Thunderstorm Flying (a bit long)

Lance F

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
2,897
Location
GA
Display Name

Display name:
Lance F
If you're going to fly in the southeast in the summer, you're going to confront thunderstorms :lightning: :lightning: . Let me just pass on a brief story of my flight yesterday.
I had been on Mustang Island off the coast of Corpus Christi, TX on a family reunion for a week. My wife, son and I had flown the Mooney down and had a great time. (Nice little unattended airport on the island - KRAS)
I had kept an eye on the weather while I was there (the condo had a broadband connection :yes: ). A direct route home (approx 760 nm) to the east side of Atlanta went on the east side of Houston, and there were thunderstorms blocking that route night and day.
The same was the case yesterday morning, and I certainly didn't want to get pushed out into the Gulf if I had to divert and ATC wouldn't let me into the Bravo airspace. So I filed a route around the west side of Houston at 9,000 with a planned fuel/lunch stop in Meridian, MS.
The XM weather on my MX20 was showing TS over Houston even on the west side so I diverted even further to the west and north before turning on course. It was also clear on the NEXRAD weather that Meridian would be under a TS when we got there, so I changed my destination further north to Columbus, MS (KGTR). The FBO there loaned us his van so we could drive into town for our now quite late lunch. On the drive back a thunderstorm dumped a bunch of rain on us and I found that the FBO had brought my plane into a hanger because on high winds - good outfit!
The weather radar at the FBO showed a high percentage of the area between me and Atlanta covered with TS and a call to FSS was just as negative. I knew I wasn't going to get through this IFR and considered departing VFR and staying low. However FSS had said that this TS pattern generally subsided later in the day, so I planned to wait it out a bit.
After an hour a Cardinal flew in and I talked to pilot. Turned out he had flown from the east from Birmingham. AL at 3,000' without a problem. With this pirep in hand, we departed VFR. This leg was flown between 2 and 3,000' and again, the NEXRAD was fantastic. When level 5s were building over Birmingham, we saw where to deviate and when. Two hours later we were on the ground at home - 9A1. We were in the air on these two legs well over 6 1/2 hours and had flown 1,000nm including all our deviations, which is something like 22% more than direct. The net result was a long day, but I don't think I subjected my wife in the back seat to so much a a single bump of any consequence. She read and slept the whole time.
My son Lane is a relatively low time PP and he hand flew the whole flight (both directions).
GA cross country flying is a CONSTANT decision making process. This flight was a great experience in using a whole lot of the tools we have available to make long and safe flights in single engine aircraft.
 
Great writeup... You're really making me long for weather in the cockpit...!
 
Good story.

I went up and back to Dallas on Wed. Went higher where it was cool. Dodged the storms on the way back - the entire north half of the route was one big deviation. And wondered what I ever did before I had XM weather - or whether I would have made the filght without. What a difference.

I was above the solid layer, so I could see and avoid the buildups.
 
Very good story, Lance. Thanks for sharing all the details. When you said you knew you weren't going to "get through this" IFR, what did you mean exactly? I'm not instrument-rated so don't have the context for that. What makes VFR better in this case?
 
Toby said:
Very good story, Lance. Thanks for sharing all the details. When you said you knew you weren't going to "get through this" IFR, what did you mean exactly? I'm not instrument-rated so don't have the context for that. What makes VFR better in this case?
VFR is better because you can see the rain shaft. When you are flying in the embed (the ceiling which in which the t-storms are embedded) you can't see the next shaft. You are reliant on stormscope and radar. Nothing beats the eye.

I onece made the error of following a Citation between two Anvils. Nive clear VFR space between them, on an IFR flight plan. Turned a corner, and I was in a barrel. No hail, nor rain. But I was pretty uncomfortable and will never do that again. Could'a been Baaaadd.
 
