Danb Posted Monday at 08:47 PM Report Posted Monday at 08:47 PM 51 minutes ago, Shadrach said: I wasn’t trying to be a smart ass either. I should’ve included turbo singles in my list of potential upgrades to gain significant time compression. Indeed there is no question that a Type S has significant speed advantage over my little 4 cyl M20F. The challenge for me is that I also need payload for a family of four. So I can get more time compression or I can get better useful load or I can get more range from an NA single but if I want more of all three, it’s probably kerosene or high performance twin. I can put 800lbs in the cabin and go 500nm in under 3.5 hours with 1hr reserves. This leaves us room for the little ones to grow. That is the mission. I was not poo-pooing any one else’s aircraft choices only offering a rational for why 148kts is probably fine to live with and not worth obsessing over. My dad bought three Mooney’s from Henry Weber in the span of one decade. He has only nice things to say about the man. Without question Mr Weber was one of the nicest most honest men you’d have the honor to meet. He was a no nonsense guy who meant what he said and said what he meant. I always felt fairly treated at his shop in addition it’s carried on in my opinion. Unfortunately we’re running out of up and coming youngsters who want to get into the business. DB 1 1
Shadrach Posted Tuesday at 02:51 AM Report Posted Tuesday at 02:51 AM 6 hours ago, AndreiC said: Wow, your F really is a wonderful machine. What is the useful load? Over 1000 lbs? In my E if I put 800 lbs in the cabin I can barely fly 1 hour with 1 hour reserve... (but I have bladders and 3-blade prop, both of which add to the weight). UL is currently 1059lbs. She flys better than she looks…
Shadrach Posted Tuesday at 03:22 AM Report Posted Tuesday at 03:22 AM 7 hours ago, AndreiC said: Well I got some real life data. Over the weekend I flew some long flights, from Madison WI to Santa Fe NM (two days, with a stopover in Lincoln, NE) and back (one day yesterday). On the way down I had some unforecasted headwinds (they had forecast headwinds to be 8-10kts at 16500, but they were more like 15-20kts) but made up for it on the way back (30-35kts tailwind at 15000). The overall distance covered was 1775nm in 12h10m, for a complete block to block average speed of 145.89 kts. Not so bad. I've been trying to figure out from this data what is a good guess of my block-to-block speed without wind is, and a rough estimate seems to be around 140-141 kts, so about 5 hts slower than @Shadrach's. Of course, the longer the legs the closer the block-to-block speed is to TAS. I fly about 8-10 hours a month for work and usually only spend an hour or so on the ground at my destination. For this reason, I frequently fly both outbound and return legs under very similar conditions. That being said it’s nearly impossible to account for all the variables to get a true no wind block speed. Winds she. You might get additional vectors or asked to reduce speed or be given a 360 for spacing or have to extend you downwind as your cleared #3 for landing. The more data you have the less the noise matters.
Recommended Posts