Just fly a full constand heading side slip and Mooney_Driver wrote:
I reckon they’d better replace it with something fully EASA certified and leave this one N-Reg.
… or certify the system, if standards are met. Contact me, if you need help with that.
AnthonyQ wrote:
This has been rehashed billions of times and people still interpret demonstrated crosswind as some kind of limit….which it is not nor ever intended to be…In Sweden, the demo x-wind is a limit. Until part-NCO – hooray!
tomjnx wrote:
It depends on what metric you use for best, commercially that airplane is a huge disaster, it’s a massive lossmaker for the aeroclub. Their current party line is that this is due to it being N-reg and therefore not attractive for renters, that’s why they go through the hassle to put it on easa reg (it’s not just FIKI, but DME as well). But I’m not holding my breath.
Well, that is what they decided. I do agree however that operating a N-Reg airplane in a mainstream aeroclub is a problem. Following the loss of their Mooney travel airplane they apparently decided that they would replace it with the best and newest they could get. That is not a bad decision per se. At the time, the 3 types they looked at were the SR22, the Columbia and the Ovation. At the time none of the 3 were certified in Europe so they would have to stay N-Reg. Whether they could have thought that out of the 3, the one they chose would face major certification problems later on, I would think unlikely. So what they did is go for the plane they considered the most advanced, fast and modern.
DME is relatively easy to fix as many Cirrus airplanes show, but the fact that FIKI has to be disabled or even uninstalled is totally crazy. I reckon they’d better replace it with something fully EASA certified and leave this one N-Reg.
Maybe this example serves to show why many aeroclubs are justifyably reluctant to accept new airplanes.
Yes the crosswind demonstrated limit is conservative. The Ovation at least is definitely capable of more. Anthony thinks it is not an issue with insurance if one departs the runway when landing above the limit. I think it can be. That is down to personal interpretation.
I think we have had numerous threads on the “TAS deception” procedures in marketing brochures 
Given that the biggest SEP engine is around 350HP, and usually a lot less (if it is to last more than 5 minutes), basically anything in a 4-seater over about 180kt is (a) TAS not IAS and (b) was done at variously impractical Darth-Vader-oxygen-mask altitudes.
“Fastest” related posts moved here
Thanks Shorrick_Mk2.
The Mooney cross wind limit seems to be 11 knots. I would like to assume that to be very conservative, or?
My current RG can deal with all lot more than demonstrated cross wind, without too much skill involved.
Main thing is to keep those damned feet off the brakes! That was my point in the earlier post.
The thread is about RG v FG efficiency and strength.
As I see it the reason the FG design on the Cirrus/Columbia has such slippery gear due to:
No stearing fitted
Verry small wheels and tyres fitted, such as a RG type
Tightly fitting spats, with very restricted cooling, tending to overheat easily
complex-pilot wrote:
irst of all the pilot can actually steer with the front wheel, applying brakes as a secondary option.
Seems so obvious to me.
Have you actually FLOWN a Columbia ?
Not having a stearable NG is only a very small nuisance when starting to taxi. In landing & TO there is no decernable difference.
That said, the Mooney’s very shallow stearing angle limit is abit of a problem when handling the acft.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
limit
BS
Has anybody really ever “tested” that? Or is it just typical forum wisdom?
For insurance purposes it can be a limit ^^
