Going a bit overgross

[fantom]

Quote: KSMooniac

[jetdriven]

The TBM created a class of airplane. Unfortunately, 1983 was a terrible time for aircraft and boat makers.  They lost the 301.

[AndyFromCB]

I beg to differ, even with the later gross weight models, the strength is there to twice meet the Normal Category and then some. The book stall speed is already 2knots below 61, VGs would lower it another 5 or so knots. I know, I've put them on every airplane I've ever flow, 5knots is a given. There is your 600lb of gross weight increase. Quit dicking around with downrated engines and originally certify with full 310hp like everyone else did, the VGs on the rudder would have helped there too. If Midwest Mooney can do, how come Mooney can't. 310hp * 13 lb = 4030lb. Borrow an engine mount/landing gear from Beech. I'm sure patents have expired long time ago. And this is coming from guy who loves Mooneys more than any other brand and can finally afford one.

[KSMooniac]

VGs on a Mooney with a 6-series laminar flow airfoil =/= VGs on other airplanes/airfoils, so you cannot expect the same behavior.  If it were that easy, I suspect the factory (or the aftermarket) would have already offered it up as a solution to low useful load on the late model planes.  

I agree with you that the power loading and gear strength issues are likely not the most difficult aspect of the problem.

[AndyFromCB]

VGs on a Mooney M20R/M20M give you exactly 4.5kt lower stall speed at current gross, I know, I flown a M20 Eagle with VGs at full gross in Driggs, ID. And were are talking about microaero VGs not specifically optimized to the specific airframe. In any case, I'll put them on my Bravo and do some serious before and after tests. They did wonders to my Arrow.

[jetdriven]

How much do they lower cruise speed?  4.5 knots?

In another thread on here about VG's there was a link to a study that shows the stall speed is lower, but when it does stall, its more complete and total.  Given Mooney's stall characteristics I wonder about the increased safety margin of the VGs.

 

[fantom]

When I asked about VG's at the factory, they said their test indicated no more than a 1.5 kt reduction in stall speed.

Unlike KSMooniac, I'm not an Aerospace Engineer. Nice pictures BTW, Scott.  

[John Pleisse]

The Mooney 301 debacle was a piston, a shared development effort and subsequent failure with Socata. The French company wanted the wing.....and in the end, they got it. Awesome plane. Another Mooney could-a, should-a, would-a.

[AndyFromCB]

On my arrow they ate about 3kt of speeds at cruise, their claims that they don't affect cruise are false, so with a mooney, I would say 4.5knots would be a good bet on lost cruise speed but then how much time is lost stopping to refuel.

[takair]

On a single, isn't gross weight also a function of stall speed and the integrity of the seats and restraints?  They assume that you will lose your engine at gross and have to land and stop without the seats and seatbelts coming apart.  At higher landing speed, you may not protect the occupants, and if you survive, your insurance will likely not cover the damage.  The OEM has to assume a landing with engine out, at gross, and usually not on a runway. 

[jetdriven]

The seats, rails, etc are designed for a 9G impact.   FAR 23 airplanes like the Cirrus are 26G I believe.

[takair]

Quote: jetdriven

The seats, rails, etc are designed for a 9G impact.   FAR 23 airplanes like the Cirrus are 26G I believe.

[WardHolbrook]

 

Are we advocating that it’s OK to operate “a bit” over gross here? How much is too much? Where do you draw the line? A long time ago, most aircraft manufacturers adopted the principle of "loading flexibility” - in other words, Mooney, Piper, Cessna and Beech have made aircraft that provide us with one or two more seats than can be used if topped off with fuel or a couple of hundred pounds of fuel capacity that must remain unused it you’ve filled all of the seats. You can have it one way or the other, but you usually can’t have your cake and eat it too. I’ve got PIC time in 105 different makes and models of aircraft, from gliders to jets, and I can count on one hand the number of them that you could honestly load up and go without regard to loading. It's a legitimate approach; but history has shown us time and time again that there are many of us out there who have no idea of how the concept works. Silly pilots, many of us think that if we've got 4 seats we can top off, load up, and go. However, if you're willing to ignore the aircraft limitations, legalities, and insurance ramifications involved, you pretty much can because there is nothing magical about that max gross weight number – the airplane will continue to fly. Bottom line, in all but a very few cases, if you want to carry 4 people, baggage and full fuel you’re going to need something with 6 seats. 

