Jump to content

Dave Colangelo

Basic Member
  • Posts

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Dave Colangelo last won the day on May 16 2016

Dave Colangelo had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Dave Colangelo's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

54

Reputation

  1. Alan, I dont have anything for ya' but Im in Philly and not all that far from you. If you take on a project and need a hand I'd love to help out and see how these things look on the inside. Dave
  2. Sufficed to say, you should be able to contact him.... On any note, I did see all that in my searching and its pretty neat! Was there anything left in the hanger or on the estate related to the airplanes that once flew out of there? Dave
  3. A quick search does not reveal anything immediately but this site has some photos of stuff it seems Al worked on. However this site provides a different source for your image According to Roger Luksik, the “Proving Grounds were opened on 6/14/1928.” The first diesel engine for airplanes was developed at the Packard Proving Grounds in 1929. Roger Luksik reported, “On 6/3/1929 the first 2-way, radiophone communication took place over the skies of the Packard Proving Grounds. Heretofore, gasoline powered aircraft caused too much electromagnetic interference for the weak voice signal to be heard over the static. Only a strong Morse code signal could be heard. As diesel engines neither have spark plugs, nor spark plug wiring the EM static was greatly reduced and allowed voice communication to be used. The 2-way ground-to-plane voice communication was witnessed by the U.S. Department of Commerce.” Image A circa 1931 aerial view of a Mooney A-1 (possibly the sole example) powered by a Packard DR-980 diesel radial engine overflying Packard Proving Ground Airfield (courtesy of Roger Luksik), with the test track & hangar visible in the background. You may be able to contact him. It would not shock me if that was the only image of the aircraft. keep in mind we are talking about a time in history when photography was still a very young thing. Pictures were not only costly but simply difficult to take. The under exposed right edge indicates this was most likely (and im pretty certain of it) taken on a 4x5 press camera and that either occurred due to a poorly loaded negative or a miss alignment while making the print. These cameras are not exactly the smallest thing on earth and would have been cumbersome to get into an aircraft from that time and not so easily operated. Photo op's were not what they are today. Its possible they went up into the plane with only a single negative (or possibly a few) when this photo was taken. On a press camera each negative is loaded into an individual film back (some are double sided and hold 2 negatives) and then the backs are slid into the camera individually and exposed one at a time. To give you an idea of cost, when I shoot 4x5 today when all is said and done its about $10 an image and that is just for the film and development (no printing). Dave
  4. I have perhaps the most generically uneventful and tragically windowless office on earth but there is at least a high speed internet connection, I like to think of my self as an "aggressive googler" in reality but am regrettably not a historian and instead a lowly engineer with fairly decent search engine manipulation skills. On any note I looked into Ed Stone as well and came up fairly empty handed. Out of curiosity where did the picture you have come from? I tried a reverse image search but came up blank on that as well. One interesting thing that I noticed in my research is that this image seems to be of a plane in flight taken from another plane (or ballon) in flight which (compared to the many images I came across) is a bit out of norm for the time and an interesting side though. If you do find the plane I will happily get my speed graphic out and recreate this shot. Regards Dave
  5. There is a link in the OP but it looks like ~100 were built and they dont seem to be regarded as too reliable. The national air and space museum has one in storage. You can find a lot of the technical data on the engine here and some more drawings/pics here
  6. Still no definitive answer but I know where you may find it, apparently... The Al Mooney Papers were donated to the History of Aviation Collection, Special Collections Department, Eugene McDermott Library, The University of Texas at Dallas, by his son John Arthur Mooney on November 24, 1986. Which includes... Al Mooney Papers, Handwritten and typed narrative notes, Folder 21, Box 2, Series I, History of Aviation Collection, Special Collections Department, Eugene McDermott Library, The University of Texas at Dallas. Al Mooney Papers, Baxter manuscript, Folder 3 through 6, Box 6, Series I, History of Aviation Collection, Special Collections Department, Eugene McDermott Library, The University of Texas at Dallas. Al Mooney Papers, Mooney manuscript, Folder 8 through 12, Box 6, Series I, History of Aviation Collection, Special Collections Department, Eugene McDermott Library, The University of Texas at Dallas. What you are looking for is most likely in (Box 12 Folder 5) Model A-1. 1930 January 25 Engineering data prepared by Al Mooney for the Mooney Aircraft Corporation, Wichita, Kansas. (Box 29 Folder 2) A-1. 1929-1930 Blueprints. So if you can make it down to Dallas (or at least contact them for transcripts) his personal notes may detail what became of the plane.
