Shadrach Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 I felt uncomfortable just looking at it. Just a thin ergonomically shaped piece of plastic seperating the pilot from oblivion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingin Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Wow! Â I never even considered the ceiling of my M20E before. Â Wonder what time-to-climb was. Having done the altitude chamber a few times, my hypoxia onset in the low 20s is gradual yet noticeable, and ideally you'd notice in time to descend or fix your O2 problem. What's the highest you've had your NA Mooney? Â 15.5 here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnicolette Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Time to climb looks like 41 minutes on the flightaware log. Â Wow!! http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9351M/history/20111204/2240Z/KWVI/KWVI/tracklog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted December 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Quote: Swingin Wow! Â I never even considered the ceiling of my M20E before. Â Wonder what time-to-climb was. Having done the altitude chamber a few times, my hypoxia onset in the low 20s is gradual yet noticeable, and ideally you'd notice in time to descend or fix your O2 problem. What's the highest you've had your NA Mooney? Â 15.5 here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted December 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Quote: Bnicolette Time to climb looks like 41 minutes on the flightaware log. Â Wow!! http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9351M/history/20111204/2240Z/KWVI/KWVI/tracklog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kris_adams Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 11,000 for me...yesterday in fact. I too was lightly loaded and pleasantly surprised at how "easily" it got there. The return trip was not as much fun with the headwind though. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4679H/history/20111230/1315Z/KLZU/KSUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyDave Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 I believe this was "Immelman" on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Quote: Shadrach I've had mine to 15.5 as well, though DA was probably closer to 18K. I was pretty impressed by the performance, though I was light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottfromiowa Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 No thank you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sreid Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Quote: scottfromiowa No thank you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJBrown Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 FL 260 in a Rocket more than once. FL170 in my J lowest alt available on MEAs west of Denver. FL195 in a 182 RG Center gave me a block altitude and I rode the mountain wave over the front range into Denver. Always with O2. Rocket was still climbing over 1000FPM at 26K. Why did I buy a J ? Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldeano Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Did 14,500 in my carb m20c over the Southern Rockies. Â I also was suprised at how easily it got up there. Â It felt about like my old Traumahawk at sea level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lahso Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 I did 15,000 in my C model once, and it climbed at 200 fpm for the last 1,000'. However, the tailwind was phenomenal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immelman Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 I didn't expect the airplane to do as well as it did. I am not, however, the first guy to try this. The legendary Jonathan Paul, who flew his E non stop coast to coast, did a similar experiment some years ago and went to 230. One thing that's different is that my conclusion is that this altitude is perfectly viable for a long range flight in an NA mooney; Jonathan in his writing, as I recall, thought otherwise. The airplane was stable, not mushing along, the cht's were cool, etc. I think on the right kind of trip - eastbound and solo - you could get phenomenal range with a nice tailwind. Based on what I observed, I think the airplane can do 250 at std atmosphere and light weight. I stopped at 210 ot of abundance of caution as I did not have a pulse oximeter (I do now, and want to learn all about it). For level cruise at 210, I got about 136ktas at between 6.5-7 gph. I made a big table with climb data and fuel to climb as well. Anyway this is yet another thing I am planning to write about but I got outed   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted January 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Quote: Immelman I didn't expect the airplane to do as well as it did. I am not, however, the first guy to try this. The legendary Jonathan Paul, who flew his E non stop coast to coast, did a similar experiment some years ago and went to 230. One thing that's different is that my conclusion is that this altitude is perfectly viable for a long range flight in an NA mooney; Jonathan in his writing, as I recall, thought otherwise. The airplane was stable, not mushing along, the cht's were cool, etc. I think on the right kind of trip - eastbound and solo - you could get phenomenal range with a nice tailwind. Based on what I observed, I think the airplane can do 250 at std atmosphere and light weight. I stopped at 210 ot of abundance of caution as I did not have a pulse oximeter (I do now, and want to learn all about it). For level cruise at 210, I got about 136ktas at between 6.5-7 gph. I made a big table with climb data and fuel to climb as well. Anyway this is yet another thing I am planning to write about but I got outed   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xftrplt Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 I hate to sound curmudgeonly, but I think flying a Mooney into the Flight Levels is, for most people, playing with fire. Our O2 equipment is primitive (laughable by military/airline standards); and, I suspect most pilots haven't had altitude training (not to mention recurrent chamber rides). And how quickly could you get down with, say, an inflight fire? There's also the temptation to top wx you shouldn't be overflying--with no escape route.  