Stable IFR Platform

[AdamZ]

So what the heck does that acutally mean? ( Stable IFR Platform) A plane thats has good wing loading and takes the bumps well. I mean a Nav receiver and an OBS don't work any better in a Piper Archer than a Trinidad.

 

[ScottM]

To me it means easy to fly hands off without the AP.

 

[Everskyward]

To me it's an airplane that is on the dynamically stable side. So, for example, if a wing gets displaced down because of turbulence it has a tendency to right itself. You sacrifice maneuverability for stability, though. A Pitts is maneuverable but would not make a stable IFR platform.

 

[dmccormack]

To me it's an airplane that is on the dynamically stable side. So, for example, if a wing gets displaced down because of turbulence it has a tendency to right itself. You sacrifice maneuverability for stability, though. A Pitts is maneuverable but would not make a stable IFR platform.

Excellent terse answer!

 

[Ted]

When trimmed out the plane should allow hands off flying without constant inputs. When it goes through bumps it should have a tendency to maintain its attitude more or less (hands off).

Now in addition to that for a good IR platform, I like to have at least a wing leveler. On the Mooney I used to fly, it had the "positive control" feature where the plane would always return to straight flight if you took your hands off the yoke. The one downside to the Mooney was that you felt the bumps in the road, which wasn't a very nice thing. I found it more stable than the Cherokee, but the bumps were a negative.

One of the things I like about twins as IFR platforms is that they tend to handle bumps better and be more stable (at least with both engines working). In singles, I haven't flown much beyond the 172, PA-28, and Mooney, but I'd think that some of the bigger singles would be good IFR platforms from a stability standpoint.

 

[COFlyBoy]

Anything with tip tanks will be more stable in roll, when the tips are full of fuel. Dunno, if this really translates to a better IFR platform, but it couldn't hurt.

 

[poadeleted20]

A plane thats has good wing loading and takes the bumps well.

That's about my feeling, plus that it stays where you put it without wandering off in heading or pitch, but that's as much or more a control rigging/trim and tank balancing issue as a design function.

 

[Exocetid]

So what the heck does that acutally mean? ( Stable IFR Platform).

It means my Mooney. God is she a beautiful plane, flies herself, even when I leave the autopilot off.

Tight, fast, responsive, steady--jeez, if that doesn't describe a stable platform then I don't know what does. Add the fact that she's IFR cert and you have a Stable IFR Platform.

N5976Q

 

[twdeckard]

I thought "stable IFR platform" was like "she has a great personality" or "the job has flexible hours" or a house listing with "easy access to everywhere"

Not pretty at all, working nights, driveway pulls out onto an expressway, and
---- flies like a truck!

 

[wabower]

A term most-often used in aeronautical textbooks to describe high-wing airplanes.

 

[Ted]

It means my Mooney. God is she a beautiful plane, flies herself, even when I leave the autopilot off.

Tight, fast, responsive, steady--jeez, if that doesn't describe a stable platform then I don't know what does. Add the fact that she's IFR cert and you have a Stable IFR Platform.

N5976Q

Yep, Mooney's a stable IFR platform for sure. The only thing I didn't like about it as I said was when you get into the bumps. Man, those aren't fun. I've had a few times where I hit my head on the ceiling in that plane from turbulence. Never, even in the worst bumps, had anywhere near that in the Aztec.

 

[EdFred]

I'll get a Mooney when I have my left arm amputated. Until then I'll stick with the 'manche.

 

[AdamZ]

Yep, Mooney's a stable IFR platform for sure. The only thing I didn't like about it as I said was when you get into the bumps. Man, those aren't fun. I've had a few times where I hit my head on the ceiling in that plane from turbulence. Never, even in the worst bumps, had anywhere near that in the Aztec.

Is that just because of low head clearance in the Mooney?

 

[Ted]

Is that just because of low head clearance in the Mooney?

In the middle of an ATC call I had a hard bump in the Mooney, went something like this:

"Potomac approach, Mooney seven seven-AAAAAGH-eight five M, 5 thousand."

