Question is are there any structural differences between a Super 111 and a
Sierra//// Short answer would be YES If I am correct the Sierra is a
Sundowner with a retract gear the differences between a Sundowner and a
Super III are many , such as two doors so the cabin frame is different
about four inches wider than a Super III so it is not even the same fuselage
rounded sides as apposed to flat like the Super III the interior of the wing
has to be somewhat different to hold the wheel and gear I believe the Sierra
has a much larger cargo door "I might be wrong on that one" but still the
only thing that they really share is the IO 360 engine and C/P along with
just general same looks ....NOW I have broken a rule of mine and answered a
question on a subject that I am NOT a complete authority on so feel free to
stomp all over me ....HA HA fly safe Kevin huff
----- Original Message -----
From: <bac-mail-request@beechaeroclub.org>
To: <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:54 PM
Subject: BAC-Mail Digest, Vol 4, Issue 4


> Send BAC-Mail mailing list submissions to
> bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.beechaeroclub.org/mailman/listinfo/bac-mail
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> bac-mail-request@beechaeroclub.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> bac-mail-owner@beechaeroclub.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of BAC-Mail digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: [musketeermail] heated pitot (Mike Rellihan)
> 2. Re: Overweight (Albert Schmid)
> 3. RE: [musketeermail] Re: Low pressure screen crush gasket
> (Mike Rellihan)
> 4. 1977 C24R Sierra Seeks Travel Partner (Gerald Jackson)
> 5. RE: [musketeermail] Working and Dreaming (Mike Rellihan)
> 6. RE: [musketeermail] Over Gross (Mike Rellihan)
> 7. Re: Overweight (carllink@comcast.net)
> 8. Re: RE: [musketeermail] Grass Field Operations (Bill Howard)
> 9. RE: [musketeermail] Grass Field Operations (Mike Rellihan)
> 10. Grass Field Ocean Take Offs (mediareps@aol.com)
> 11. Re: RE: [musketeermail] Grass Field Operations (Jerry Kaidor)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:17:45 -0400
> From: "Mike Rellihan" <rellihan@rellihan.com>
> Subject: [BAC-Mail] RE: [musketeermail] heated pitot
> To: <dwritz@switchol.com>, <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>,
> <musketeermail@yahoogroups.com>
> Message-ID: <200510171108379.SM01212@mikesnewpc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The two heated pitot tubes recently advertised were not the correct models
> for the 19/23/24/76/77. They are currently for sale on eBay (seller
> Rellihan), if you wish to look at them; I have them listed for the
> original
> seller who offered them to MML/BAC (he was unaware of the incorrect
> application). I do not presently have a (correct) good one for sale.
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com [mailto:musketeermail@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of dwritz@switchol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:09 AM
> To: bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org; musketeermail@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [musketeermail] heated pitot
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> No joy on 2 heated pitots advertised a couple weeks ago. Still looking
> for
> one.
> Anyone have one for sale?
>
> Dennis Ritz
> n7657r
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:29:58 -0400
> From: "Albert Schmid" <AlphaAv7@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [BAC-Mail] Overweight
> To: "Brian & Bertha Foote" <bfoote@e-mart.tv>, "Albert Schmid"
> <AlphaAv7@cox.net>
> Cc: BAC Mail <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>
> Message-ID: <000901c5d351$291c4f20$4fcb0944@AlphaAV7>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Albert Schmid" <AlphaAv7@cox.net>
> To: "Brian & Bertha Foote" <bfoote@e-mart.tv>
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 7:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [BAC-Mail] Overweight
>
>
>> Hello Brian:
>> I appreciate your question about GTOW.
>> True, at 6 lbs. per gallon and a consumption rate of 12.5 gallons per
>> hour, you will be down about 40 pounds in about 30 minutes.
>>
>> However, you know that your airplane has a maximum takeoff weight. That
>> number was established by the manufacturer demonstrating the performance
>> to the FAA.
>> My "mouse" is 2450 pounds. At sealevel, standard temperature , density
>> altitude, hard surface vs. sod, I am assured that the airplane with
>> takeoff and climb with the maximum power available. With a heavier
>> airplane, you compromise the takeoff parameters.
>> Further more, the airplane has to work harder and climbs or cruises
>> slower than it should. Which will consume more fuel and cost you more
>> money.
>> Probably the most significant compromise if for some reason you have an
>> accident or incident and the insurance company can show that you chose to
>> operate outside of the limitations you may not be covered by your policy.
