Dan wrote:
parked in the grass
Affirm – on the “acre” on the north side. I don’t know how much you gave the marshallers for the premier parking spot on tarmac 
Dan wrote:
Flying is such a joy
Except the turbulences down low yesterday, which we encountered on our sightseeing flight back north along the river Rhine…
Peter wrote:
Faster than a C182
From what I read the standard 182 is about 135-140 kts fast. So yea, the C-Mooney has a little edge on it but for practical purposes I’d think they are similar.
Still, to that PA28-140 I looked at, that is a considerable difference.
That thing flew 100 kts with WOT and at 5000 ft, which is about the max speed you can get out of it, even though some people claim they can get 110 kts out of that type, depending on the prop (climb vs cruise).
What was cool about it was that it had a 2 axis AP (Century II plus a Sys 30 Alt) installed, which actually worked quite well. So I probably would have saved a lot of money as this thing would never go IFR but simply get a Mode S Transponder and a VFR GPS I already had.
Where it really shows is when you start to compare destinations and range.
Comparing the standard 500 NM leg, the PA28 would do that one in about 5 hours and use 140 liters, the Mooney does the 500 NM in 3:30 and uses 130 liters of fuel. That is 10 liters less and 1.5 hours overhead cost.
Not to forget however, the best speed mod is range. A plane with more range can offset faster cruise speed vs a faster plane with less range which requires a fuel stop on a particular route.
hazek wrote:
Ever tried this?:
YMMV, but I found that I prefer the below
Dan wrote:
Flew in and out on Carson speed. Flying is such a joy, why would I curtail the pleasure by wasting fuel, producing more noise and pollution, and give my engine a harder time?
At which speed does Mr Carson reside, on your aircraft?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
From what I read the standard 182 is about 135-140 kts fast
For a 182S, knock 5 knots off that, and even then at 75%+ power with a fuel flow of 12-13USG/hr.
There’s a 25% fuel flow difference between 120KTAS and 135KTAS so for cost reasons I fly in the low 120s, which also lets me get lean-of-peak to shave another 1 USG/hr off the book figures.
Older 182s might be a bit faster as they tend to be lighter.
@Winston beat me to it. The C182 comes in a whole load of different configurations, but a standard, i.e. N/A, FG, wheel pants, standard 235hp engine, is a 125-130kt airplane. The RGs cruise around 140kts. You can push them to go faster, but at a massive fuel burn penalty that’s rarely worth it.
The C182 comes in a whole load of different configurations, but a standard, i.e. N/A, FG, wheel pants, standard 235hp engine, is a 125-130kt airplane
Based on chasing one with my 127 kt aircraft, I’d say that’s true
which speed does Mr Carson reside, on your aircraft?
111.86 KIAS… which may return around 125 KTAS at 4K, or 148 KTAS at 12K… fuel burn around 19 liters (5 USG) @4K, around 24 liters (6.3 USG) @12K 🤓
Typical settings 19"/1900 = around 43% power.
PS
This unfortunately all goes down the drain if I happen to fly with @Eurogaguest1980 who’s not only an IT man, but also happened to be binary programmed himself and reflected in his flying style, as in 0 or 1 🤣