What I wanted to avoid was to be in IMC dodging TS, and the high percentage of precipitation covering my route made this a high probability. Also, IFR you loose some flexibility to go where you want to avoid things, although ATC is usually very accomodating. If ceilings and vis are high enough (which in this case I had a very recent pirep to go by), going under the bases VFR can be very effective. I can tell where the big stuff is by the NEXRAD display, and I can visually check for and avoid rain shafts. Plus if there's absolutely no way to make further progress (e.g. a long squall line), I can go and land at a nearby airport without having to descend through potentially very turbulent conditions if I stay VFR below the clouds.
I am a confirmed IFR filer, but sometimes the flexibility of VFR (Note: I am not advising scud running here.) is a better solution for a NA piston airplane.
 
bbchien said:
VFR is better because you can see the rain shaft. When you are flying in the embed (the ceiling which in which the t-storms are embedded) you can't see the next shaft. You are reliant on stormscope and radar. Nothing beats the eye.

Exactly how I picked my way the whole way home from Gaston, at 3500ft, avoiding anything that looked nasty. That, and helpful folks at EFAS and ATC.
 
I guess I'm the alternative opinion here. When thunderstorms abound in the eastern and midwest US I much prefer IFR and up high (teens) where it is cooler, smother, and the visibility is excellent, and I can avoid the buildups plus punch a cloud or two if that's the expedient solution; versus down low (2-3k AGL) VFR where is is hot, bumpy, and the visibility is ~3-5 miles at best, avoiding everything and able to punch expediently through nothing. Furthermore, the FAA advises staying ~20 miles away from a TS, which is extremely difficult to do visually underneath when visibility is 3+ in vicious haze. IOW, by the time you can see the rain shaft you are waaay too close to the boomer.

Yes, my opinion is formed based on a Mooney that will hit 18k quite easily. My tactics might be slightly different if I was trapped below 10k by aircraft limitations.
 
I'm with Ed on this one. Higher=better. ATC will work very well with you on deviations in the 'teens.

I, too, have a plane that will do 18,000 easily and I carry O2 on board. YMMV
 
wsuffa said:
I'm with Ed on this one. Higher=better. ATC will work very well with you on deviations in the 'teens.

I, too, have a plane that will do 18,000 easily and I carry O2 on board. YMMV

More food for thought when it comes time to choose an aircraft. Low, hot, and blind sucks.
 
Bill Jennings said:
More food for thought when it comes time to choose an aircraft. Low, hot, and blind sucks.

Yep.

Sometimes it's a trade-off, too. I picked up ice one day SE of Dallas at 16,000 in a stratus cloud. In August. And if you have passengers, make sure they're OK with a hose up the nose.

You still need storm avoidance higher up.
 
I agree with the advantages of being up high with airmass TS. If you can stay pretty much VMC, it's the way to go. However, one must go up and one must go down. In my 200HP non TC Mooney, it takes awhile to get up in the teens especially heavy. With convective air all around my departure and/or destination airport staying under the bases may be the better choice. If the buildups are just an enroute problem, then high it is.
 
Great write up, Lance.
I was thinking of adding a MX-20 or a 530 to my 430 ( I have an 81 201). I would also like weather, I guess that would be XM. Lance, how do you like the MX-20 with weather and do you think the MX-20 is a better choice than a 530? Which GPS are you using with the MX-20?
 
Bill Jennings said:
More food for thought when it comes time to choose an aircraft. Low, hot, and blind sucks.
Yup. High, cool and fast rocks. Fortunately Kath Ibold and Ken didn't mind the O2.... :)
 
Paul Allen said:
Great write up, Lance.
I was thinking of adding a MX-20 or a 530 to my 430 ( I have an 81 201). I would also like weather, I guess that would be XM. Lance, how do you like the MX-20 with weather and do you think the MX-20 is a better choice than a 530? Which GPS are you using with the MX-20?
Paul, my Mooney had a 430 in it when I bought it. A 530 exchange would have been cheaper than adding the MX20 and my avionics shop even recommended it. However the resolution and size of the MX20 screen and the other things an MFD offers totally convinced me this was the way to go. I formed this conclusion by comparisons I made going from booth to booth at Sun 'n Fun. The MX20 comes with a terrain database which I like as well.
I was sold on the weather (the Garmin GLD69 with XM Weather) on my first XC after the installation. Seems like every XC I've made this summer has been with TS everywhere, and having the NEXRAD is a wonderful tool.
For navigation IFR or VFR the 430/MX20 combination is great.
 
I have looked casually at a plane which has a GX55 and an MX20; since the 55 is IFR certified, that should still be a tolerably robust rig, shouldn't it?

Just add on the GDL69 soon, and upgrade the 55 down the road to either a 430 or a 480, and sounds like a good plan.