>> In addition to weight limitation, you should also look at the weight and
>> balance limitations.
>> For example, FORWARD CG. (1) increases the longitudinal stability,
>> increases the angle of attack and gives higher stick forces. (2) Lowers
>> the cruise speed. (3) Increases the stall speed, and (4) requires
>> greater back pressure on the elevator which might result in not being
>> able
>> to keep the nose up high enough for a safe landing.
>>
>> AFT CG (1) decreased the longitudinal stability and the aircraft will
>> tend to pitch up toward a stall during takeoff or landing.
>> (2) Reduces drag, as a smaller angle of attack is needed to maintain
>> altitude.
>> (3) lowers the stall speed because of less wing loading. and (4)
>> provides for poor stall/spin recovery.
>> So, use the Max Gross Take Off Weight limitation for best
>> performance.....and be certain that you are operating within the envelop
>> for Center of Gravity.
>> Happy takeoffs and subsequent landings. Fly Safe.
>> Al Schmid, ATP
>> N7631R BE23 s/n 1252 (1969) 180 hp
>> Quonset Point, RI.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Brian & Bertha Foote" <bfoote@e-mart.tv>
>> To: "BAC Mail" <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>;
>> <musketeermail@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 4:32 PM
>> Subject: [BAC-Mail] Overweight
>>
>>
>> OK, I know I am going to catch a lot of grief with this question.
>>
>> If overload my gross by 40 pounds and by the time I fly a 1/2 hour, I
>> would be back under gross. Do you think this could become a major issue
>> or
>> can our planes handle it?
>>
>> Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> BAC-Mail mailing list
>> BAC-Mail@beechaeroclub.org
>> http://www.beechaeroclub.org/mailman/listinfo/bac-mail
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 2/14/2005
>
>
> ---
>
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 2/14/2005
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:30:05 -0400
> From: "Mike Rellihan" <rellihan@rellihan.com>
> Subject: [BAC-Mail] RE: [musketeermail] Re: Low pressure screen crush
> gasket
> To: "'dlevy52'" <dlevy52@yahoo.com>, <musketeermail@yahoogroups.com>,
> <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>
> Message-ID: <200510172121874.SM00733@mikesnewpc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> David, sorry I didn't get to this in time to help out.
>
>
>
> To all- Have you obtained your toolbox hardware quick-reference book yet,
> from Genuine Aircraft Hardware? Free with any hardware order, though they
> do have a minimum order. This book will tell you at least 90% of
> anything
> you need to know about aircraft hardware. Page 98 shows the reference for
> MS35769 crush gaskets; the MS35769 specification supersedes the old AN900
> specification. The reference includes the cross-reference from the AN900
> number to the new MS35769 number. All you need to know, to select a
> gasket
> size, is the inner diameter of the gasket. You can measure the ID of the
> old one, or you can measure the OD of the part it is being used on (like a
> plug or screen holder).
>
>
>
> If you don't need to place a minimum order with GAH, Aircraft Spruce still
> lists the gaskets under their AN900 number, and shows the ID so you can
> select the correct one. Note that the dash numbers are not the same, for
> a
> given size. For example, an AN900-16 crosses to an MS35769-21.
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com [mailto:musketeermail@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of dlevy52
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 5:29 PM
> To: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [musketeermail] Re: Low pressure screen crush gasket
>
>
>
> I found it. Part # is AN900-16.
>
> --- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, "dlevy52" <dlevy52@y...> wrote:
>>
>> I need some crush gaskets for the low pressure screen on my Lycoming
>> O-320-E2C. I've made the mistake of looking up the part number and
>> ending up with the wrong one.
>>
>> I'd like to order about 20 from somewhere like Aircraft Spruce. Does
>> anyone know if part # 35769-9 is the correct (small) crush gasket for
>> the O-320?
>>
>> I already searched BAC and I don't know where to post the question (at
>> BAC).
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Gerald Jackson <g_v_jackson@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [BAC-Mail] 1977 C24R Sierra Seeks Travel Partner
> To: bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org, musketeermail@yahoogroups.com
> Message-ID: <20051018032935.91990.qmail@web80910.mail.scd.y ahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Well, the sun rose on my Beech flying hours less than
> a year ago, and each rise is accompanied by a setting.
> I'll spare you the details, but its an old story, an
> emerging health issue leads me to part ways with what
> has quickly become a very comfortable travel partner.
