grease it. I was halfway expecting the gear to collapse as I landed and hear some awful crunching noises. I popped the door open on short final, ready to evacuate in case of fire, even though that's unlikely in your standard gear up... Landed like normal. Turns out there was a chafed wire in the warning light circuit going to ground which popped a circuit breaker. I missed it in all the excitement. But it sure felt like I was close to doing a gear-up at the time.

I can respect a thoughtfully made decision, and it seems you are thoughtful about this one. But I don't understand it in your particular situation. Going from two planes to zero, just for expenses? Maybe you don't need to own a fire-breathing time machine like the Acclaim anymore, which I'm sure carries a hefty maintenance and insurance bill. But there's a lot of "middle ground" between feeding a TN and a RV8 and not feeding any planes at all. I can tell from your prior posts you love to fly. Why not pick up a cheaper Mooney (C, E, or F)? Or just keep the RV8? I bet that would cut your monthly costs by 2/3, or even more considering opportunity cost of capital or interest on a loan for the TN, and you can still leave the earth behind whenever you want. I understand hanging up the keys for medical issues, or if you've already got a "cheap" plane (hah) and just can't pay for it anymore. But if that's not you, why give it up completely? You may look back on that decision someday with regret, when the medical issues do finally come and you no longer have the option. Just food for thought. I've thought about giving it up, and decided it's a part of my life I don't want to let go.

Posts on this forum have been known to turn up in Google searches years later. I hope your wife is open minded . Never been there. Have a good trip.

He doesn't have an IO-360 in his G model. He has the O-360, carb'd. LOP isn't an option. It is more efficient, though, to fly high (9-12k) and lean to peak EGT with the O-360. You'll get a higher TAS for the same MP and fuel flow. That helps, unless the headwind is stronger up high.