I need an instrument rating.

Apache123

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
546
Location
Lake Forest, IL
Display Name

Display name:
Hey, Steve!
I'm on the ground wishing I was in the sky. Solid overcast layer in this area with the ceiling at 2000' and tops at 3500'. Just venting frustration and justifying my decision by posting it publicly. =P

Only 12 more hours until I'm at 50xc and then hopefully I can dedicate the time to just hammer that thing out.
 
I'm on the ground wishing I was in the sky. Solid overcast layer in this area with the ceiling at 2000' and tops at 3500'. Just venting frustration and justifying my decision by posting it publicly. =P

Only 12 more hours until I'm at 50xc and then hopefully I can dedicate the time to just hammer that thing out.

You own and have been flying a twin and only have 38hrs XC time?
 
You own and have been flying a twin and only have 38hrs XC time?

That seems a little odd to me. I did my entire PIC XC time in a span of 3 months once I owned.

I'd also like to add that today there are broken clouds at 5,500 (we're at 1,200) and I'd LOVE to be up there but the temp at 6,000 is -4C... icy icy icy :(
 
You own and have been flying a twin and only have 38hrs XC time?

Most of my flights are within the terminal area of chicago. If I depart KUGN and fly down near gary but dont land, then turn around and my only airport at which I landed is KUGN that isnt loggable as XC correct?

Also I only have about 160ish hrs total ^_^ The twin isnt the most economical sure, but it is what I enjoy. =)

Edit: spelling.
 
Most of my flights are within the terminal area of chicago. If I depart KUGN and fly down near gary but dont land, then turn around and my only airport at which I landed is KUGN that isnt loggable as XC correct?

Also I only have about 160ish hrs total ^_^ The twin isnt the most economical sure, but it is what I enjoy. =)

Edit: spelling.

Why not land then? That's how I built most of my XC PIC time. I flew around till it was time to turn around (I planned how long I was going to fly for the most part) went to the nearest airport landed, taxid back and left again.
 
Most of my flights are within the terminal area of chicago. If I depart KUGN and fly down near gary but dont land, then turn around and my only airport at which I landed is KUGN that isnt loggable as XC correct?

Also I only have about 160ish hrs total ^_^ The twin isnt the most economical sure, but it is what I enjoy. =)

Edit: spelling.

Gotcha.
 
I'm on the ground wishing I was in the sky. Solid overcast layer in this area with the ceiling at 2000' and tops at 3500'. Just venting frustration and justifying my decision by posting it publicly. =P

Only 12 more hours until I'm at 50xc and then hopefully I can dedicate the time to just hammer that thing out.
Not all that useful on a day like today. To use the instrument rating in any practical way this time of year you're going to need to fit that apache with boots, hot props, and 540 turbo engines.
 
You don't need 50 hours XC to start instrument training...you need 50 hours to have an instrument rating.

Have you started your instrument training?
 
You don't need 50 hours XC to start instrument training...you need 50 hours to have an instrument rating.

Have you started your instrument training?

I believe that some of the accelerated courses require you to have the XC time. Maybe that is his plan.
 
PIC wants to see 45 hours XC PIC before starting the 10-day program, planning to get the other five during training (not hard at all do do, especially when you throw in one full day for the long IFR XC. We've made exceptions down to 40 with the understanding that the client will probably fly more than the usual number of hours in training, and I think I could get 15 hours of XC if we really worked at it.
 
PIC wants to see 45 hours XC PIC before starting the 10-day program, planning to get the other five during training (not hard at all do do, especially when you throw in one full day for the long IFR XC. We've made exceptions down to 40 with the understanding that the client will probably fly more than the usual number of hours in training, and I think I could get 15 hours of XC if we really worked at it.