> If you know someone who has been looking for a Sierra,
> please forward them my e-mail address as I've got a
> beauty for them to consider. Great groups: MM & BAC.
> Enjoyed the learning and the dialog. Glad I got the
> chance to meet a few of you (and I would have met more
> if fly-in weather hadn't been so bad so often)!
> Onward and Upward,
>
> Gerald - N18903
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
> http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:10:06 -0400
> From: "Mike Rellihan" <rellihan@rellihan.com>
> Subject: [BAC-Mail] RE: [musketeermail] Working and Dreaming
> To: "'davidweb'" <dkavanay@cableone.net>,
> <musketeermail@yahoogroups.com>, <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>
> Message-ID: <200510180801725.SM01466@mikesnewpc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I'm assuming that you have considered buying one of the very nice-sounding
> C24R Sierras that have recently been offered?
>
>
>
> Of course, if you just can't be happy until you have has the Bo experience
> in your life, and you have the money to burn, then "why not". It is
> widely
> held that the "good Bo's" began with the 1969 V35A. The 1969 and later
> had
> fewer airframe and engine issues, and better performance.
>
>
>
> Contrary to popular belief, the Bo's went through many, many changes
> during
> their production life, to address a myriad of issues. There are Bonanzas,
> and there are Bonanzas. And having said that, if you can be happy with a
> straight-tail (Model 33), rather than the V-tail (Model 35), you'll be
> much
> happier with its utility and safety. Any of them worth buying is probably
> going to cost you somewhere north of $140,000.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com [mailto:musketeermail@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of davidweb
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:24 AM
> To: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [musketeermail] Working and Dreaming
>
>
>
> Hey Guys:
>
> Life as an insurance adjuster since Katrina has been all work and very
> little play (flying).
>
> I have been dreaming again about buying and owning a V35 Bonanza. I
> know the cost to maintain will be alot more than my Musketeer but my
> dream will not go away. I guess I am looking for positive comments to
> encourage me to follow that dream.
>
> If I do decide to buy the Bonanza, I will be selling my 64 A23.
> Problems with engine parts are not an issue with 8796M as I have a
> complete 2nd engine with 4 newly OH cylinders.
>
> Comments??
>
> David
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:55:02 -0400
> From: "Mike Rellihan" <rellihan@rellihan.com>
> Subject: [BAC-Mail] RE: [musketeermail] Over Gross
> To: <Crzbone2@aol.com>, <musketeermail@yahoogroups.com>,
> <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>
> Message-ID: <200510180846926.SM00478@mikesnewpc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I do not know of any beef-up mods made to the Sundowner or Sierra
> specifically to increase the max gross weight. Some changes were made to
> both during the production run (as on all planes), to address things like
> wing bracket cracks, Stabilator bearings, the aerobatic capability (for
> the
> Canadian Air Force), and the retract gear on the Sierra. I'll see whether
> I
> can find out more, but it could take a while.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com [mailto:musketeermail@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Crzbone2@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 11:07 AM
> To: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [musketeermail] Over Gross
>
>
>
> I fly the Super 111 and my gross is 2500# my question is did beech do
> anything to the airframe to beef it up when they changed it to the Sierra?
> Beech
> raised the gross to 2750# to keep the usefull load around 1000# . So
> does
> anyone know if structural changes were made? Alan
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:43:32 +0000
> From: carllink@comcast.net
> Subject: Re: [BAC-Mail] Overweight
> To: "Brian & Bertha Foote" <bfoote@e-mart.tv>, "BAC Mail"
> <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>, <musketeermail@yahoogroups.com>
> Message-ID:
> <101820051543.4493.435518240001A4B60000118D2206 42461305020704049D0E0C@comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> The issue is really performance, not structural integrity. 40 pounds is
> not a sigificant amount to be over gross. However, it seems that every
> ski season in Colorado, we have an accident involving an over gross
> airplane trying to outclimb the terrain. If you have flown your airplane
> at gross and know what to expect, you'll be ok. Remember, that, at 400
> fpm, it takes a mile and a half of horizontal distance to climb 400
> feet--more at higher temperatures.
>
> Carl Link
> N3666Q
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> OK, I know I am going to catch a lot of grief with this question.
>>
>> If overload my gross by 40 pounds and by the time I fly a 1/2 hour, I
>> would be
>> back under gross. Do you think this could become a major issue or can our
>> planes
>> handle it?
