I'M ABOUT TO BECOME A PILOT! Light Aircraft Questions...

Status
Not open for further replies.
MAKG1 said:
I think the missing bit of insight is that we have to make it look easy to pass the checkride. If we can't, we're not safe.
Click to expand...

Every top performer at anything makes it look easy. That is the function of expertise. Bob Hoover makes it look easy. Yo-Yo Ma makes it look easy. Evel Knievel makes it look easy. And so it is.

Yet, every now and then we get a Steve Fossett or Sparky Imeson or Scott Crossfield. Someone at the top of their game, the best of the best, who apparently makes a fatal mistake.

Reminding the rest of us mere mortals of what can happen and helping keep our egos in check. If it can happen to them, what hope do I have? I better be careful.
 
Last edited:
All I'm going to say is that they have TRAINING aircraft for a reason... try to recover from a spin in a C172 and then try to recover from one in a Mooney. Everything happens much slower in a Cessna and allows you to build your muscle memory and actually understand what is happening.
 
server
 
ktup-flyer said:
All I'm going to say is that they have TRAINING aircraft for a reason... try to recover from a spin in a C172 and then try to recover from one in a Mooney. Everything happens much slower in a Cessna and allows you to build your muscle memory and actually understand what is happening.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

Sure a C152 is small and slow, but because it's slower, it permits exactly what is said above. You have more time during the landing pattern and on final to figure out what correction is needed, input that, and see the result, then rinse and repeat until you're safely on the ground.

Other more powerful aircraft perform much the same way, but things are happening much more rapidly and "getting behind the airplane" is more likely to happen as a student pilot. And that can lead to disaster.

For the OP -- don't disregard the tried and proven methods of flight training. So what if your first 50-60 hours are in a C152 or PA28-140 with barely comfortable seats and no so modern equipment on the panel. No body said you're stuck with that for life. But many good and safe pilots started in aircraft like that. Consider it a right of passage.
 
Man I'm so sorry I found this thread so late. GREAT entertainment. This guy, (troll?), obviously is in his early teens and has limited imagination. He will be gone soon, but so far it has been a funny diversion. I hope he sticks around long enough to really teach us wannabes about flying!!! :D
 
iGoHigh said:
You know I am just going to stick with my initial way of things. Buy an M20R and hire an instructor. I'm not even going to waste my time with the joysticks, I do not like them. That being said I will not follow through with the SR22 and Cessna 350/400 introductory flights. I am set on the Mooney M20R.
Click to expand...

Any chance you're also posting on MooneySpace.com?
 
Pinstriper said:
Thanks iGo for my much wanted signature below.:stirpot:
Click to expand...

Durrrrr, good one. What do you do pinstriper? For work, what is it that your incompetent-self try's to do for work? Obviously you fail, but what do you try to do? Did you spend a few hours and get your CFI ? One good reason as to why you don't have any students is because you are a joke. If I were to guess I would say you lost in life, probably divorced because your wife definitely don't like you. A weak individual with no power or core who thrives for attention because you have no friends. I'm sure your family and associates see you as a joke too, that is why you are on here seeking the stereotypical shoulder to lean on, like a little girl hahah. You are like this for a reason and instead of continuing on your road to the inevitable epiphany of reason ( your kind doesn't tend to wake up until about 65 from what I hear ), you should try and become more open minded and if you have something to say let me know it constructively... You come on here super hard saying " CFI's are suppose to critique etc etc ". What you say to me regularly is just plain condescending. I did not come on here wanting to exploit myself or show anyone " how I roll ", I have been provoked and hounded in stating what I do for a living as if it matters. I had no idea my career had anything to do with it, but it is funny that the only people who truly cared to know what I did for a living were the ones being condescending and negative. Don't hate me because this economy sucks, do something about it instead of being a little keyboard warrior all the time, trolling hard.

I could careless about me, I know you are joke :lol:, but maybe what I say here could help you out in the future with your personal life. You wreak of loneliness.
 
Last edited:
I'm just a dumb ol' Pinstriper silly www.signspeeweedesigns.com
BTW. Has anyone ever told you you might have anger issues? I'd hate to hear the first time your CFI tells you "that landing sucked lets try again" I'd bet you'd go off on the poor guy and dig real deep to explain why he is wrong... Please give us your name or at least some info so we can keep tabs on the NTSB reports.. The graveyards are full of guys like you that are out to prove people wrong... Aviation can kill you.. But also doing 160mph with one wheel up might kill you too.. Take care young man..
 
iGoHigh said:
No this is the only forum I am apart of besides CBR1000.net
Click to expand...

If your serious about the M20R, that's the forum to get good info about it.

Just be sure to share the same info there that you started with here.
 
AggieMike88 said:
If your serious about the M20R, that's the forum to get good info about it.