Then he is good to go :yes:
 
Then he is good to go :yes:
Then if he calls 800-I-FLY-IFR on next week, he can be started on his IR with an instructor with 1000 hours of PA23 time quite soon -- I think I'm open after about March 5. If he can't wait, I'm sure they'll find someone to fly with him as soon as he wants. ;)
 
Then if he calls 800-I-FLY-IFR on next week, he can be started on his IR with an instructor with 1000 hours of PA23 time quite soon -- I think I'm open after about March 5. If he can't wait, I'm sure they'll find someone to fly with him as soon as he wants. ;)

Yep, I'll be looking for an accelerated program. I haven't started any training yet, mainly I'm focusing on studying for the written and getting that done first.

I'm still debating weather to install an approach certified gps prior to beginning training.
 
I'm still debating weather to install an approach certified gps prior to beginning training.
There are two ways to look at this. One is to go with the simplest system so there's less on which to be tested on the practical test, and then get trained on the additional equipment later. The other is to go ahead and get the equipment with which you want to operate and learn it during your instrument training. I've had success both ways, but to be honest, the IR training takes less time and effort if you do it the simplest way. The key to long-term success with that is going back to a good instructor to learn the GPS properly after you get it installed.
 
There are two ways to look at this. One is to go with the simplest system so there's less on which to be tested on the practical test, and then get trained on the additional equipment later. The other is to go ahead and get the equipment with which you want to operate and learn it during your instrument training. I've had success both ways, but to be honest, the IR training takes less time and effort if you do it the simplest way. The key to long-term success with that is going back to a good instructor to learn the GPS properly after you get it installed.
I can vouch for the truth of this from my own experience. I had nearly 100 hours under the hood when I took my checkride, mostly because I did a lot of training in spurts while I learned the complex panel in the plane I bought, and had to keep scraping the rust off my skills again and again. Of course the other side of that argument is that if you learn with the more basic equipment and then move up to something more complex, you still need the transition training later. I think in the end, you're in the same place when you're ready to fly IFR with the WAAS unit. My personal feeling is that it doesn't really matter whether you can get the rating more quickly, unless you're going to make use of it in the more basic airplane.
 
You don't need 50 hours XC to start instrument training...you need 50 hours to have an instrument rating.

Have you started your instrument training?
Or more specifically you need 50 XC to take the checkride.
 
I'm on the ground wishing I was in the sky. Solid overcast layer in this area with the ceiling at 2000' and tops at 3500'. Just venting frustration and justifying my decision by posting it publicly. =P

Only 12 more hours until I'm at 50xc and then hopefully I can dedicate the time to just hammer that thing out.

What am I missing here? 2,000' ceiling is VFR. :dunno:
 
What am I missing here? 2,000' ceiling is VFR. :dunno:
Flying around at 1500 AGL isn't always comfortable for many people in higher performance aircraft, especially if terrain or obstructions are factors. There are many places where the TV towers would be sticking up into the clouds with a 2000-foot ceiling. Even in Baltimore, where terrain isn't much of an issue, there is an area where the TV towers extend up into the base of the overlying B-space (through which VFR transit is almost never approved). So I can see the reluctance of someone to fly VFR in some places without more than a 2000-foot ceiling, which by FAA standards is considered "marginal VFR" conditions.
 
Flying around at 1500 AGL isn't always comfortable for many people in higher performance aircraft, especially if terrain or obstructions are factors. There are many places where the TV towers would be sticking up into the clouds with a 2000-foot ceiling. Even in Baltimore, where terrain isn't much of an issue, there is an area where the TV towers extend up into the base of the overlying B-space (through which VFR transit is almost never approved). So I can see the reluctance of someone to fly VFR in some places without more than a 2000-foot ceiling, which by FAA standards is considered "marginal VFR" conditions.

Roger that.

It all depends on what the trend is also. If the ceiling is raising time to head to the airport. If the ceiling is lowering stay home. Look for the trends up wind. ;)

Your "Tip of the Day" brought to you by Geico. :lol:
 
Not all that useful on a day like today. To use the instrument rating in any practical way this time of year you're going to need to fit that apache with boots, hot props, and 540 turbo engines.
Seneca II :)
Yes you need an IR. But you also need a course in weather. Like Scott's.
 
Seneca II :)
Yes you need an IR. But you also need a course in weather. Like Scott's.