>>
>> Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> BAC-Mail mailing list
>> BAC-Mail@beechaeroclub.org
>> http://www.beechaeroclub.org/mailman/listinfo/bac-mail From
>> rellihan@rellihan.com Thu Oct 20 13:37:00 2005
> Return-Path: <rellihan@rellihan.com>
> X-Original-To: bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org
> Delivered-To: bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org
> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by reich.xrackhosting.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38385474E63
> for <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:37:00 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from reich.xrackhosting.net ([127.0.0.1])
> by localhost (reich.xrackhosting.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
> port 10024) with LMTP id 09348-01 for <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>;
> Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:36:56 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from backroads.net (smtpout.backroads.net [209.213.16.126])
> by reich.xrackhosting.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBFF474E2D
> for <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:36:55 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from mikesnewpc [64.53.75.22] by backroads.net with ESMTP
> (SMTPD-8.20) id A5AFFBA4; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:36:47 -0400
> From: "Mike Rellihan" <rellihan@rellihan.com>
> To: "'ke4oh'" <ke4oh@yahoo.com>, <musketeermail@yahoogroups.com>,
> <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>
> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:45:47 -0400
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
> Thread-Index: AcXVfkpaojDxFJY0SVuPXBe7E/lBqAAGnrYQ
> In-Reply-To: <dj87o8+ije6@eGroups.com>
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
> Message-Id: <200510201336386.SM01204@mikesnewpc>
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at reich.xrackhosting.net
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.2
> Cc:
> Subject: [BAC-Mail] RE: [musketeermail] Grass Field Operations
> X-BeenThere: bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
> Precedence: list
> Reply-To: mike@rellihan.com
> List-Id: General Mailing-list of the Beech Aero Club
> <bac-mail.beechaeroclub.org>
> List-Unsubscribe:
> <http://www.beechaeroclub.org/mailman/listinfo/bac-mail>,
> <mailto:bac-mail-request@beechaeroclub.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Post: <mailto:bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:bac-mail-request@beechaeroclub.org?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <http://www.beechaeroclub.org/mailman/listinfo/bac-mail>,
> <mailto:bac-mail-request@beechaeroclub.org?subject=subscribe>
>
> To all the other good comments, I will add the following. Those having
> direct experience with any of these factors are welcome to speak up. With
> Gaston's coming up, this should make a good Forum on BAC, even though
> there
> is a large "body of evidence" already there.
>
>
>
> Landing roll-outs will be much shorter than paved-field roll-outs. They
> also give you an early clue about added takeoff rolling resistance.
>
>
>
> Even smooth grass fields are rougher on the airframe than is pavement.
> Make
> sure your landing gear cushion disks (donuts) are reasonably "fresh" (not
> all flattened out with the rubber extruding well past the metal spacers,
> with vertical cracks in the OD). This includes the nose gear. The
> difference in cushioning, and in landing impacts (and taxi/departure
> impacts), both grass and paved, is night and day. Ask someone who
> recently
> replaced their donuts.
>
>
>
> Keep approach speeds low. Most of these turf fields are much shorter than
> you are accustomed to. While you need to make soft landings rather than
> "carrier plunks", you can't afford to float forever with partial power
> still
> on (as so many seem to do on paved runways).
>
>
>
> Remember that brakes will be nearly ineffective on turf at any significant
> speed; the wheels will just lock up. Be prepared to do a deliberate
> low-speed ground loop, with braking on one side assisted with rudder, to
> avoid going straight into any departure-end obstacles. Most low-speed
> ground loops are non-events in planes like ours, but few people mentally
> prepare to do them deliberately. At low speeds they are pretty effective
> at
> dissipating energy without damage. I DO NOT advocate any deliberate
> practice, for obvious reasons! They can also help on pavement, but the
> added tire grip makes them much riskier on paved surfaces (tipping,
> wingtip
> contact, quartering tip-up or nose-over with prop strike, etc.). At slow
> speeds I would still choose to attempt one on pavement, if it might keep
> me
> out of certain contact with hard obstacles or a ditch ( or from going over
> a
> cliff?!).
>
>
>
> Hold enough takeoff back pressure to relieve the nosewheel load, but not
> enough to raise it clear. On firm turf (which is all you should be
> using),
> that will provide the best compromise between added acceleration drag and
> reduced impact loads on the nose structure.
