carusoam Posted May 18, 2021 Report Share Posted May 18, 2021 11 hours ago, thinwing said: I wonder if Scott Crossfield was flying an Ovation that day in a thunder storm,if the wings would have survived the turbulence https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2007/september/27/ntsb-releases-final-report-on-crossfield-crash Cessna 210 if I read that correctly... (?) Somebody bent a Mooney wing in a thunderstorm once... they survived the experience... the wing had quite the bend to it... Probably would have to compare the windshear of the day for both... I’d rather be in a Mooney, if I couldn’t have avoided the storm... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibra Posted May 18, 2021 Report Share Posted May 18, 2021 10 hours ago, carusoam said: Probably would have to compare the windshear of the day for both... A bit of topic, I had the impression getting dislocated in a thunderstorm has to do with loss of speed & bank angle while throwing load of extra engine power rather than wing strength? maybe not applicable to cells one find in Botswana or Florida/Texas but one should not die in the ones found in Europe if they keep a low speed, bank and power even in likes of C210 or Mooney some even managed to get in/out in wood & fabric with 65hp or fibreglass gliders probably keeping wings levels and low speed/power If you throw 310hp on 60deg bank & -5deg pitch for 10 seconds, it should be enough to break any aircraft no matter what the wing materials & strength Assuming pilot can keep wing level and nail his 100kias when it’s bumpy, M20R & C210 have similar wide speed ranges (60kts to 200kts), similar rough air penetrations and both in 20lbs/ft ish wing loads, they should react the same way to windsheer and have similar min/max speed protections? I don’t see the point comparing max G limits, the pilot will lose consciousness way before getting to static 20G that break the wings, unless they have gone already past VNE flying at 1G... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeeBee Posted May 18, 2021 Report Share Posted May 18, 2021 16 minutes ago, Ibra said: A bit of topic, I had the impression getting dislocated in a thunderstorm has to do with loss of speed & bank angle while throwing load of extra engine power rather than wing strength? maybe not applicable to cells one find in Botswana or Florida/Texas but one should not die in the ones found in Europe if they keep a low speed, bank and power even in likes of C210 or Mooney some even managed to get in/out in wood & fabric with 65hp or fibreglass gliders probably keeping wings levels and low speed/power If you throw 310hp on 60deg bank & -5deg pitch for 10 seconds, it should be enough to break any aircraft no matter what the wing materials & strength Assuming pilot can keep wing level and nail his 100kias when it’s bumpy, M20R & C210 have similar wide speed ranges (60kts to 200kts), similar rough air penetrations and both in 20lbs/ft ish wing loads, they should react the same way to windsheer and have similar min/max speed protections? I don’t see the point comparing max G limits, the pilot will lose consciousness way before getting to static 20G that break the wings, unless they have gone already past VNE flying at 1G... The most severe thunderstorm I have ever seen was in Rome. Even with the gain fully down on the radar, I was painting red. I have went around due to wind shear more in Paris and Rome than I ever did in Atlanta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vorlon1 Posted May 18, 2021 Report Share Posted May 18, 2021 18 hours ago, BKlott said: Good point! Every time I climb the ladder to fuel the 172, I think about the Grumman Cheetah I once had and long for a C model like my Dad owned. And I thought he was going to reference the cost of the fuel... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted May 19, 2021 Report Share Posted May 19, 2021 4 hours ago, vorlon1 said: And I thought he was going to reference the cost of the fuel... It would make a nice comparison, flight time AND trip fuel when someone in a Mooney travels with someone in a 182. Once upon a new pilot, I made a long trek in my C with friends in a 172. My wife and I carried a couple of their bags, and we made every planned fuel stop with them (3 Slowhawk hours maximum). I logged 25.4 hours round-trip, they logged 36, but neither of us added up fuel burned. They always departed first; I was always waiting for them to arrive, often tied down, unloaded and covered up. On the longest leg, I also picked up the rental car, drove across town, checked into the hotel, took our baggage up then went back to wait for them . . . . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted May 19, 2021 Report Share Posted May 19, 2021 7 hours ago, Ibra said: A bit of topic, I had the impression getting dislocated in a thunderstorm has to do with loss of speed & bank angle while throwing load of extra engine power rather than wing strength? maybe not applicable to cells one find in Botswana or Florida/Texas but one should not die in the ones found in Europe if they keep a low speed, bank and power even in likes of C210 or Mooney some even managed to get in/out in wood & fabric with 65hp or fibreglass gliders probably keeping wings levels and low speed/power If you throw 310hp on 60deg bank & -5deg pitch for 10 seconds, it should be enough to break any aircraft no matter what the wing materials & strength Assuming pilot can keep wing level and nail his 100kias when it’s bumpy, M20R & C210 have similar wide speed ranges (60kts to 200kts), similar rough