Yep

With my 4 bangers and no boots I can zoom climb through about a 1000ft thick layer, that's my limit and I have to be able to see the top through some holes. The apache won't 'zoom' so it can't climb fast enough to play that game.
 
Seneca II :)
Yes you need an IR. But you also need a course in weather. Like Scott's.

You can do that later though, on your own time. I gave myself a post-grad instrument flying course for about $75. Bought a couple of books used on amazon (Richard Collins and Robert Buck - I re-read regularly) and a few videos and online downloads. Absolutely necessary as the amount of knowledge required to pass the practical and written is not sufficient to give you confidence, or keep you safe.

Oh, and i'd recommend passing the exam in a simple plane and then getting introduced to GPS later.
 
Last edited:
Not all that useful on a day like today. To use the instrument rating in any practical way this time of year you're going to need to fit that apache with boots, hot props, and 540 turbo engines.

Sure it is. Well, I don't know what "today" was, but winter IFR isn't an automatic no-go. I flew IFR in the midwest all weekend:

VMC climbout of KMWC on Friday evening, approach into KSPW had tops a few thousand feet up, flew the full ILS with a DME arc and broke out about 800 AGL. Saturday noon-ish takeoff from KSPW was very similar, OVC008 and about 2SM, climbed out to an absolutely beautiful day on top, tops at 4,000. Went over the lake on O2 at 17,000 to KCAD, VMC on the way down this time. Sunday, IFR departure from KCAD with crummy vis and a layer from about 5500-7000. Cruised at 16,000 over the lake with one thin layer above (sun was visible), then dropped through 4 layers to an ILS 21 KSBM, wx was just barely above circling mins and I circled to runway 13 due to some pretty strong winds blowing down that runway. Took the courtesy car to lunch and waited out the worst of the rest of the rain storm, then was IMC from about 600 AGL on takeoff all the way to the minimums on the LOC 15L back into KMWC.

Not a trace of ice the entire weekend.

It is simply not true that the IR is not useful in the north during the winter. I have more ice cancellations in spring and fall, and I've picked up a trace of ice in August. It does demand that you learn as much as possible and plan your flights VERY carefully, but this past weekend an airplane wouldn't have done me much good without the instrument rating.

Steve, no need to have the 50 hours to start your training - I got a pretty good amount of XC instrument time while working on my rating, and that also allowed me to get lots of unfamiliar approaches in. Have fun, and good luck!
 
Not a trace of ice the entire weekend.
What were the temperatures in those clouds? If they were below freezing, what were your outs in case you did run into ice?

I'm not challenging your decisions, far from it, but I'm fairly new to this and would like to learn. I flew IFR on Saturday too, from KVLL to KAZO and back after dark. Absolutely no ice, and the temps were below freezing on the ground and all the way up. Of course, it was CAVU with just a trace of haze in the boundary layer (moisture trapped under an inversion). I wouldn't have so much as gone through a 1000-foot layer at those temps, given no way out below.
 
I couldn't fly all weekend in Arizona, because of ice. Friday/Saturday I was going to go somewhere IFR and clouds were scattered at 4,000, broken at 7,000 and overcast at 8,000 IIRC. There was an Airmet Zulu both days and the temps ranged from +3C to -10C.. And rain. If I was at 5,000 feet it easily could have turned into freezing rain... Had to make it a no-go or go VFR. With how unstable the air was I figured I'd just not go, I didn't feel like getting the snot pounded out of me to just build time.
 
What were the temperatures in those clouds? If they were below freezing, what were your outs in case you did run into ice?

I'm not challenging your decisions, far from it, but I'm fairly new to this and would like to learn.

One of the weaknesses of the Mooney is a really terrible OAT gauge - It goes from -40 to +40 C in a little sweep gauge marked at 10º increments with a yellow range from -10 to +10. So, I can't really tell you what the temps were because even when you're looking at the gauge it's pretty much a guess!

In addition to spending a lot of time looking at that little gauge, I also looked at so many Skew-T's and icing forecasts over the weekend that I don't remember the exact details for sure. I'll try, though...