  7. Its a slow day in the office thus old news paper I shall read... They started planning the design very precisely on... Saturday, April 6, 1929 page 1. A new aircraft company for Wichita is being organized by A. W. Mooney, until recently chief engineer and designer for the Eaglerock Aircraft Company, of Colorado Springs. The company plans to produce a monoplane. Details It looks like bridgeport bought mooney on, Friday, May 10, 1929 page 1. Announcement yesterday that the Mooney Aircraft Company has been absorbed as a subsidiary of the Bridgeport Machine Company. Charter has been granted to the Mooney Company. A factory will be erected on a tract adjacent to the Bridgeport plant on the opposite side to the one now occupied by the Stearman plant. A. W. Mooney elected president of the new Mooney Company. He was former chief engineer of the Alexander Eaglerock Company at Colorado Springs. Further details. Sunday, May 12, 1929 page 5. Long article about the newly organized Mooney Aircraft Company. Details You may want to try and get hold of that article. and more news paper transcriptions that may be of interest to you here. Tuesday, June 10, 1930 page 4 Mooney Aircraft company has purchased the factory and ten acre tract of the Swift Aircraft company west of the municipal airport for $25,000 and yesterday moved to the new site from its former quarters at Bridgeport Machine works. The company has a second low wing monoplane near completion. The new Mooney site adjoins the new site of the Stearman Aircraft company The transcripts also list at least 2 pictures of the aircraft being taken but regrettably dont have the photos. It looks like they may have the microfilm of the newspaper here which may have the images. If only one was built it may be the one that was involved in the forced landing scenario. There is a nice pic of a model A-X here On a complete tangent, on the history of Packard, I went to Lehigh University the alma mater of James Ward Packard and they still have the Packard 1 on display in the Packard engineering building (the first automobile built by Packard) once a year they take it out and drive it around (or at least they did when I was there) it still runs!. The plane may also have flown out of the original Mooney airfield. Which regrettably no longer exists. Although this field may be related to the later 1946 forming of Mooney.
  8. This design dates to the original Mooney aircraft company which predates the company that would make the M series aircraft that are still around today. Both companies were started by Al. It looks like the original company was in Wichita where this one was eventually deregistered so that makes logical sense and the plane most likely never ended up all that far from where it was built. This site lists them as being built in 1930. The Mooney company of this era went bankrupt in '31 and shut its doors. This site sheds a bit more light on the A-1 story Young Al delighted in the company of Wichita’s many other aviation greats, as he developed the Mooney A-X/A-1/A-2 (his "M-5") – an improved 5-seat version of the Alexander Bullet. (there are no known Bullet's remaining) April 4th, 1930, to garner publicity for his design, Al took off in his new "Mooney Low Wing" on a non-stop transcontinental record attempt, for his airplane’s weight class, from Los Angeles to New York (Glendale, Calif. to Long Island, N.Y., to be exact). But alas, a broken fuel pump spoiled the record attempt — forcing the plane down near Ft. Wayne, IN — only setting an unofficial record of 1,980 miles covered in 22 hours, 27 minutes. It was, nevertheless, a stout feat for a personal plane of 1930. Despite inspiring apparent imitators, only a handful of the A-X/A-1/A-2 were built before the stock-market crash of 1929 ushered in the Great Depression, and the collapse of American industry, including — most particularly — American aviation. Mooney was bankrupted, but Bridgeport’s president graciously ate most of the losses. Trying to hunt down the last known owner may be a good start but considering the age, the fact that this dates to the earlier bankrupt Mooney company the plane may very well no longer exist. Im sure others will chime in here with more info.
  9. Get a good PPI, do your due diligence, all the standard advice etc. etc. but it has a low time engine and some decent avionics assuming they are all in good shape. Interior and paint seem nice but you will need a close up inspection to really tell. Lots of great info on here about what to look for when inspecting. On a side note, I too am in Philly, if you ever want some company when you fly drop me a line. Dave
  10. Where in CT? Ill be up at my parents place in NY this weekend and I think im pretty free most of Saturday. I dont own a Mooney (yet!) but Im always game to talk to owners about their planes and ownership as Im gathering info! Dave
  11. Fair enough, I learn something new about these planes every day!
  12. I would think a nice ANR headset is cheaper than a new windshield...
