[Mooney-longbody] Re: Mooney-longbody Digest, Vol 27, Issue 1

[Ernie Kovacs]

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Donald Kaye 
  To: Mooney Long Body List 
  Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 6:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [Mooney-longbody] Re: Mooney-longbody Digest, Vol 27, Issue 1


  So, because you don't have the money to buy the right airplane for the job, you're going to fly a less expensive one incorrectly?  No way I would condone that.


  On Jun 3, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Gregory Gimbel wrote:


    I'm very interested in this discussion and question also. I had a 252 9yrs ago and have had the TLS for only one year. I posed a very similiar question on this list before closing on my airplane  and I'm still not sure of the correct answer. I realize that even much more expensive airplanes than the TLS cannot always be utilized with full fuel and full seats but I cannot for the life of me understand why there is any point of allowing long range tanks in a plane that cannot be legal to fly with full fuel but not have the carrying capacity to take even  the pilot let alone passengers or luggage! That just seems wrong. I've come to the conclusion that there are a lot of test pilots out there whether they are willing to admit it or not. In terms of whether or not the insurance will cover in the event of a mishap--- well if there is a wing separation or stall when underway there won't be much left to insure anyways in terms of pilot or passengers or airplane. I have a couple of questions to pose here of my own. In terms of stress on the main wing spar, does anyone know whether or not it matters if the extra weight is in the wings as fuel or in the fuselage as payload? I can see that the landing gear or stall speed wouldn't care where the weight is, but often the extra weight would be burned off by the time the plane landed, presumably the most stress on the gear and when flying closest to stall speed. Thus the different POH weights  for takeoff and landing. It would seem that in terms of the spar stress-- that with the weight in the wings as fuel that this would be supported directly by the wing when flying and perhaps not as much as at the junction of the fuselage and wing area. I can understand that flying out of CG limits could easily lead to trouble but wonder whether overweight within CG limits is as dangerous if one takes into account the decreased takeoff and climb performance and increased stall speeds and increased stress on the landing gear. One must do similiar with density altitude issues all the time. I was given the same advice---to consider a TBM or Pilatus. Not to be rude but why not just get a 737? If I had an extra $2 million laying around then I'd certainly do just  that(get a pilatus or TBM) for not just the payload but also the pressurization and performance and service ceiling of a turbine. One additional comment--I've heard it said(from a flight instructor) that in Alaska that airplanes can be legally loaded an extra 10% overweight. If that is true then it would appear that the FAA realizes that the published POH weight limits are very conservative. I've put on the asbestos suit so flame away.


    Gregory Gimbel 94 TLS N1065W


  ----


  Donald Kaye                             |  Master CFI, MEI
  mailto:donkaye at earthlink.net    |  N9148W M20M





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kjsl.com/pipermail/mooney-longbody/attachments/20070603/5e1e3793/attachment.htm