Friday night, I wasn't expecting any actual at all - There was an undercast for maybe 1/3 of the middle section of the flight with tops at 3-4K, and clear at both ends. I flew the arc at 4000 and was in the clear until descending through the thin layer on final. Forget the temps, but I do remember thinking the likelihood of ice was low or I'd have landed farther west where it was clear. IIRC it was very cold. Same for the climbout on Saturday, I remember after reviewing the various information that the icing risk was very low and the tops were also quite low. I think I was on top in under 3 minutes on takeoff.

Sunday, the weather was quite different than Friday. IIRC, the Skew-T's were calling for above-freezing temps from 10,000 feet on down. Upon departure from KCAD, I took off to the east, since it had been recently clear and the weather was moving in from the west. There'd been a high stratus layer that moved in first, and ceilings dropped as time went by, though they were still a few thousand feet up. I was quite ready to drop right back into KCAD if I picked anything up in the climb, and it was warm at the surface. I climbed through a couple layers on the way up, maybe 3 thousand feet total IMC in the climb to 16,000.

Cruise at 16,000 was between layers, with one thin layer above as noted before. I filed not to home, but to SBM due to heavier precip to the south, and due to the lake crossing I was descending very quickly - MKE Approach asked at least twice if I was going to be able to make it down in time or if I'd need vectors for the descent. I'd been descending at 14" MP since I was up high, and as I got down lower I popped the speed brakes and dropped the gear to assist in the descent. Anyway, the OAT was below freezing only for the first thin layer I went down through, and there was no precip prior to dropping well into above-freezing altitudes so I wasn't too worried about freezing rain aloft. Had I encountered any precip, I'd have turned to the north and landed at GRB or elsewhere to the north, where the weather was a lot clearer.

For the final leg, I felt somewhat better because I'd actually descended through all the stuff I was about to climb into, and had a chance to review all the products again. I probably could have made it home without the stop, but the heavier rain (and presumably with it a higher chance of SLD) exceeded my comfort zone. I purposely filed from KCAD-MTW-KSBM rather than KCAD-MTW-KMWC because I wanted the choice to be "only go home if everything is good" rather than "divert if it looks bad." Too easy to get get-home-itis otherwise.

Other tools at my disposal: Well, the pitot heat and prop de-ice were both cranking, but I'd say the most important things I had were an airplane with performance to spare, lots of fuel, and especially a willingness to change plans. After all, I figured that there were hundreds of options west of the lake that would be available and safe and result in a much shorter trip home in a rental car than the 8-hour drive home from KCAD. KGRB, in particular, had ceilings above the freezing level when I left, and that's only a 2.5-hour drive or so from home. KSBM is only about an hour or so from home, and Kelsey's parents were willing to come get us from there if necessary (it is GREAT to have future in-laws who understand GA - her grandfather was a pilot too).

Sorry I don't remember all the specific details on each leg, but hopefully I've given you enough to get at least part of the thought process and learn something. In the grand scheme of things, I think that the most important thing by far is the willingness and ability to change plans at the first sign that things aren't going how you want them to. I'll sometimes set parameters to follow to force me to change plans by a certain point, like "if X condition isn't met by point or time Y, I'm going to do Z or something else." But for the most part, it's just thinking flexibly so that you can change plans any time. The mission, on every flight, is not to get to point B, it's to get back on the ground safely, wherever that may be. Getting to point B is a bonus.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Kent. If it was above freezing from 10K down, then I can certainly see that you had plenty of outs. I'm surprised that it was though, since here in southern MI on Saturday, it was below freezing on the ground and only got up to about 0C at 4000. I'm not sure if it went higher than that up above, but any time I see temps below freezing on the ground I'm antsy about encountering any IMC.

I totally agree about keeping your plans flexible. It's a great way to approach flying, viewing the goal as getting back on the ground safely. Cuts away all the get-there-itis. Hopefully I don't let it affect my decisions once I'm in the air, but in pre-flight planning I always make sure I'm comfortable with the idea of having to leave the plane somewhere. If I'm not, if I absolutely have to be back by a certain time, I don't launch.