The USAF--with full masks and diluter-demand/100% O2 equipment maintained by pros and tested before each flight--restricts unpressurized flight to FL250, as do Part 121 regs for air carriers.  And this is for equipment that can generate descent rates greater than 4000 FPM. I've never been accused of excessive caution in aviation matters, but I believe this is an area that warrants considerable trepidation.  Scott(fromiowa) put it best with his laconic post:  No thank you. Happy New Year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonwojo Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 FL260 in N231BG (79 "K" Rocket) and FL270 in N9154W (91 "M" Liquid Rocket). The guys at Rocket used 54W as their test aircraft for the Liquid conversion and flew it to FL360 and said it was doing 1,000+ ft/min at that altitude. If they had a better O2 system, they said they would have gone to FL045. 54W was an impressive Mooney (1 of 5 long bodies with a liquid-cooled TSIO 550L derated to 335 HP)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregwatts Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Quote: xftrplt I hate to sound curmudgeonly, but I think flying a Mooney into the Flight Levels is, for most people, playing with fire. Our O2 equipment is primitive (laughable by military/airline standards); and, I suspect most pilots haven't had altitude training (not to mention recurrent chamber rides). And how quickly could you get down with, say, an inflight fire? There's also the temptation to top wx you shouldn't be overflying--with no escape route. The USAF--with full masks and diluter-demand/100% O2 equipment maintained by pros and tested before each flight--restricts unpressurized flight to FL250, as do Part 121 regs for air carriers. And this is for equipment that can generate descent rates greater than 4000 FPM. I've never been accused of excessive caution in aviation matters, but I believe this is an area that warrants considerable trepidation. Scott(fromiowa) put it best with his laconic post: No thank you. Happy New Year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted January 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Quote: xftrplt I hate to sound curmudgeonly, but I think flying a Mooney into the Flight Levels is, for most people, playing with fire. Our O2 equipment is primitive (laughable by military/airline standards); and, I suspect most pilots haven't had altitude training (not to mention recurrent chamber rides). And how quickly could you get down with, say, an inflight fire? There's also the temptation to top wx you shouldn't be overflying--with no escape route.  The USAF--with full masks and diluter-demand/100% O2 equipment maintained by pros and tested before each flight--restricts unpressurized flight to FL250, as do Part 121 regs for air carriers.  And this is for equipment that can generate descent rates greater than 4000 FPM. I've never been accused of excessive caution in aviation matters, but I believe this is an area that warrants considerable trepidation.  Scott(fromiowa) put it best with his laconic post:  No thank you. Happy New Year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldeano Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Quote: Shadrach I tend to agree about the risks, but I would not judge someone who felt that they had adequately contemplated and prepared for those risks, unless it was revealed that they'd been negligent. The rapid decent issue brings up other questions. In the event of a fire, how quickly could you descend? I personally would toss things like gear and flap speed limitations out the window as necessary. I really would not care if I had to replace gear doors that had blown off. The president of the company said in 1961 that: "the M20 airframe has been dived in excess of 330 mph and withstood static tests in excess of six G's without failure as well as withstanding the flutter test at over 200 mph." I'm not saying that I'd be winding the airspeed up to 300mph. But if I needed to get down in case of fire, I think that -4000fpm or more might be possible if you knew there was a good chance that this would be the last time the aircraft flew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted January 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Quote: eldeano I tend to agree about the risks, but I would not judge someone who felt that they had adequately contemplated and prepared for those risks, unless it was revealed that they'd been negligent. The rapid decent issue brings up other questions. In the event of a fire, how quickly could you descend? I personally would toss things like gear and flap speed limitations out the window as necessary. I really would not care if I had to replace gear doors that had blown off. The president of the company said in 1961 that: "the M20 airframe has been dived in excess of 330 mph and withstood static tests in excess of six G's without failure as well as withstanding the flutter test at over 200 mph." I'm not saying that I'd be winding the airspeed up to 300mph. But if I needed to get down in case of fire, I think that -4000fpm or more might be possible if you knew there was a good chance that this would be the last time the aircraft flew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarence Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 A good friend of mine flew his N/A RV6 to just over FL260 for a new Canadian altitude records many years ago. Have you ever looked at how small those wings are? Clarence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTWreck Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Quote: Clarence A good friend of mine flew his N/A RV6 to just over FL260 for a new Canadian altitude records many years ago. Have you ever looked at how small those wings are?  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted January 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Quote: GTWreck  While wing size is obviously much smaller, the thing is that you can hang 200hp on the front of an RV-6 and it's going to weigh 1000+lbs less than a Mooney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTWreck Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Quote: Shadrach  While wing size is obviously much smaller, the thing is that you can hang 200hp on the front of an RV-6 and it's going to weigh 1000+lbs less than a Mooney. 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.