Just be sure to share the same info there that you started with here.
Click to expand...
I'm willing to bet that all of them will turn out to be idiots that don't know anything about flying just like us amateurs :rolleyes2: Natural Selection: Aviation edition lol
 
Pinstriper said:
I'm just a dumb ol' Pinstriper silly www.signspeeweedesigns.com
BTW. Has anyone ever told you you might have anger issues? I'd hate to hear the first time your CFI tells you "that landing sucked lets try again" I'd bet you'd go off on the poor guy and dig real deep to explain why he is wrong... Please give us your name or at least some info so we can keep tabs on the NTSB reports.. The graveyards are full of guys like you that are out to prove people wrong... Aviation can kill you.. But also doing 160mph with one wheel up might kill you too.. Take care young man..
Click to expand...

:rofl: I never once said I was going to prove anyone wrong in the category of aviation. I was speaking in generalities, ok listen, from the beginning despite the fact you not only condescendingly belittled me, but in all your posts you have insinuated that it is only time before I die. I am very well aware of the situation at hand more so than you naysayers may believe. I am going to prepare myself just as most of you all did and I am going to work very hard. Ask questions about unorthodox situations and how to overcome them along with in-flight demonstrations. I truly am going to do the best I can. If it takes me a few extra hours I really do not care, doubtful for me honestly. I am going to dedicate as much time as I can to learning and I will keep update for reference sake. You take care too, I take responsibility for being a little intense and apologize. Maybe if you want to we can be friends.


AggieMike88 said:
If your serious about the M20R, that's the forum to get good info about it.

Just be sure to share the same info there that you started with here.
Click to expand...

Ok. Thank you for the information
 
AggieMike88 said:
Sure a C152 is small and slow, but because it's slower, it permits exactly what is said above. You have more time during the landing pattern and on final to figure out what correction is needed, input that, and see the result, then rinse and repeat until you're safely on the ground.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I liked flying the C152 was because it was small. Very cozy when it is just me and my GF. ;)






iGoHigh said:
I am set on the Mooney M20R.
Click to expand...

OK, here you go! :D

http://strategicaircraft.com/2004-mooney-m20-r-ovation-2-n1013l/
 
Pinstriper said:
Thanks iGo for my much wanted signature below.:stirpot:
Click to expand...

It is easy though, it's just that you have to learn something you haven't experienced before both sensationally and dimensionally and you have to develop muscle memory. Most of us haven't learned at that level since we've been small children. Once you have a few hundred hours it's as simple as riding a bike or driving a car. I've walked away and not flown for a couple years and jumped in a Citabria for a BFR, after a quick swing and wobble on the T/O roll and it all comes back to the hands and feet.
 
zaitcev said:
I probably could get a decent SR-22 for the price of that M20R. For all the coolness of a real Mooney, that thing does not even have an A/C. Sort of explaines why Mooney Aircraft went bust in one neat ad.
Click to expand...

It's easy to add accessories like glass avionics and A/C, not as easy to add substance to structure. That freakin extruded spar as the anchor to that wing is a safety factor no other small plane has, plus the Mooney is a retract and faster.
 
zaitcev said:
I probably could get a decent SR-22 for the price of that M20R. For all the coolness of a real Mooney, that thing does not even have an A/C. Sort of explaines why Mooney Aircraft went bust in one neat ad.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there have been a few days when I wished I had AC, but flying in the Upper Midwest, it usually gets tolerably cool by 5000ft MSL. Mooney's are available with air conditioning though but it is no surprise that one for sale in Minnesota does not have AC.

I personally would rather not carry the weight penalty of AC or a BRS parachute that needs to be replaced every 10 years. I think the Mooney is a pilot's airplane moreso than a Cirrus. The best combination of speed and economy is found in a Mooney and that is what is important to me. :D With a M20J, I'm going 20-40kt faster for the same fuel burn compared to say an Archer, Cardinal, Arrow. The direct competition of course is the SR-20 and used Mooneys can be had cheaper. For utility, a 1982+ M20J is the best because it has fold down rear seats. I think the biggest weakness of the Mooney is potentially leaky fuel tanks. Still, that's probably a better tradeoff than having a life limited CF airframe.
 
Henning said:
It's easy to add accessories like glass avionics and A/C, not as easy to add substance to structure. That freakin extruded spar as the anchor to that wing is a safety factor no other small plane has, plus the Mooney is a retract and faster.
Click to expand...

Yes the Mooney I am very excited to fly. I can't wait.

MSPAviator said:
Yeah, there have been a few days when I wished I had AC, but flying in the Upper Midwest, it usually gets tolerably cool by 5000ft MSL. Mooney's are available with air conditioning though but it is no surprise that one for sale in Minnesota does not have AC.