Right?
 
SCCutler said:
I have looked casually at a plane which has a GX55 and an MX20; since the 55 is IFR certified, that should still be a tolerably robust rig, shouldn't it?

Just add on the GDL69 soon, and upgrade the 55 down the road to either a 430 or a 480, and sounds like a good plan.

Right?
That's OK. But your #1 investment should be a ....turbocharger....!
 
bbchien said:
That's OK. But your #1 investment should be a ....turbocharger....!

The message is not lost on me...

...so I find my self thinking (some of what I've looked at with interest):

Lance Turbo (per your advice, intercooled only): roomy, reasonable, kinda big for everyday flying but great for trips;

Turbo-Normalized Bonanza (there's a really hot TN V35 w/ a 350hp engine- does that help offset the tail-heavy CG tendency?);

Mooney 231 or 252; I really like the efficiency that the Mooney's bring to the table, know legend has them cramped, observation from me is less headroom than a Bo, but less "cramped" feeling to the front; aso, legendary structural quality and, of course, built in Texas; Like 252 speed, always like lots of takeoff power, but then I get to freight extra fuel or fly w/ lesser reserves;

T210; have flown one a couple of times w/ friend, I see why they call it a good instrument platform, 'cuz if you trim it, its stays where you put it. Heavy enough on pitch I was afraid on climb-out that I had left the control lock in place (notwithstanding the minimum of three "free and correct" tests that I and the Ben Myers' of the world do...); wife claims not to like high wings, but roomy and solid, possible opportunity to buy 1/2 interest in nicely-equipped and corporately-maintained bird... don't like the monkey-motion in the gear system;

Lancair IV-P; fantasy land. Nice dream, though!

Insurance and time place appropriate twins likely out of reach.

So what if I find a plane I like a lot, but it is not turbocharged? How many aircraft do / do not have TC STC's available, and what is the cost of these? I have seen many nice-looking C33's with turboed 520s, for example.

And how much does the presence of the turbocharger really add to the cost of annuals and maintenance? And is that a price one would gladly pay annually for the piece of mind it might deliver once per annum?

These kinds of questions are the reason I like this board. If I have not made you all *bored*; thanks in advance for all advice!
 
Lance F said:
Paul, my Mooney had a 430 in it when I bought it. A 530 exchange would have been cheaper than adding the MX20 and my avionics shop even recommended it. However the resolution and size of the MX20 screen and the other things an MFD offers totally convinced me this was the way to go. I formed this conclusion by comparisons I made going from booth to booth at Sun 'n Fun. The MX20 comes with a terrain database which I like as well.
I was sold on the weather (the Garmin GLD69 with XM Weather) on my first XC after the installation. Seems like every XC I've made this summer has been with TS everywhere, and having the NEXRAD is a wonderful tool.
For navigation IFR or VFR the 430/MX20 combination is great.

The MX-20 is the way I've been leaning. Everyone that I talk to that has a MX-20 swears by it.
 
There's aftermarket turbonormalizing available for the older Commander 112/114 series. The AOPA Commander is getting one through RCM in Wyoming, the 114 is done through Camarillo somewhere in California.
 
SCCutler said:
The message is not lost on me...

...so I find my self thinking (some of what I've looked at with interest):

