Mooney makes a comeback

JetProp is very cool, but too expensive for me. But I've flown it in Spokane once, and that was very nice. I dmit that I liked the PC12 and TBM700C2 even better, but then ... i know ot's not a fair comparison

Horses for courses, and budgets as well...

forgot which imgur link i need to show pic here ... sorry

I have just updated Posting Tips with the above specific example for Imgur.

I have flown in eal's Jetprop. It is an awesome machine and I can completely understand why he bought it. It fits his mission profile perfectly (he does keep a little mogas piston machine for local stuff also) and if I had such a mission profile I would buy a Jetprop right away.

However my wish is for this astonishing machine to be legalised for IFR in Europe.

Peter,

That was an approach to rwy 33 with a very long landing. I kept the speed up as requested then simply levelled off, let the speed bleed away to the 120 mph gear speed, dropped the gear and flaps and landed where they wanted me. In place to be able to vaccate at the taxyway in front of the terminal.

You see similar long landing approaches at zrh on rwy 14 as well.

Aiming for the normal tdz, no, that would not work at all.

There is a reasonable position that a "maximally competent and compliant" pilot should be at Vle at the GS intercept.

Too bad you will be maximally competently and compliantly shown the boot in Vienna. And while you can still land in Zurich in a Cat A aircraft, not promising them 150kt on the ILS tends to bring you sightseeing time in a holding.

But it only works because the gear is down all the way down the GS.

Depends on your aircraft. Not a problem for the arrow.

I would never do this on an IR test.

I did just that, handflown. No complaint from the expert.

"on the ils" is not the same as "2 miles final", or is it?

"on the ils" is not the same as "2 miles final", or is it?

Appears one has to be careful already what to post here.... Pity. He asked me what speed I could fly on the ILS and I told him 150-160 kts until the marker, to which he replied something along the lines of "maintain 160 kts as long as possible and aim for a landing to vaccate via taxiway C or B." Whether he told me to 2 nm or as long as possible, hey it was 2 years ago. But I remember flying to about 2 NM at 150-160 kts before levelling off for the long landing. And that in a Mooney does not mean full power on a 3° glide, I think I had about 20" on clean as opposed to about 15" normally.

This was VMC, a "practice approach" in smooth weather and a 3300 m long runway in front of me. So if I fly down to 2 NM of the threshold of that runway at cruise speed, I still have the 2 NM PLUS 2 km of runway lenght to slow down, configure and land. Particularly if they request of me (as they did here) to leave at the end or at a taxiway close to the end.

That is about what it looked like, if a tad higher on that approach. The aim was to leave at the first of the two taxiways at the very end of that runway.

As Tom sais correctly, every day ops in ZRH as well as other large airports where they are happy to have you at 150 kt or possibly 140 on the ILS but will be very reluctant to accept you on a flight school type ILS with gear and mid flaps down from 8NM final! Actually, people like that are ONE reason small aircraft and "slow moving IFR" are seen with so much enthusiasm at these airports.

Of course for a real IMC approach to minimums, things will look differently. But on these large airports, you are not doing yourself nor your fellow GA pilots ANY favour by not being flexible.

On a runway like that and in conditions like that, flying down the ILS in a steady stream of airliners with approach speeds of 140-150 kts with 90 kts and land at the THR and then taxi down 3 km of runway is simply inconsiderate. And it will give the tower controllers of that airport a very good reason to bitch like mad about the "insects" slowing up their traffic stream.

When I did my IR the first time, it was on the Seneca II. On large airports like ZRH or GVA we would fly the approach at 140-150 kts to the OM, then slow down to Vle and drop the gear and flaps at somewhere close to 2 NM. In VMC, we would do a landing so we can get off the runway in the fastest possible way, that is touchdown approximately 800 m or so before the taxiway we want to take.

On ZRH runway 14, this will be either some 1500 m down or 2 km down the runway. At Geneva it was also quite a distance from the threshold, as you want to take one of the two taxiways to the GAC to the north. Likewise, on a normal day when I fly into 28, I will aim for the very threshold in order to get off on the first TWY and not block crossing airliners at taxiway J. Obviously in that case, speed will come down much earlier.

It's simply common sense to minimize runway occupancy time. And the feedback I am getting from the controllers is usually very positive. One has to know one's airplane of course, but that is anyway a given to me if you operate into these airports. And, you have to know your own limits. If you feel uncomfortable, don't do it, but then better stay away from such hubs where small airplanes are anyway only tolerated grudgingly.

You also have to be a fast worker if flying by hand, holding the ILS while trying to lose so much speed, trimming, etc. It's easy if using the autopilot... I would never do this on an IR test.

Again, we are talking of an approach followed by a visual long landing from about 2 NM. That is a totally different thing than a precision approach to minimums. I don't even have an AP and it is a non event. I've done this about twice so far, as I don't fly IFR but am dependent on the odd practice approach in VMC, and it is not a problem at all.

Would I do it on an IR check? Depends on what has been briefed. If ZRH was involved and an examiner who is based there or knows it, I would expect to brief it this way even and if he had reservations about it, he can voice them pre flight, so we both know what to expect. My experience with IR checks at the time was that the people taking them were very practically orientated and would certainly not wish to be a flying obstacle. They are all very well aware of the problems GA face at these airports. BTW, not many airliners I see have gear down and full flaps at the intercept point of the ILS either. Usually, they get configured about 4 NM out to the final setting.

I understand what you are saying.

I was not trying to make a war or pick holes in your assertion that your Mooney can keep the speed up, I was merely saying that a controller cannot INSTRUCT you to keep the speed so high until such a short range.

I can believe the controllers like it when you do so.