Not just hid my head on the ceiling (which I probably wouldn't have done in the Aztec due to the higher height), but put quite a strain between my lap belt and my lap. My point (probably not made well) was that bumps were way worse in the Mooney. The plane didn't care about them, but the pilot (or pax) might.

 

[Exocetid]

Yep, Mooney's a stable IFR platform for sure. The only thing I didn't like about it as I said was when you get into the bumps. Man, those aren't fun. I've had a few times where I hit my head on the ceiling in that plane from turbulence. Never, even in the worst bumps, had anywhere near that in the Aztec.

Let's see, you are comparing a Piper twin to a Mooney. The engine weight alone stabilizes it, compare apples to oranges. Oh wait, I forgot, the Mooney is faster, cheaper and uses less gas than the Piper--good thing the headliner in the Mooney is padded.

 

[Ted]

Let's see, you are comparing a Piper twin to a Mooney. The engine weight alone stabilizes it, compare apples to oranges. Oh wait, I forgot, the Mooney is faster, cheaper and uses less gas than the Piper--good thing the headliner in the Mooney is padded.

Cut down on the caffeine there, skippy. It ain't an apples to oranges comparison, they both have piston engines and fly at the same altitudes. The turbulence really doesn't care what you're flying, it'll bump you around however much it's going to. That's a consideration to take into account for you depending on your personal limitations and your passenger limitations.

Data point: The M20F I flew went 145 ktas power cruise burning 11 gph. I normally do 155 ktas economy cruise @ 20 gph combined, but can do 165 ktas power cruise (28 gph combined).

 

[dmccormack]

Cut down on the caffeine there, skippy. It ain't an apples to oranges comparison, they both have piston engines and fly at the same altitudes. The turbulence really doesn't care what you're flying, it'll bump you around however much it's going to. That's a consideration to take into account for you depending on your personal limitations and your passenger limitations.

Not sure about the Mooney v Aztec differences, but I get bumped around far more in a 1200 lb MGW airplane than I do in a 3800 lb MGW airplane -- even if the larger airplane is empty.

The Chief wingspan is 36', an A36 and C205/206/210 are each 38'

What would be pleasant flying weather in the big singles would be just plain annoying in the Chief or similar light airplane.

I had a similar headbanging experience in a C152 -- taught me to really fasten down that lap belt if there was any chance of bumps.

 

[Ted]

Not sure about the Mooney v Aztec differences, but I get bumped around far more in a 1200 lb MGW airplane than I do in a 3800 lb MGW airplane -- even if the larger airplane is empty.

The Chief wingspan is 36', an A36 and C205/206/210 are each 38'

What would be pleasant flying weather in the big singles would be just plain annoying in the Chief or similar light airplane.

I had a similar headbanging experience in a C152 -- taught me to really fasten down that lap belt if there was any chance of bumps.

That's exactly what I was getting at. The Mooney is a great IFR platform, but there are days where if turbulence isn't your thing, the Mooney isn't your plane.

 

[Lance F]

Yep, Mooney's a stable IFR platform for sure. The only thing I didn't like about it as I said was when you get into the bumps. Man, those aren't fun. I've had a few times where I hit my head on the ceiling in that plane from turbulence. Never, even in the worst bumps, had anywhere near that in the Aztec.

I too think the Mooney is a good IFR platform, but as Ted correctly points out the "suspension is a little stiff."

A very quick Google search shows an Aztec wing loading of 25 #/sq ft and the Mooney at 19.2 3/sq ft. The lower wing loading and the stiff single piece spar probably explain the more severe effect of bumps on the Mooney. The lower ceiling height compounds that.

I've gotten used to it and have to be conscious of passengers when deciding how far out of the way to go to avoid turbulence.

 

[AdamB]

So what the heck does that acutally mean? ( Stable IFR Platform) A plane thats has good wing loading and takes the bumps well. I mean a Nav receiver and an OBS don't work any better in a Piper Archer than a Trinidad.

