quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:

prop was driven by rubberised fan belts rather than a gear train.

Not correct. The propellor is neither driven by belt nor gear train; it is mounted on an extension of the crankshaft. Direct drive -- engine RPM and propellor RPM are the same. Geared propellors were rather uncommon in airplanes of this size during the years that the M20 was produced, although the Cessna 175 has a geared prop.

You might be thinking of the landing gear. Shock absorption / suspension for the main wheels is a stack of rubber donut type things, rather than the hydraulic type used by many other airplanes such as the Bonanza / Baron / TravelAir family.

Thanks V-Tail. I didn’t know the 175 was geared. The C-140 was my first airplane. That was a heck of a lot of fun. I’ll always remember those times fondly.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:
Wait - KC got a new airport? Finally?!!? Lord I hated flying in and out of that old shithole.

It's a new terminal, planes use the same runways.

$1.5 Billion and all you got is a new terminal. Must be some terminal for $1.5B

Haven’t you heard, nowadays $1.5B is mere bagatelle. Yellen carries that in her purse for a trip to Europe.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

]Thanks V-Tail. I didn’t know the 175 was geared. The C-140 was my first airplane. That was a heck of a lot of fun. I’ll always remember those times fondly.

Think of the 175 as a C-172 with geared prop drive. The visual clue, as can be seen in the photo, the prop is mounted high on the cowling, well above the crankshaft. The difference between 172 and 175 is almost all forward of the firewall. Everything aft of the engine compartment is basically the same on the two models. The gearing allowed the 175 engine to turn higher RPM while keeping the prop speed down, so a bit more horsepower, somewhere around 10% more, was available.




I never flew a C-120 or 140, but I have a fair amount of time (ancient history) in 170 / 180 / 185. Fun airplanes. This was in the late 1960's; I was working at a flight school at Midway. School focused on instrument training, encouraged clients to get the rating in their own airplane if possible, rather than one of the school's airplanes, in order to gain experience operating IFR in the airplanes that the client would be flying. Most of the other 60 or so instructors at that school did not have much, if any, tailwheel time. I had a lot of Stinson time under my belt, so the scheduler tried to match me with tailwheel clients. The 185 was a real performer!

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:

prop was driven by rubberised fan belts rather than a gear train.

Not correct. The propellor is neither driven by belt nor gear train; it is mounted on an extension of the crankshaft. Direct drive -- engine RPM and propellor RPM are the same. Geared propellors were rather uncommon in airplanes of this size during the years that the M20 was produced, although the Cessna 175 has a geared prop.
<snip>

Thanks for the correction. My memory seemed so clear. Two side-by-side belts so the prop was still powered even if one belt broke. Just a brain fart I guess.

Another thing I seem to remember – the landing gear retraction was manual. It was important to get good momentum during the early (easy) part of the retraction cycle in order to complete the late (hard) part of the cycle.

And the entire tail section moved for elevator trim.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:

Thanks for the correction. My memory seemed so clear. Two side-by-side belts so the prop was still powered even if one belt broke. Just a brain fart I guess.

Another thing I seem to remember – the landing gear retraction was manual. It was important to get good momentum during the early (easy) part of the retraction cycle in order to complete the late (hard) part of the cycle.

And the entire tail section moved for elevator trim.

You are correct about the pitch trim. That could be a bit of a challenge; moving the whole tail assembly meant that trim changes were agonizingly slow. Particularly noticeable on a rejected landing. Retracting the flaps for a go-around causes a shift in the CL (Center of Lift) which results in a pitch change that has to be countered with a trim adjustment. Applying forward pressure on the yoke until the trim change is completed, adjusting the trim, managing power for the go-around, and getting ready to retract the landing gear, requires as many hands as an octopus would have if an octopus had hands on the ends of its appendages.

The manual gear retraction is a matter of technique, not strength. I have seen strong men struggle with it, and I have seen a petite woman do it with a seemingly effortless flick of the wrist. As you noted, it's all in the timing.

As far as the belt drive, I'm trying to remember (it's been a while since I've dealt with an early Mooney). What my memory is coming up with, although I'm not positive, is accessory drive for things like vacuum pump, alternator, etc. Not the prop though, the prop is direct drive, attached directly to an extension of the crankshaft.

quote:

I have seen a petite woman do it with a seemingly effortless flick of the wrist.

And they seem to enjoy it too, although not as much as their guy.