 

[orangemtl]

Quote: WardHolbrook

 

Are we advocating that it’s OK to ope

rate “a bit” over gross here? How much is too much? Where do you draw the line? A long time ago, most aircraft manufacturers adopted the principle of "loading flexibility” - in other words, Mooney, Piper, Cessna and Beech have made aircraft that provide us with one or two more seats than can be used if topped off with fuel or a couple of hundred pounds of fuel capacity that must remain unused it you’ve filled all of the seats. You can have it one way or the other, but you usually can’t have your cake and eat it too. I’ve got PIC time in 105 different makes and models of aircraft, from gliders to jets, and I can count on one hand the number of them that you could honestly load up and go without regard to loading. It's a legitimate approach; but history has shown us time and time again that there are many of us out there who have no idea of how the concept works. Silly pilots, many of us think that if we've got 4 seats we can top off, load up, and go. However, if you're willing to ignore the aircraft limitations, legalities, and insurance ramifications involved, you pretty much can because there is nothing magical about that max gross weight number – the airplane will continue to fly. Bottom line, in all but a very few cases, if you want to carry 4 people, baggage and full fuel you’re going to need something with 6 seats. 

 

[johnggreen]

 

Gentlemen,

Are some of you wearing your headphones to tight?

Not meaning to insult, but SOME OF YOU GUYS SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF ME.  For anyone, and I mean ANYONE,  of whatever experience and education, to pontificate on what is the "safe" max gross of the Bravo without the reams of design and test data that went into that determination is sheer folly.  There is a plethora of factors that go into the determination of an aircraft's gross weight; about which none of you has even the faintest of knowledge.  Perhaps the silliest conclusion is that the manufacturer limited the gross weight and thereby the useful load for some minor, easily overcome parameter that can safely be ignored in the "real world".  Really? Mooney limited the gross weight of the Bravo because they wanted to limit its usefulness and appeal to buyers. I don't think so. 

There is a good reason that general aviation is five times more likely to kill you than an automobile and fifty times more likely than an airliner; poor pilotage.  That according to statistics is responsible for 80-85% of general aviation accidents and this blog removes all doubt in my mind as to why.

The FAA lists five HAZARDOUS ATTITUDES that contribute to poor pilot judgement and the first is:

ANTIAUTHORITY:  THE RULES DON'T APPLY TO ME.

The first thing I tell a student is DON'T LISTEN TO HANGAR TALK.  The ones that do the most talking almost always know the least.  What has been written in this thread has contributed much to the lackadaisical attitude that is so dangerous to resposible pilotage.  

If the gross weight doesn't "really" mean anything, then what about maneuvering speed in turbulent weather, or air speed limitations, or c.g., or weather minimums, icing forecasts, fuel reserves since really they are just all arbitrary rules put in place to limit your enjoyment of flying.

Now, don't get the idea that I care whether you go out and kill yourself.  I assure you I do not.  I do care about the guys who are trying to become responsible, safe pilots and who are looking, IN THIS BLOG, for the accepted methods of behavior, conduct, and pilotage in that regard, who might mistakingly believe that YOU ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALING ABOUT?

When I joined this blog, I put as my signature "Even a fool says something right some of the time."

Sorry, but I'm beginning to wonder.

My name is always available in my signature, but just for the point of it, here it is again.

John G. Green

CFII #1763946

[WardHolbrook]

Quote: johnggreen

Gentlemen,

Are some of you wearing your headphones to tight?

Not meaning to insult, but SOME OF YOU GUYS SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF ME.  For anyone, and I mean ANYONE,  of whatever experience and education, to pontificate on what is the "safe" max gross of the Bravo without the reams of design and test data that went into that determination is sheer folly.  There is a plethora of factors that go into the determination of an aircraft's gross weight; about which none of you has even the faintest of knowledge.  Perhaps the silliest conclusion is that the manufacturer limited the gross weight and thereby the useful load for some minor, easily overcome parameter that can safely be ignored in the "real world".  Really? Mooney limited the gross weight of the Bravo because they wanted to limit its usefulness and appeal to buyers. I don't think so. 

There is a good reason that general aviation is five times more likely to kill you than an automobile and fifty times more likely than an airliner; poor pilotage.  That according to statistics is responsible for 80-85% of general aviation accidents and this blog removes all doubt in my mind as to why.

The FAA lists five HAZARDOUS ATTITUDES that contribute to poor pilot judgement and the first is:

ANTIAUTHORITY:  THE RULES DON'T APPLY TO ME.

The first thing I tell a student is DON'T LISTEN TO HANGAR TALK.  The ones that do the most talking almost always know the least.  What has been written in this thread has contributed much to the lackadaisical attitude that is so dangerous to resposible pilotage.  

If the gross weight doesn't "really" mean anything, then what about maneuvering speed in turbulent weather, or air speed limitations, or c.g., or weather minimums, icing forecasts, fuel reserves since really they are just all arbitrary rules put in place to limit your enjoyment of flying.

Now, don't get the idea that I care whether you go out and kill yourself.  I assure you I do not.  I do care about the guys who are trying to become responsible, safe pilots and who are looking, IN THIS BLOG, for the accepted methods of behavior, conduct, and pilotage in that regard, who might mistakingly believe that YOU ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALING ABOUT?

When I joined this blog, I put as my signature "Even a fool says something right some of the time."

Sorry, but I'm beginning to wonder.

My name is always available in my signature, but just for the point of it, here it is again.

