|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
December 24th 03, 05:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
How much rough field experience do you have? Rough field is about prop
clearance but it is also about gear strength and low stall speeds. Mike MU-2 "EDR" wrote in message ... In article . net, Mike Rapoport wrote: Sure they could have sold more *if* the price was unchanged, but what if it cost $10,000 more? The 235 was never going to sell as well as the 182 or 206 anyway which both have significant utility advantages operating off-airport and short field. Don't confuse the issue. Rough field operations is a prop clearance issue. That's why the outfitters and bush pilots use taildraggers. Mooney's aren't the smartest airplanes to operate off of grass strips unless you know for certain they have no dips or holes. 
|
|
#2
December 24th 03, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .net,
Mike Rapoport wrote: How much rough field experience do you have? Rough field is about prop clearance but it is also about gear strength and low stall speeds. Ahhhh!!! Now we're talking rough field! Just pump up the struts on them Pipers. But, I am guessing that structurally, what you are getting at is the load difference in having a landing gear box structure (Cessnas) vice the wing attachment to the spar (Pipers). BTW, IIRC, the Mitsubushi originally advertised short and rough field capability for the original MU-2's. Even created advertising photos with shots of the aircraft on grass with the outdoors backgrounds. Alas, we digress! Back to the original topic, two cockpit doors.
|
|
#3
December 24th 03, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It was you who substituted "rough" for "short"! I was just going along!
Short, rough field takoff and landing along with high cruise speed where indeed the design goals for the MU-2. The main feature used to accomplish these goals were full span double slotted fowler flaps. which eliminated the room for ailerons, hence the spoilers. Mike MU-2 "EDR" wrote in message ... In article .net, Mike Rapoport wrote: How much rough field experience do you have? Rough field is about prop clearance but it is also about gear strength and low stall speeds. Ahhhh!!! Now we're talking rough field! Just pump up the struts on them Pipers. But, I am guessing that structurally, what you are getting at is the load difference in having a landing gear box structure (Cessnas) vice the wing attachment to the spar (Pipers). BTW, IIRC, the Mitsubushi originally advertised short and rough field capability for the original MU-2's. Even created advertising photos with shots of the aircraft on grass with the outdoors backgrounds. Alas, we digress! Back to the original topic, two cockpit doors.
|
|
#4
December 24th 03, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It was you who substituted "rough" for "short"! I was just going along! "The 235 was never going to sell as well as the 182 or 206 anyway which both have significant utility advantages operating off-airport and short field." Actually, I substituted "rough" for "off-airport". Short can apply to hard surface, but doesn't necessarily affect landing gear strength. (Just clarifying my thought process. :-)
|
|
#5
December 24th 03, 11:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"john smith" wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: It was you who substituted "rough" for "short"! I was just going along! "The 235 was never going to sell as well as the 182 or 206 anyway which both have significant utility advantages operating off-airport and short field." Actually, I substituted "rough" for "off-airport". Short can apply to hard surface, but doesn't necessarily affect landing gear strength. (Just clarifying my thought process. :-) OK
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