One difference between your case and mine is that you have a much more capable plane with a lot of spare power. You can zoom through layers that would take me significantly longer to get through. But it sounds like the biggest difference was the temperatures. The only time this year that we've seen flyable IFR weather with above 0C temps on the ground was in early January, and I took advantage of it to get my ticket wet. It seems that whenever it's IFR or even MVFR here, the clouds are full of ice (today is a good example).
 
Thanks Kent. If it was above freezing from 10K down, then I can certainly see that you had plenty of outs. I'm surprised that it was though, since here in southern MI on Saturday, it was below freezing on the ground and only got up to about 0C at 4000.

Yep - It warmed up significantly on Sunday with a strong southerly flow as the weather system moved in from the west. In fact, on my last leg from KSBM to KMWC, I had a 55-knot headwind at 4,000 feet - Only 105 knots GS in the Ovation! That's by far the worst groundspeed I've ever gotten in it - I think my previous low was 137 KGS in cruise.

OAT when I landed at KMWC was about 40, and I think it peaked around 43 in the evening. Back down to 27 now though!

Hopefully I don't let it affect my decisions once I'm in the air, but in pre-flight planning I always make sure I'm comfortable with the idea of having to leave the plane somewhere. If I'm not, if I absolutely have to be back by a certain time, I don't launch.

My favorite trick for the "have-to-be-there" situations is to leave early enough that I could drive. Then, I get to my destination very early, and I get home nice and early, but don't place myself in a "must-fly" situation as I could either drive the whole trip if it's a no-go for flying, or if something happens in the air I can rent a car, drive the rest of the way, and still be early. Luckily, I have very few situations where I really have to be somewhere.

One difference between your case and mine is that you have a much more capable plane with a lot of spare power. You can zoom through layers that would take me significantly longer to get through.

Yep - The Ovation climbs to 10,000 feet in under 10 minutes, and that's in a cruise climb configuration from about 1000 AGL. Upon reaching 17,000 the other day, I was getting about 400 fpm, slower than cruise climb but faster than Vy. I made it to FL190 last July on the way home from Washington.

There's no substitute for horsepower!
 
Yep - It warmed up significantly on Sunday with a strong southerly flow as the weather system moved in from the west. In fact, on my last leg from KSBM to KMWC, I had a 55-knot headwind at 4,000 feet - Only 105 knots GS in the Ovation! That's by far the worst groundspeed I've ever gotten in it - I think my previous low was 137 KGS in cruise.
That's right -- I remember that it was warmer, with lowering clouds through the day, but also very windy, and I was thinking toward evening that it would be a nice day to get in some actual if the winds weren't so fierce. I think there were Tango airmets and even LLWS, at least overnight.

My favorite trick for the "have-to-be-there" situations is to leave early enough that I could drive. Then, I get to my destination very early, and I get home nice and early, but don't place myself in a "must-fly" situation as I could either drive the whole trip if it's a no-go for flying, or if something happens in the air I can rent a car, drive the rest of the way, and still be early. Luckily, I have very few situations where I really have to be somewhere.
During the week I'm pretty well chained to work, except for Thursdays. My main teaching days are MWF, and Mondays especially, if I got stranded somewhere on a Sunday night, it would be next to impossible to find a substitute in time. So my flying on weekends is under the constraint that I don't do dinner runs farther than about KJXN on Sundays. I was even uncomfortable with the idea of taking the PnP mission to KFEP later in the day because if my plane crapped out at the destination, I'd be driving all night just to get home in time for a full day of work on Friday.
Yep - The Ovation climbs to 10,000 feet in under 10 minutes, and that's in a cruise climb configuration from about 1000 AGL. Upon reaching 17,000 the other day, I was getting about 400 fpm, slower than cruise climb but faster than Vy. I made it to FL190 last July on the way home from Washington.
That's quite impressive. IIRC you are NA right, no turbos? In my plane, I notice a significant drop in climb rate by the time I reach 6000, and I'm down to about 400 fpm at Vy by about 8000 DA. I used to think that people who said Cardinals were underpowered were just perpetuating a myth dating from the first 150hp '68s, but I can see where they have a point. Still, Mooney proved that the 200hp IO360 is a very capable engine. So it's not just horsepower, although the more the better, but still, it's also the airframe. Cardinals look a lot more aerodynamic than they actually are. Even with the wheels tucked up in the belly, there's apparently a lot of drag that prevents that engine from really shining.