The Nav receiver in my Trinidad definitely works better than the one in your Archer!

j/k

 

[Everskyward]

A very quick Google search shows an Aztec wing loading of 25 #/sq ft and the Mooney at 19.2 3/sq ft. The lower wing loading and the stiff single piece spar probably explain the more severe effect of bumps on the Mooney.

I think wing loading as well as design has a lot to do with the ride. I noticed right away that the Sovereign has a rougher ride in turbulence that the Lear 35 even though it is a much heavier airplane, but the Sovereign has those long wings and a wing loading of 59 lbs/ft2 as opposed to the Lear 35 which has a wing loading of 72 lbs/ft2.

 

[wabower]

The hardest I've ever been hit on the head was in my M20F over Kirksville, MO one night 37 years ago. I remember it like yesterday.

Is that just because of low head clearance in the Mooney?

 

[Ted]

The hardest I've ever been hit on the head was in my M20F over Kirksville, MO one night 37 years ago. I remember it like yesterday.

Must not've hit you on the head hard enough, then.

 

[AdamZ]

The hardest I've ever been hit on the head was in my M20F over Kirksville, MO one night 37 years ago. I remember it like yesterday.

I guess you could say Wayne got hit in the head with a Mooney!

 

[Exocetid]

Cut down on the caffeine there, skippy. It ain't an apples to oranges comparison, they both have piston engines and fly at the same altitudes. The turbulence really doesn't care what you're flying, it'll bump you around however much it's going to. That's a consideration to take into account for you depending on your personal limitations and your passenger limitations.

Let's see: two engines vs. one, heavier plane, larger plane--yeah, I've had too much coffee. I must be really missing something here in my caffeine haze.

 

[sba55]

To me, it means a good autopilot.

I'd much rather fly a plane that handles well and doesn't make me feel like I'm flying a bus (hello, Cessna singles). If I have an excellent autopilot, it makes no difference whatsoever.

-Felix

 

[wabower]

That was in March. The tornado hit it in April. Flew real airplanes after that.

I guess you could say Wayne got hit in the head with a Mooney!

 

[Ted]

Let's see: two engines vs. one, heavier plane, larger plane--yeah, I've had too much coffee. I must be really missing something here in my caffeine haze.

You are, and you've even quoted it. I'll wait for you to get a bit more time in your Mooney and you'll realize it on your own.

In the mean time, switch to decaf.

 

[Exocetid]

You are, and you've even quoted it. I'll wait for you to get a bit more time in your Mooney and you'll realize it on your own.

In the mean time, switch to decaf.

Awfully acerbic (and arrogant) for someone running a charity.

Anyway, if truth be told, on my return to Texas from Florida two weeks ago, I was down at 2500 from Panama City to Mobile as I followed the coast. The views were spectacular, but the bump was unbelievable and I did indeed have a meeting of the minds with the headliner at one point, so I don't disagree that the Mooney, a small plane in many respects, can be, how shall we say it, carnival-ride fun in rough air.

But that was not the point of this thread and I think we (you and I) got crossed on mission. I have noticed that with forums. Your mission is very different from mine, and very noble I might add. The clue for me was when you mentioned passengers--I typically fly alone. For my mission the Mooney is an incredibly stable IFR platform and apparently for what you do, your Aztec is likewise. Enjoy your flying!

 

[Ted]

Awfully acerbic (and arrogant) for someone running a charity.

Not sure how you come to this conclusion since you below agree with me.

Anyway, if truth be told, on my return to Texas from Florida two weeks ago, I was down at 2500 from Panama City to Mobile as I followed the coast. The views were spectacular, but the bump was unbelievable and I did indeed have a meeting of the minds with the headliner at one point, so I don't disagree that the Mooney, a small plane in many respects, can be, how shall we say it, carnival-ride fun in rough air.