I personally would rather not carry the weight penalty of AC or a BRS parachute that needs to be replaced every 10 years. I think the Mooney is a pilot's airplane moreso than a Cirrus. The best combination of speed and economy is found in a Mooney and that is what is important to me. :D With a M20J, I'm going 20-40kt faster for the same fuel burn compared to say an Archer, Cardinal, Arrow. The direct competition of course is the SR-20 and used Mooneys can be had cheaper. For utility, a 1982+ M20J is the best because it has fold down rear seats. I think the biggest weakness of the Mooney is potentially leaky fuel tanks. Still, that's probably a better tradeoff than having a life limited CF airframe.
Click to expand...

You would not install the BRS parachute on the Mooney? I am that is for sure, granted surely with poor judgement there are certain situations where it makes no difference as you are dead anyway, but personally I would love to have the added safety feature or am I missing something?
 
AggieMike88 said:
Out of curiosity, what criteria brought the M20R to the top of the list?
Click to expand...

Google for the most part. I typed in best light aircraft, light aircraft comparison etc... When I found out that the M20 has been in production for so many years with the similar concept you can not help but try to research and compare so I googled " Mooney m20 vs " then the sr22 was mentioned etc and so on. It just seemed like the Mooney was the favored amongst pilots who have had experience with them.
 
iGoHigh said:
You would not install the BRS parachute on the Mooney? I am that is for sure, granted surely with poor judgement there are certain situations where it makes no difference as you are dead anyway, but personally I would love to have the added safety feature or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I've flown a Mooney within the last 24 hours as I type this. I don't think you can add a BRS parachute to a Mooney anyway. I've witnessed a chute deployment in a Cirrus full motion sim with a CFI + student onboard. The chute is not a cure-all to your problems, you have to slow the plane down and the deployment will cause a violent pitch up/down movement. The chute might save you, maybe. It could also kill you if you deploy it while going too fast. The chute will also destroy the plane, which is fine, because as long as you live, the insurance will will pay for the hull (right?). Meanwhile there are plenty of Moonies out there that are 20-30-40-50+ years old and have flown around all these decades without needing a BRS chute.
 
iGoHigh said:
You would not install the BRS parachute on the Mooney? I am that is for sure, granted surely with poor judgement there are certain situations where it makes no difference as you are dead anyway, but personally I would love to have the added safety feature or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

My reasons for not wanting to install the BRS on a Mooney (and this points out areas that you still need to learn about):

  • Weight penalty: Only so much useful load and I'd rather put in fuel or pax
  • Cost: Initial system adds quite a bit to purchase price plus spending 10 to 12 AMU's every 10 years for repack and recert can be a drain on the flying or personal budgets
  • Not really needed: If proper ADM is exercised, you shouldn't be getting into the situations where a BRS is needed in the first place.
Finally, remember that all major add-ins need to be approved by the FAA through a Special Type Certificate (STC) process. And I don't recall seing anything that granted a BRS chute STC for any of the mooney line.
 
iGoHigh said:
Google for the most part. I typed in best light aircraft, light aircraft comparison etc... When I found out that the M20 has been in production for so many years with the similar concept you can not help but try to research and compare so I googled " Mooney m20 vs " then the sr22 was mentioned etc and so on. It just seemed like the Mooney was the favored amongst pilots who have had experience with them.
Click to expand...

Same can be said with much of the fleet and whom you talk to. Often it's a "Ford v. Chevy v. Dodge v. High-Wing v. Low-Wing etc" debate.

By limiting to just the M20R, you might be missing out on many other aircraft that could fit your mission at a lower cost of entry and lower operating costs.

And making a decision on this by looking only on the net can be like deciding to date a French Model you found on the internet. It might not be the end result you really are desiring. (Unless you go into the beard, glasses, fanny pack, and slouching posture sort of thing).

Allow me to suggest doing at least 5 to 10 hours of primary flight training (through at least solo) before you fall in love with any one aircraft.
 
Probably the best plane for learning if you want an advanced high performance plane withe good capability will be a 36 Bonanza. The Mooney has a slight speed and efficiency advantage, but the Bonanza is a very rugged (in Australia we'd fly them as bush planes, I used to run my ex GFs Dad who was an MD out to the Aborigonal communities on LOCUM service in eithe one of those or a Lance, and the Bo handled it much better) and well mannered plane to fly. With a Tornado Alley Turbo kit on it and tip tanks, it's a wonderful traveling plane if you don't mind sucking oxygen. IME there is no other plane that makes landing so nice, you have to try to screw up a landing and even then she'll try to make you look good. The 33 and 35 series Bonanzas are excellent as well, but the 36 is still available new in a G-36 series with a glass panel already installed.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Probably the first thing you'll learn is that you aren't nearly as good as you think you are. There is a whole lot of overconfidence going on. No, it isn't that easy.
Click to expand...