John G. Green

CFII #1763946

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: astelmaszek

Basically, my mission profile calls for between 3% to 5% overgross on take off, zero on landing. In a Bravo, it should be a non-event from what I gathered. Most older airplanes are usually 50 to 100 heavier than what the W&B says vs putting the airplane on the scale anyways. I know that because I've seen so many "less than 1lb, no W&B" entries from mechanics it's almost funny. Funny thing is if Mooney would have just for once in its company's life hired an engineer (that's a problem with a lot of american and european companies, too many lawyers around not enough engineers), all it had to do what put some vortex generators on a bravo and redesign the gear a bit and it could have created a full fuel and 4 seats bravo and it would still be in business. Oh yeah, and not dropped the TBM design...

[WardHolbrook]

Quote: astelmaszek

Basically, my mission profile calls for between 3% to 5% overgross on take off, zero on landing. In a Bravo, it should be a non-event from what I gathered. Most older airplanes are usually 50 to 100 heavier than what the W&B says vs putting the airplane on the scale anyways. I know that because I've seen so many "less than 1lb, no W&B" entries from mechanics it's almost funny. Funny thing is if Mooney would have just for once in its company's life hired an engineer (that's a problem with a lot of american and european companies, too many lawyers around not enough engineers), all it had to do what put some vortex generators on a bravo and redesign the gear a bit and it could have created a full fuel and 4 seats bravo and it would still be in business. Oh yeah, and not dropped the TBM design...

[Parker_Woodruff]

Can you just buy a turbonormalized Bonanza?

[AndyFromCB]

Thanks for the Bo idea but I already have a full fuel, 4 seat aircraft. My arrow, 1070 useful - 300 of fuel, honest 140kt machine at 10gph. The Mooney is being bought as a my personal machine. To all you panicking here, I was just simply asking a question because of the Monroy aero tanks installed in the Mooney seem like a weird idea and the previous owner has flown it topped off a few times, so we have a 945 useful load - 56lb of TKS flue - 720 of fuel leaves only 169lb. So if my 6'2 big butt tops of the tanks I'm 90lb over gross, throw in a flight bag and some lunch. Just wondering. Relax.

[KSMooniac]

Quote: astelmaszek

Thanks for the Bo idea but I already have a full fuel, 4 seat aircraft. My arrow, 1070 useful - 300 of fuel, honest 140kt machine at 10gph. The Mooney is being bought as a my personal machine. To all you panicking here, I was just simply asking a question because of the Monroy aero tanks installed in the Mooney seem like a weird idea and the previous owner has flown it topped off a few times, so we have a 945 useful load - 56lb of TKS flue - 720 of fuel leaves only 169lb. So if my 6'2 big butt tops of the tanks I'm 90lb over gross, throw in a flight bag and some lunch. Just wondering. Relax.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: astelmaszek

Thanks for the Bo idea but I already have a full fuel, 4 seat aircraft. My arrow, 1070 useful - 300 of fuel, honest 140kt machine at 10gph. The Mooney is being bought as a my personal machine. To all you panicking here, I was just simply asking a question because of the Monroy aero tanks installed in the Mooney seem like a weird idea and the previous owner has flown it topped off a few times, so we have a 945 useful load - 56lb of TKS flue - 720 of fuel leaves only 169lb. So if my 6'2 big butt tops of the tanks I'm 90lb over gross, throw in a flight bag and some lunch. Just wondering. Relax.

[AndyFromCB]

Quote: KSMooniac

This is why I was asking. I see one like that at my airport all the time, taking off with 2 big guys up, 2 women and all the gear they can fit in there. I don't know if it has AC but he has TKS. So they are easily pushing 400lb over gross and the plane takes off and still climbs better than my arrow.

[AndyFromCB]

As to keeping two airplanes, I'm less worried about the cost and more worried about the fact that the arrow might suffer from not being used enough. We only fly with all 4 seats filled twice a year at most, the rest of the time them Bravo will do for our Colorado and/or Wyoming runs. Don't really want to sell the arrow in the current market condition especiialy since it's one of the best Arrows in the country equipped as good as the Bravo I'm purchasing. 430W, S-TEC Autopilot, GPSS, WX-500, XM Weather, standby horizon and vacuum system, JPI 730 and every speed mod available, maintained to perfection. I might be looking for a partner and/or dry lease for that aircraft. If anyone knows anyone looking in western Iowa/eastern NE, I might be interested.

The primary reason for the Bravo is not speed but the ability to punch thru an icing layer on the way up and down. Still have no desire to fly in frontal icing where I have to climb thru 18K of ice but around here in Iowa all the time we have a 3000 feet of icing to get to the sunshine on top.

[carusoam]

AstelM,

 

So you are asking...

 

(1) How far overweight you can fly a Bravo?

(2) how much ice you can fly a FIKI Bravo through?

 

Overweight and picking up ice, are you feeling lucky?

 

Best regards,

 

-a-