And although I hope never to be in a position to test his assertion, my mechanic believes that they carry ice very poorly.
 
That's quite impressive. IIRC you are NA right, no turbos?

Correct.

Still, Mooney proved that the 200hp IO360 is a very capable engine. So it's not just horsepower, although the more the better, but still, it's also the airframe.

The Ovation has it even better - A 280hp IO-550. Tons of power on an efficient airframe makes it quite the rocket ship. :) At 18,000 feet, max power would be about 50%, or 140hp on the Ovation - That's equivalent to 70% on a 200hp 201.
 
Not all that useful on a day like today. To use the instrument rating in any practical way this time of year you're going to need to fit that apache with boots, hot props, and 540 turbo engines.

I was going to post that.

Too cold. FIKI.
 
The Ovation has it even better - A 280hp IO-550. Tons of power on an efficient airframe makes it quite the rocket ship. :) At 18,000 feet, max power would be about 50%, or 140hp on the Ovation - That's equivalent to 70% on a 200hp 201.
Oh, I knew the Ovation didn't have the 360. But earlier Mooneys that do still perform better than my Cardinal. Across from my hangar row is a J model whose owner uses for winter IFR travel across Michigan quite regularly. In fact, he's launched on days when I'd think good and hard even if I was FIKI. But no doubt some of that boldness has to do with the performance he gets out of that bird.

If I could afford to operate one, I'd have seriously considered buying your Ovation while it was up for sale. It's the only model Mooney I've seen that looks like it has enough space for a bicycle or two in back.
 
If I could afford to operate one, I'd have seriously considered buying your Ovation while it was up for sale. It's the only model Mooney I've seen that looks like it has enough space for a bicycle or two in back.

Hmmm... Maybe, with wheels off - I think the hard part would be just getting it in the door, though the door is pretty large.

BTW, I think if you can afford to operate a Cardinal, you could probably afford to operate a Mooney. If you look at it as cost per mile and not cost per hour, it's quite economical - And since you're getting places faster, you won't need to fly as many hours. I get about 14nmpg in cruise, which is tough to beat in any certified airplane, especially one this fast!
 
I was going to post that.

Too cold. FIKI.

I'm sorry, but how do you know, as a VFR-only pilot? :dunno: Cold plus clouds does not automatically mean ice. In fact, I read an interesting article that Mari posted saying that even when all the conditions that cause airframe icing are present, icing only happens about 20% of the time.

And, even an old Apache should be able to bust through a thin layer pretty quickly if both engines are operating.
 
Hmmm... Maybe, with wheels off - I think the hard part would be just getting it in the door, though the door is pretty large.
Getting a bike through the door is the hard part in the Cardinal too. Though I can do it from the ground, and don't have to climb onto a wing to do it. ;) I remove the front wheel (quick release), but wouldn't be so keen on the idea if I had to take off the back wheel too.

BTW, I think if you can afford to operate a Cardinal, you could probably afford to operate a Mooney. If you look at it as cost per mile and not cost per hour, it's quite economical - And since you're getting places faster, you won't need to fly as many hours. I get about 14nmpg in cruise, which is tough to beat in any certified airplane, especially one this fast!
That's about what most people get in a Cardinal RG -- actually I was under the impression that Mooneys got more like 17-18 nmpg. Maybe with the beefier engine you sacrifice a few mpg for the greater speed. I get more like 12 nmpg because I run 100-125 ROP at low altitudes, and haven't done a lot of trips so far at higher altitudes where my engine can safely run LOP.