Lance Turbo (per your advice, intercooled only): roomy, reasonable, kinda big for everyday flying but great for trips;
They have cooling problems are therefore power limited by heat. With meticulous attention to baffling and operation, and NOTHING that can melt in the bay between the firewall and the cockpit, at 65% you will be OK. There are lots out there with intercoolers because of this.
SCCutler said:
Turbo-Normalized Bonanza (there's a really hot TN V35 w/ a 350hp engine- does that help offset the tail-heavy CG tendency?);
They're really 4 seaters....(W&B)
SCCutler said:
Mooney 231 or 252; I really like the efficiency that the Mooney's bring to the table, know legend has them cramped, observation from me is less headroom than a Bo, but less "cramped" feeling to the front; also, legendary structural quality and, of course, built in Texas; Like 252 speed, always like lots of takeoff power, but then I get to freight extra fuel or fly w/ lesser reserves;
Not necessarily true. You're getting 18-nmpge.g, 185 knots on 11 gph so you don't need much fuel. 925 nm only takes 66 gallons or 396 pounds of your payload.
SCCutler said:
T210; have flown one a couple of times w/ friend, I see why they call it a good instrument platform, 'cuz if you trim it, its stays where you put it. Heavy enough on pitch I was afraid on climb-out that I had left the control lock in place (notwithstanding the minimum of three "free and correct" tests that I and the Ben Myers' of the world do...); wife claims not to like high wings, but roomy and solid, possible opportunity to buy 1/2 interest in nicely-equipped and corporately-maintained bird... don't like the monkey-motion in the gear system;
Gear is indeed a weak spot, and they ALL need nost 5 & 6 topped at about 800 hours.
SCCutler said:
Lancair IV-P; fantasy land. Nice dream, though!
The men you have to be careful of, are the ones that dream with their eyes OPEN.
SCCutler said:
Insurance and time place appropriate twins likely out of reach.
I draw the line at $4,000 per year.
SCCutler said:
So what if I find a plane I like a lot, but it is not turbocharged? How many aircraft do / do not have TC STC's available, and what is the cost of these? I have seen many nice-looking C33's with turboed 520s, for example.
You ALWAYS lose money if you buy with the intent of making the mod. Let someone else do that.
SCCutler said:
And how much does the presence of the turbocharger really add to the cost of annuals and maintenance? And is that a price one would gladly pay annually for the piece of mind it might deliver once per annum?
Jim "duffer" who posts here flies a Seneca II even more conservatively than I- he uses 55% power for cruise. I use 65%. But I would expect to have to do half of your cylinders about 60% of the way to TBO.
SCCutler said:
These kinds of questions are the reason I like this board. If I have not made you all *bored*; thanks in advance for all advice!

Spike what it finally boils down to is you get fed up and you hold your nose, and into the pool you go. I was looking for a Turbo K-Ice T-Centurion. They were so pricey (-r models) that when I did the math, my $38,000 double runout Seneca II which had all sorts of deferred maintainence, was going to cost less to operate total through two rounds of engines than the Centurion.
 
Is there an easy way to predict the tops ? I'm flying from KRDU to KPOU in August and have been looking at what altitudes to make the trip at ?
 
jdwatson said:
Is there an easy way to predict the tops ? I'm flying from KRDU to KPOU in August and have been looking at what altitudes to make the trip at ?
Nope. In a 172 RG, you make the trip below unless you find the tops below 10,000. That sometimes IS the case in the midwest, but less often along the atlantic seaboard. Our club's 172RG gets pretty quiet around 12,000.
 
SCCutler said:
And how much does the presence of the turbocharger really add to the cost of annuals and maintenance? And is that a price one would gladly pay annually for the piece of mind it might deliver once per annum?

These kinds of questions are the reason I like this board. If I have not made you all *bored*; thanks in advance for all advice!

Spike,

When I looked around I went TC because it gets me higher where it's more comfortable. I do long trips. I also went with the Commander because it has two doors (and it turns heads). It's more comforatble for me than a Mooney width-wise.

As for maintenance, you have to be obsessive about the exhaust and the placement of wiring, hoses, etc. near the turbo. And the mounting brackets. Really obsessive.

I had a small crack develop in the exhaust that was very hard to find. Had it not been pointed toward a heat shield (and deflected down & out), it could have been a huge problem. We replaced the exhaust system. I've had a couple of cracks in the mounting brackets; if one cracks, the rotational force and vibration of the turbo can crack the others, leading to a cracked exhaust. At 1600 degrees (1725 redline), cracked exhaust will be a blowtorch.

You have a bigger problem if the oil line breaks - the turbo is oil cooled. Check and replace hoses on a schedule.

I got about 750-800 hours on the turbo before it needed overhaul. I run at 65% power most of the time, and I'm obsessive about cylinder temperatures.

You'll probably find that a complex plane requires more maintenance, and the turbo a bit more. I can't put a dollar figure on it, but in the end, having the turbo is worth it to me.

bill
 
I took a look at the m-20turbos turbonormalizer for the Mooney. Not that I'd do it...but does anyone know of a Mooney that has had this conversion? I'd sure be curious to know if they really have it sorted out. 20,000 ft :goofy:
 
Back
Top