>
>
>
> Use at least one notch of takeoff flaps for much the same reasons. If you
> are comfortable with it, adding a second notch will pop you off the ground
> earlier, when you get fast enough. The speed varies with aircraft,
> loading,
> weight, power, etc., but usually is pretty close to the published stall
> speed.
>
>
>
> Climb at Vx rather than Vy; with two notches of flaps, the charts often
> suggest climb speeds below Vx. Leave on one notch of flaps (or both
> notches
> if you used two) until you approach Vy. By Vy flaps are generating more
> drag than lift, but I rarely retract flaps until I am clear of obstacles,
> except at large paved fields. Our planes tend to make a small nose-dip on
> flap retraction, until you have begun to subconsciously correct for it.
> Read the performance charts on BAC for these operations at the lower end
> of
> the performance envelope. There is a ton of good info there. Could save
> your bacon and airplane some day.
>
>
>
> Practice these methods on pavement. Once you are comfortable with your
> departure technique, and are doing it well, you can play it safe and add
> maybe 20% to the "departure distance for obstacle clearance" that you are
> achieving. It is a virtual certainty that you will find that number to be
> well within your capability on a 2,100 foot strip.
>
>
>
> BEWARE OF TALL GRASS! It is like operating in glue, especially when wet
> with dew or recent rain. If a field is not being mowed frequently, or
> there
> seems to be a likelihood of minimal field maintenance, look elsewhere.
>
>
>
> And finally, check your insurance policy. Some still exclude operations
> on
> unpaved fields.
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com [mailto:musketeermail@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of ke4oh
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:57 AM
> To: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [musketeermail] Grass Field Operations
>
>
>
> Does anyone have experience operating one of our birds regularly from a
> grass field? The FBO situation at my current (paved) field is beginning
> to be a real headache.
>
> There are two decent grass fields near me (one 2100 ft, the other 2400
> ft) that I'm considering moving to. Both are relatively smooth and are
> well taken care of.
>
> So, what is the real-world experience with a steady diet of turf
> runways? Is this a realistic possibility? Will I have any long-term
> maintenance issues due to our stiff landing gear?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steve Robertson
> N4732J 1967 Super III
>
> _____
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:08:20 -0700
> From: Bill Howard <bhoward@bmi.net>
> Subject: Re: [BAC-Mail] RE: [musketeermail] Grass Field Operations
> To: '' ke4oh '' <ke4oh@yahoo.com>, musketeermail@yahoogroups.com,
> bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org, 'Mike Rellihan' <rellihan@rellihan.com>
> Message-ID: <20051020200820.BBC7114DED5@hans.bmi.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Thu Oct 20 10:45 , "Mike Rellihan" sent:
>
> Even smooth grass fields are rougher on the airframe than is pavement.
>
> Make sure your landing gear cushion disks (donuts) are reasonably "fresh"
> (not
> all flattened out with the rubber extruding well past the metal spacers,
> with vertical cracks in the OD). This includes the nose gear. The
> difference in cushioning, and in landing impacts (and taxi/departure
> impacts), both grass and paved, is night and day. Ask someone who recently
> replaced their donuts.
>
> ----
>
> AMEN! A rough grass field convinced me to order the donuts ASAP after I
> got back!
>
> ---
> Mike:
> Hold enough takeoff back pressure to relieve the nosewheel load, but not
> enough
> to raise it clear. On firm turf (which is all you should be using), that
> will
> provide the best compromise between added acceleration drag and reduced
> impact
> loads on the nose structure.
>
> ---
>
> Using full aft yoke seemed to cause my '40psi' tires to dig in - VERY poor
> acceleration, until I relaxed the pull.
>
> ---
> Mike:
> If you are comfortable with it, adding a second notch will pop you off the
> ground
> earlier, when you get fast enough. Leave on one notch of flaps (or both
> notches
> if you used two) until you approach Vy.
>
> ---
>
> Major difference in ground run w/ two notches! Good climb with one notch
> (remind
> your partner to remind you about that last notch! - OR your cruise speed
> will!)
>
> ---
>
> I'll bet 200 ponies would help, too!