air penetrations and both in 20lbs/ft ish wing loads, they should react the same way to windsheer and have similar min/max speed protections? I don’t see the point comparing max G limits, the pilot will lose consciousness way before getting to static 20G that break the wings, unless they have gone already past VNE flying at 1G... This would be the discussion on using maneuvering speed... Slow down enough... so that your stall speed keeps the wings from loading up... When penetrating the thunderstorms in the US... we have 2kfpm downward airflow... and 6kfpm upward airflow.... (from fuzzy memory) And the transition between these columns of moving air are quite short... Picture what happens to the AOA when you fly into a column of moving air... Once established flying again... outclimbing a 2kfpm sink rate near the ground is going to require a lot of excess power... the vertical column spreads out as it nears the ground and may turn into a hellacious tail wind... This bit of knowledge was generated after a big jet came up short of a runway... Now we have windsheer sensors all around the airports.... So... you are right on topic! The Mooney would be the weapon of choice over the C182 or CiSR20 Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibra Posted May 19, 2021 Report Share Posted May 19, 2021 5 hours ago, carusoam said: Picture what happens to the AOA when you fly into a column of moving air... Indeed, just nail AoA to 5deg and smile , what is interesting, the -2kfpm will not get you stalled instantly but it will if you try to maintain altitude using power and you lose airspeed, the +2kfpm will get you stalled instantly but if you maintain altitude you slowly gain airspeed - If you maintain altitude, you end up broke on airspeed going bellow VS or past VNE - If you accelerate in sink & decelerate in updraft, you will keep same AoA and may get away with more height: you spend less time in -kfpm and more time in +kfpm As rough conversion wing L/D = 10 and zero inertia or wing load, will get you +/-20kts on ASI if you keep altitude on +/-2kfpm column of moving air, it’s not the end of the world, but it’s way more easier to survive +/-2kfpm behind hills in sunny days with visible horizon than +/-2kfpm in convective clouds, as long as you don’t hit the ground and keep AoA indicator from +1deg & +9deg 5 hours ago, carusoam said: Once established flying again... outclimbing a 2kfpm sink rate near the ground is going to require a lot of excess power... Well near the ground you don’t have much updrafts Yes I think the biggest mistake is slowing down too much in huge sink trying to out-climb with power, but it’s a hard choice between slow speeds: more time is spent in sink but more climb rate vs faster speeds: less time spent in sink but low climb rate, which one I should pick? If have 1000ft agl to spare with full power and caught in -2kfpm in some 1nm area, does the Mooney like it with 125kts or 75kts? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKlott Posted May 20, 2021 Report Share Posted May 20, 2021 On 5/18/2021 at 9:52 PM, Hank said: It would make a nice comparison, flight time AND trip fuel when someone in a Mooney travels with someone in a 182. Once upon a new pilot, I made a long trek in my C with friends in a 172. My wife and I carried a couple of their bags, and we made every planned fuel stop with them (3 Slowhawk hours maximum). I logged 25.4 hours round-trip, they logged 36, but neither of us added up fuel burned. They always departed first; I was always waiting for them to arrive, often tied down, unloaded and covered up. On the longest leg, I also picked up the rental car, drove across town, checked into the hotel, took our baggage up then went back to wait for them . . . . The 172 is NOT a good cross country plane, although I have done some long cross country flights in mine. I normally plan on 3 hour and 45 minute legs up to a maximum of 4 hours per leg when I have a distance to go. 3 hour maximum legs is typically just not going to cut it and will only lengthen your ordeal. I would bet the 172 owners purchased and burned more fuel on those flights than you ran through your C model. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that was the case. You just cannot beat a C or E model for fast, fuel efficient cross country travel. A lot of guys ask “What is your mission?” when discussing which airplane to buy. A different approach is to select an airplane that will work well for all the missions that you are likely you to fly. In other words, a “good all around” airplane. Clearly a 182 is far better at flying long cross country flights and better at high density altitude situations (like a trip out West would provide) than a 172. The 172 is less expensive to feed for local flying and cheaper at overhaul time. The Mooney shines in fuel efficient cruise speed just like Al Mooney designed it to do. On a hot summer day, taking off from somewhere like Winslow, Arizona or Tucumcari, New Mexico, you may prefer the extra power and wing from a 182. There is just no perfect airplane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fry Posted May 22, 2021 Report Share Posted May 22, 2021 182: good for people who love to take pictures of the landscape. Solid platform, if a bit slow. M20R: two classes above the 182. A travel machine, speed machine, beauty on the ramp. SR20: certainly a nice airplane, but no comparison. Weak, nasty stall characteristics, expensive regular chute repacking, optically a "yoghurt cup" (as we say in Germany). 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.