But that was not the point of this thread and I think we (you and I) got crossed on mission. I have noticed that with forums. Your mission is very different from mine, and very noble I might add. The clue for me was when you mentioned passengers--I typically fly alone. For my mission the Mooney is an incredibly stable IFR platform and apparently for what you do, your Aztec is likewise. Enjoy your flying!

So what's the problem if you agree with my point? I never said the Mooney was an unfit aircraft (quite the opposite), simply pointed out one of its downsides after putting about 80 hours of flight time on one, and even saying how much I liked it as an aircraft (I do miss flying it). You pointed out some of its advantages over the Aztec (and other similar aircraft), which are also correct (at least for some - the airspeed depends), but yours were much less statements of fact and more behavior at recess. My point was that turbulence is another factor that may not necessarily be present with IMC (some of the worst turbulence I've gotten has been on perfectly clear days), but is still another factor that requires consideration. In my experience, the Mooney handles it well, but you sure do feel it. That never stopped me from making a flight, but I would think about it a bit more if I had to bring my mom along.

 

[EdFred]

Ted, Ted, Ted.

When will you ever learn? The Mooney is the best plane ever made, there are no other planes that are even worthy to be on the same ramp as the illustrious flip tailed rocket. To compare any aircraft ever made to a Mooney will always, ALWAYS, be an apples to oranges comparison.

Oh, except the Grumman Tiger.

 

[dmccormack]

Ted, Ted, Ted.

When will you ever learn? The Mooney is the best plane ever made, there are no other planes that are even worthy to be on the same ramp as the illustrious flip tailed rocket. To compare any aircraft ever made to a Mooney will always, ALWAYS, be an apples to oranges comparison.

Oh, except the Grumman Tiger.

I though it was the Beech Bonanza?

 

[Ted]

I though it was the Beech Bonanza?

An aircraft that I hope to try flying one day. I've enjoyed the two Beechcraft I've flown, very nice airplanes.

 

[dmccormack]

An aircraft that I hope to try flying one day. I've enjoyed the two Beechcraft I've flown, very nice airplanes.

There's all sorts of hype, but IMHO the A36 and 1947 -35 have convinced me the Bonanza is a pilot's airplane -- stable, decent handling, great short field performance, efficient (12 gph @ 150 knots), and comfortable.

 

[Dr. O]

A Skyhawk... Safest, easiest, stable IFR platform ever invented... Add to that a coupled autopilot and you have given yourself the best odds of getting there in one piece in IMC...

denny-o

 

[Ted]

A Skyhawk... Safest, easiest, stable IFR platform ever invented... Add to that a coupled autopilot and you have given yourself the best odds of getting there in one piece in IMC...

denny-o

Actually, I've found them less stable. While they handle turbulence well, they require a lot more corrections than the Mooney I flew (my SEL experience is pretty much limited to 172s, PA-28s, and Mooneys).

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

A Skyhawk... Safest, easiest, stable IFR platform ever invented... Add to that a coupled autopilot and you have given yourself the best odds of getting there in one piece in IMC...

denny-o

Not compared to a Navion.

 

[EdFred]

I though it was the Beech Bonanza?

Nah, most of you Beech guys will usually concede that the Comanche and the Beech are pretty much blurry mirrors of each other. Plus, the Beech single guys generally look at the twins as big brothers, so you can't be *that* conceited with the singles. I looked at Bo's when I was quasi-searching, and figured they were pretty much a wash with the Comanches.

 

[dmccormack]

Nah, most of you Beech guys will usually concede that the Comanche and the Beech are pretty much blurry mirrors of each other. Plus, the Beech single guys generally look at the twins as big brothers, so you can't be *that* conceited with the singles. I looked at Bo's when I was quasi-searching, and figured they were pretty much a wash with the Comanches.

You're right.. Piper attempted to copy the Bonanza.

When did Comanche production end...?

 

[EdFred]

You're right.. Piper attempted to copy the Bonanza.

When did Comanche production end...?

When they got flooded out in 1972. I'm still clueless as to why they didn't resume production in Vero Beach.