>
> Bill Howard
> BeechSportBill
> N1927W 1973 Sport 150
> Beech Aero Club NorthWest Region Director
>
>
>
> ---- Msg sent via @bmi.net Mail v4 - http://www.bmi.net
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:13:43 -0400
> From: "Mike Rellihan" <rellihan@rellihan.com>
> Subject: [BAC-Mail] RE: [musketeermail] Grass Field Operations
> To: "'Ann Kirby'" <abk100@yahoo.com>, "'Al Todd'"
> <av8tor8770m@sbcglobal.net>, <musketeermail@yahoogroups.com>,
> "'ke4oh'" <ke4oh@yahoo.com>, <bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org>
> Message-ID: <200510202004666.SM01069@mikesnewpc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I have some fair experience with my C24R Sierra on grass/turf, including
> firm, soft, and wet. Part of that experience was reflected in my recent
> posting on the subject. I don't operate off anything but firm, dry,
> well-mowed turf anymore. There are two key reasons. One is that
> performance becomes far less predictable. Some conditions of wet, soft
> ground, or tall wet grass, may make it impossible to ever reach a "break
> clear speed". Sort of like being unable to get the hull of an amphibs
> clear
> of smooth water. It is a bit of a creepy feeling. The situation is
> similar
> to icing and frost. Since you can't make it have a predictable
> performance
> effect, I just avoid it. The second reason is that I hate cleaning the
> godawful mess off of the bottom of the plane, and out of the gear strut
> area.
>
>
>
> Bonanzas, and most other retracts, have routinely operated off of firm
> turf
> fields. Most early Bonanzas probably spent much of their life on them.
> Ditto for the Model 55 Barons, and the early Travelairs, Apaches, etc.
> If
> the field isn't kept smooth, I can't help but think that it implies a need
> for careful ops and inspections. Actual touchdowns are often softer on
> turf; but the grass clumps, etc. can get pretty bouncy during taxi and
> departure.
>
>
>
> This reminded me. Jon called my attention to the fact that some early 150
> HP-160 HP planes have only two notches of flaps. My comments about
> pulling
> in a second notch of flaps, to pop off the ground when ready, applies to
> those planes ONLY when they are being operated IAW the maximum performance
> charts published on BAC (lower IAS of 60 MPH for max climb). If you are
> sticking with the book numbers (higher climb IAS), don't use that
> technique
> unless you have all three flap settings available.
>
>
>
> It may be repetitive, but there are several valuable references available
> on
> BAC that relate to these max-performance operations. In addition to the
> charts, there are articles and links that offer more knowledge on this
> subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com [mailto:musketeermail@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Ann Kirby
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:57 PM
> To: Al Todd; musketeermail@yahoogroups.com; ke4oh
> Subject: Re: [musketeermail] Grass Field Operations
>
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> I flew my sport and sundowner in and out of grass
> strips probably once a week for more 10 or 15 yrs.,
> which is probably more than a lot of guys that are
> based on grass fly, and think they are great for that.
> The trailing link gear will take the rough pounding
> some grass strips will give, with no problems at all.
> I haven't had my sierra on the grass because my good
> friend who had the strip I went to the most, passed
> away before I got it, or I probably would have. My
> only concern would be the possibility of clumps, mud,
> etc. in the wheel wells. Has anyone any experience or
> advice for retracts on turf?
>
> Dan Sierra N9299S
>
> --- Al Todd <av8tor8770m@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi, I never based at a turf field, but used them all
>> the time. My A23 was a
>> great soft/turf field aircraft. I had 600-6 tires
>> all the way around, gives
>> very good prop clearance.
>> The book, and my experience tells me either field
>> would work factoring in
>> obstacles on approach and departure. You might want
>> to manage your fuel to
>> half tanks for better performance, only topping when
>> the mission demands it.
>> I never based on turf because the ones available to
>> me were not useable
>> several months of the year due to lottsa water, wet
>> & white, you might want
>> to find out how the field conditions change with the
>> seasons. Some are very
>> good year round, some are not.
>> I love landing on turf, makes you look good if they
>> roll it occasionally.
>> Blue skies and green grass
>> Al Todd B24R 9321S
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ke4oh" <ke4oh@yahoo.com>
>> To: <musketeermail@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:57 AM
>> Subject: [musketeermail] Grass Field Operations
>>
>>
>> > Does anyone have experience operating one of our
>> birds regularly from a
>> > grass field? The FBO situation at my current
>> (paved) field is beginning
>> > to be a real headache.
>> >
>> > There are two decent grass fields near me (one
>> 2100 ft, the other 2400
>> > ft) that I'm considering moving to. Both are
>> relatively smooth and are
>> > well taken care of.