  13. It looks like you have this all under control but ill add in a word about bus voltage and cranking since there is often a misconception about the general relation of voltage and a batteries ability to discharge. by having 14.5 in flight that simply means your alternator/voltage regulator is working properly and does not tell us all that much about your battery health. If you alternator can drive enough current to power your plane you could remove the battery in flight and you would still see 14.5V on the meter. Batteries have 2 important numbers, their operating voltage which is the voltage that it will read across the terminals when fully changed, and its cold cranking amperage output. The cold cranking amperage output is the amount of current the battery can drive when its 32F out for 30 seconds. This is directly related to the power the battery outputs as P=IV in this case. So a 12V battery that can deliver 100 CCA can theoretically output 1200 Watts of power (generally for a short period of time). However over time a battery ability to drive current diminishes due to the way batteries work internally but the battery is still more than capable of charging up to 12V (holding a 12V potential difference across its internal plates). Slow starting is often a sign of an old, dying battery. You can have the CCA ability of a battery tested if need be. As mentioned clean contacts will help as they will reduce the internal resistance of each contact joint and dissipate less current (since wires and connections on some level have an internal resistance). While its most likely not an issue you should check the wires that connect the battery to the solenoid as they should be of sufficient gauge to operate properly. It could also be a short or bad connection in the starter. Most of them contain wire coils that use resin coated wire, over time this resin can degrade and short the coil out which will cause the fields inside the starter to be weaker or misaligned. Regards Dave
  14. Depending on how you have things wired up a discharge reading means that your alternator/generator is not capable of outputting enough current to drive what ever you have in your aircraft, thus you are also drawing some from the battery to make up for the lack of current available. In turn this also means your battery is not charging (generally speaking). Having proper voltage does not always mean that you are also driving enough current through the system. You can have a circuit at 12V dissipating 100 Amps or at 12V dissipating 1 Milliamp and your volt meter will read the same thing in both cases (in this case your power factor will differ P = IV). Your voltage regulator will work to keep the voltage as constant as long as there is enough current to run it but a faulty alternator/generator may not be capable of driving the full load it needs to. In this case it may be worth having the alternator/generator bench tested or rebuilt. Low loads can also be the result of a slipping alternator belt which you should check. Note: Volt meters are applied in parallel with the circuit or from a point to a good known ground. i.e. voltage is measured "across" something. Ammeters are applied in series to the circuit so something somewhere must be disconnected and have the ammeter put in between it. The exception to this is some that can measure flow via magnetic fields and can be clamped onto wires (these are in my opinion less than accurate). Be careful when putting ammeters into a circuit as you need to use wire that is of a sufficient gauge to handle what you are measuring as well as having a meter capable of handling it. Most Volt meters will handle most of what you can realistically encounter. As mentioned it may just be an old dated ammeter that is out of alignment. Regards Dave
  15. I have been shopping for a C/E for some time now (still waiting for the right plane and the right point in life...). I did all my training in Archers and Warriors which of course had me looking at those as well. I have spoken to a lot of owners of both and have settled on pretty much getting a C/E over an archer in almost every regard. What I will say on the whole debate, Comparisons are the best, as such, Mooney owners are somewhat like the Vintage Porsche owners I have encountered over the years. Die hard fans of a quality product who will accept a little more complication in the product for some downstream benefits. Lots of handling myths, none of which seem to ever be true, and lets be honest, better looks. On the other hand piper owners tend to be more akin to those that drive a classic mustang. Overbearing "PARTS ARE CHEAP AND SO ARE REPAIRS" chants draws in no frills no spills owners who are attracted to simplicity and overly benign designs. Handling is what it is because transverse leaf springs are ya know, still a thing.... After talking with lots of owners, and has been mentioned here, each plane has their own expensive parts. Many often forget the vast majority of the Mooney's are retracts while the Archer and Dakota from Piper are not but often are compared to the C/E models. Like anywhere else the Myths seem to be drenched in false facts and just lack of knowledge. There are just not as many Mooney's out there and thus fewer Mooney Pilots to defend the birds. Mix that in with the fact that most pilots get their first taste of flying in a Cessna or Piper and shenanigans debates will surely ensue based on blind loyalty. The overwhelming feeling I have gotten from here is that Mooney's are just as expensive to own as an Arrow, a Dakota or even a nice Archer and even have lower list prices in many cases. Then of course 135Kts on under 10GPH is just a cherry on top of it all... Regards Dave
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.