I believe this was the biggest takeaway from my first flight. It looks so simple and the plane handles so well in X-Plane
 
iGoHigh said:
You know I am just going to stick with my initial way of things. Buy an M20R and hire an instructor. I'm not even going to waste my time with the joysticks, I do not like them. That being said I will not follow through with the SR22 and Cessna 350/400 introductory flights. I am set on the Mooney M20R.
Click to expand...
Here's your airplane:

www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=73501
 
MSPAviator said:
I corrected the URL for you... While I enjoyed oogling the pictures of this high performance speed machine, I dunno... if I was going to pay for 6 cylinder fuel burn, I would take a long and hard look at a Bonanza for the extra useful load over a Mooney. :)
Click to expand...

You can always pull back to the same power and use the same fuel in a 6 as a 4, you can't push in the power on a 4 to perform like a 6.
 
Henning said:
You can always pull back to the same power and use the same fuel in a 6 as a 4, you can't push in the power on a 4 to perform like a 6.
Click to expand...

Yep, and I can pull back the power on the IO360 to 8.5-9gph and still outrun any PA-28 or C-172 in the sky! :goofy:

The extra power of an IO-470, 520, 550 is beyond my means and mission at this point.
 
MSPAviator said:
Yep, and I can pull back the power on the IO360 to 8.5-9gph and still outrun any PA-28 or C-172 in the sky! :goofy:

The extra power of an IO-470, 520, 550 is beyond my means and mission at this point.
Click to expand...

I can pull back the power on a Bonanza to Arrow speeds and use less fuel than the Arrow, but my point is you can run a 20R and F at the same speed on the same fuel, but you can't make an F climb like an R or go as fast.
 
Henning said:
I can pull back the power on a Bonanza to Arrow speeds and use less fuel than the Arrow, but my point is you can run a 20R and F at the same speed on the same fuel, but you can't make an F climb like an R or go as fast.
Click to expand...

Of course, you're right, and like I said earlier, I wouldn't rule out future Bonanza ownership. Just most of the Bo's I thought I could afford had elderly avionics, single yokes, or timed out everything. My goal for the plane right now is simply to finish my IR/COM/CFI, have a lot of fun along the way, and not lose my shirt on MX.
 
Henning said:
Probably the best plane for learning if you want an advanced high performance plane withe good capability will be a 36 Bonanza. The Mooney has a slight speed and efficiency advantage, but the Bonanza is a very rugged (in Australia we'd fly them as bush planes, I used to run my ex GFs Dad who was an MD out to the Aborigonal communities on LOCUM service in eithe one of those or a Lance, and the Bo handled it much better) and well mannered plane to fly. With a Tornado Alley Turbo kit on it and tip tanks, it's a wonderful traveling plane if you don't mind sucking oxygen. IME there is no other plane that makes landing so nice, you have to try to screw up a landing and even then she'll try to make you look good. The 33 and 35 series Bonanzas are excellent as well, but the 36 is still available new in a G-36 series with a glass panel already installed.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much, sincerely thank you

gismo said:
Here's your airplane:

www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=73501
Click to expand...

Thank you, but I have ultimately decided I will be going with an SP and hire a CFI while taking my PPL in a Bonanza! ( I do not know why I put an exclamation mark there, just something about the word " Bonanza! " lol )

Henning said:
You can always pull back to the same power and use the same fuel in a 6 as a 4, you can't push in the power on a 4 to perform like a 6.
Click to expand...

No replacement for displacement.

MSPAviator said:
Yep, and I can pull back the power on the IO360 to 8.5-9gph and still outrun any PA-28 or C-172 in the sky! :goofy:

The extra power of an IO-470, 520, 550 is beyond my means and mission at this point.
Click to expand...

Your prior views before this quote are biased as the IO360 is inferior, I just got done reading a few comparisons along with a really interesting article regarding the two that should change your mind. I will quote -- " My good friend, Wayne Ensey, flew mine when I got back and quickly converted his from IO-360 (200+hp) to an IO-540 within months because of the difference in performance. Here are the numbers from his plane with both engines....remember...same plane, same instruments. IO-360 top speed 155mph at 16gph full throttle with a solo climb of 1800fpm..
IO-540 cruise at 155 at 10.5 gph...top speed at 185 mph and climb of 2900fpm (he's still trying to get used the nose being so high). "

After reading " My goal for the plane right now is simply to finish my IR/COM/CFI, have a lot of fun along the way, and not lose my shirt on MX. " I can not help to think you were looking for a cost efficient way of pursing your desires, now taking into accountability that you maybe looking for a more cost efficient method, maybe the IO-540 could have suited you better in the long run, taking in consideration the added displacement as well, which should in return most likely yield a better dividend for your overall goal when taking repairs and intervals between rebuilds into consideration. Cost efficiency is the priority to some, but sometimes what seems like the most expensive route ends up being the most time and cost efficient way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top