>> >
>> > So, what is the real-world experience with a
>> steady diet of turf
>> > runways? Is this a realistic possibility? Will I
>> have any long-term
>> > maintenance issues due to our stiff landing gear?
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Steve Robertson
>> > N4732J 1967 Super III
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club
>> for the Musketeer
>> series!
>> >
>> > www.beechaeroclub.org
>> >
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>> --------------------~-->
>> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
>> Yahoo! your home page
>>
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUI...LSAA/SyTolB/TM
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>>
>>
>> Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club
>> for the Musketeer series!
>>
>> www.beechaeroclub.org
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>> musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
> Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer
> series!
>
> www.beechaeroclub.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
>
>
> Aviation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=...chool&w2=A
> viation+training&w3=Aviation+training+school&a mp;w4=Aviation+training+schools&w5
> =Aviation+training+academy&c=5&s=136&. sig=LCZu7c3-HSTr-DLuhLOR2Q> school
>
> Aviation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=...+school&w2
> =Aviation+training&w3=Aviation+training+school &w4=Aviation+training+schools&
> w5=Aviation+training+academy&c=5&s=136&amp ;.sig=hm4K5SzsAUYOqBr0Ql5l1w>
> training
>
> Aviation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=...w1=Aviation+sc
> hool&w2=Aviation+training&w3=Aviation+trai ning+school&w4=Aviation+training+s
> chools&w5=Aviation+training+academy&c=5&am p;s=136&.sig=g_rmhswaTPt7xYe2b9mrtA>
> training school
>
>
> Aviation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=...;w1=Aviation+s
> chool&w2=Aviation+training&w3=Aviation+tra ining+school&w4=Aviation+training+
> schools&w5=Aviation+training+academy&c=5&a mp;s=136&.sig=0FKmwosqac65oN6Qk_HMiQ>
> training schools
>
> Aviation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=...;w1=Aviation+s
> chool&w2=Aviation+training&w3=Aviation+tra ining+school&w4=Aviation+training+
> schools&w5=Aviation+training+academy&c=5&a mp;s=136&.sig=NBRG952Pyxne0LxLH1VHTA>
> training academy
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> * Visit your group "musketeermail
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail> " on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:37:28 -0400
> From: mediareps@aol.com
> Subject: [BAC-Mail] Grass Field Ocean Take Offs
> To: mike@rellihan.com, abk100@yahoo.com, av8tor8770m@sbcglobal.net,
> musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, ke4oh@yahoo.com,
> bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org
> Message-ID: <8C7A3EEBFEA9444-4C4-7AF0@FWM-R25.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Grass is fun to land on and take off from. Make sure there is enough of it
> so that you have an inch or two more length than necessary. If there are
> no trees at one end - that's great. If the runway ends at the ocean - see
> "Musketeers Do Not Float" on beechaeroclub.org.
>
> Tom Corcoran
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Jerry Kaidor" <jerry@tr2.com>
> Subject: Re: [BAC-Mail] RE: [musketeermail] Grass Field Operations
> To: mike@rellihan.com
> Cc: 'Ann Kirby' <abk100@yahoo.com>, bac-mail@beechaeroclub.org,
> 'ke4oh' <ke4oh@yahoo.com>, musketeermail@yahoogroups.com
> Message-ID: <1226.10.120.102.10.1129859264.squirrel@tr4.tr2 .com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>> in a second notch of flaps, to pop off the ground when ready,
>
> *** This reminds me of my Cessna 140 days - when I wanted to leave the
> ground expeditiously, I'd yank full flaps ( they were little tiny flaps,
> not like the barndoor fowler flaps in later Cessnas ) and pull the yoke
> simultaneously. The think would jump off the ground like a rabbit!
>
> Ernest Gann tells a neat story about flaps in "Fate is the Hunter".
> His plane had been overfueled, and he almost creamed the Taj Mahal. A
> quick application of flaps saved the plane and the building.
>
> - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry@tr2.com )
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> BAC-Mail mailing list
> BAC-Mail@beechaeroclub.org
> http://www.beechaeroclub.org/mailman/listinfo/bac-mail
>
>
> End of BAC-Mail Digest, Vol 4, Issue 4
> **************************************
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.24/101 - Release Date: 9/13/2005
>
>

_______________________________________________
BAC-Mail mailing list
BAC-Mail@beechaeroclub.org
http://www.beechaeroclub.org/mailman/listinfo/bac-mail