But I was mainly thinking about stuff like insurance premiums on a higher-value airframe, not to mention maintenance though that might not be a whole lot more expensive than my Cardinal, except that Mooneys are notorious for being hard to work on, meaning higher labor costs due to longer hours. But all that is on top of the significantly higher acquisition cost, which would cut badly into my ability to operate anything. I don't know what you're selling the Ovation for, but I'll guess it's at least double what I insure my Cardinal for. ;)
 
I'm sorry, but how do you know, as a VFR-only pilot? :dunno: Cold plus clouds does not automatically mean ice. In fact, I read an interesting article that Mari posted saying that even when all the conditions that cause airframe icing are present, icing only happens about 20% of the time.
The only problem with that way of thinking is that you can't predict which 20% of the time you'll actually get ice... so any time icing conditions are present, you have to assume that you will get some ice and plan accordingly.

Still I wonder how that statistic gibes with what Scott D. has posted a number of times, that when the temperature is between 0C and -15C your chances of picking up ice are quite high if you're in visible moisture. Personally if temps were subfreezing on the ground, I'd avoid the clouds like the plague unless the layer was VERY thin, or all the soundings showed glaciated clouds with temps below -20C. But that's in my poor, underpowered bird; YMMV.
 
Getting a bike through the door is the hard part in the Cardinal too. Though I can do it from the ground, and don't have to climb onto a wing to do it. ;)

Neither do I. ;) The baggage door on the Mooney is behind the wing. I really like the way they did it, with the door going up and over the top of the plane - Makes it very easy to fill up, you don't have to get on the ground to get stuff in, and you can truly fill the compartment.

That's about what most people get in a Cardinal RG -- actually I was under the impression that Mooneys got more like 17-18 nmpg. Maybe with the beefier engine you sacrifice a few mpg for the greater speed.

Probably - I would guess David's 201 is burning 9-10 gph and going 155-160. I can probably do better than a 201 up in the teens, or if I slowed down another 10 knots. I haven't tried that yet - I run it pretty religiously at 65% (or slightly less) LOP and get 167 (low or very high) to 175 (around 9,000) KTAS on 12 gph, but I decided to see what it'd do at 75% and 100º ROP once. I got another 10 knots out of it, and it cost me another 5 gph! :eek: I bet it'd do pretty well pulled back to maybe 20"/2200 and LOP.

But yes, the bigger engine does hurt efficiency a bit. I'm still doing nearly as well as the DA40 in terms of efficiency, but going 30 knots faster. :)

I get more like 12 nmpg because I run 100-125 ROP at low altitudes, and haven't done a lot of trips so far at higher altitudes where my engine can safely run LOP.

Why not pull the throttle back and run LOP at the lower altitude? The engine doesn't know if its 23" MP is from running WOT at 7,000 or if you're pulling the throttle back at 3,000. 65% or less is safe for the engine at any mixture setting according to the experts, doesn't matter how you get there.

But I was mainly thinking about stuff like insurance premiums on a higher-value airframe, not to mention maintenance though that might not be a whole lot more expensive than my Cardinal, except that Mooneys are notorious for being hard to work on, meaning higher labor costs due to longer hours. But all that is on top of the significantly higher acquisition cost, which would cut badly into my ability to operate anything. I don't know what you're selling the Ovation for, but I'll guess it's at least double what I insure my Cardinal for. ;)

Ah. Asking price is $164,900. Hull insurance will certainly depend a lot on the hull value.

For the same thing, yeah, I think the Mooney is generally going to be harder to maintain because of things being packed in tight under the cowl. However, it's been EXTREMELY reliable. In 7 months and 100 or so hours, it hasn't developed a single new squawk that I can think of. I've just changed the oil, fixed a couple of pre-existing squawks, and added the engine heater. It's been so reliable, it's making me think I could actually afford to keep it! (Well, if I didn't have to pay to buy it!!!)
 
The only problem with that way of thinking is that you can't predict which 20% of the time you'll actually get ice... so any time icing conditions are present, you have to assume that you will get some ice and plan accordingly.

That's how I think - I just vehemently disagree that an instrument rating isn't worth having this time of year. They might as well say that a pilot certificate isn't worth having because we get less than 300 VFR days a year. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top