Jump to content


Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1980Mooney last won the day on August 9 2021

1980Mooney had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About 1980Mooney

Recent Profile Visitors

2,286 profile views

1980Mooney's Achievements


Mentor (12/14)

  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Reacting Well
  • Dedicated
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges



  1. The difference is: Although Textron (Beechcraft) is capable of building and selling a G36 Bonanza, the last one they built was in Q4 2020 (per GAMA) Quarterly Shipments and Billings - GAMA (data was supplied by Textron to GAMA) Mooney is not capable of building and likely will never build another M20
  2. I made a power cart using those heavy cables with 3 pin adapter. I connect them to an Astron 35 amp ham radio adjustable volt & amp power supply. I can just plug in the side of the plane and power up all my avionics in the hangar without dragging down the battery. I can also use it as a fast charger. I have a separate connector for the smart charger which bypasses the solenoid (a smart charger connected to the 3 pin cables won't open the solenoid)
  3. If you have a Concord RG battery, a smart charger is better than a trickle charger. By trickle charger I mean a simple low amp (constant volt and constant amp) charger that is on all the time - it does not sense or monitor voltage. You can put a trickle charger on for a few days without issue but if you leave it on for a month (because you can't get back to the hangar or forgot, etc) you will wreck the recombinant gas battery.
  4. Build a Rocket? Only Rocket Engineering can do that. I thought I saw a prior post that said if you get 5 friends to each bring $120K to Rocket Engineering they might do it again. Of course that was before the price increases at Continental and others so it is probably about $150K now if you can get a group together. Darwin Conrad is still running Rocket Engineering and occasionally answers the phone.....
  5. He was definitely Scud Running. I love this from the Prelim: Before collision with the tower at 600 ft. elevation " the airplane descended as low as 475 ft. The published field elevation at GAI was 539 ft msl." He was flying like a "ground hugging" cruise missile. If he looked at his altimeter and thought abought the elevation at his home base KGAI maybe he thought he was a submarine or would tunnel into the runway......
  6. I suspect that the NTSB got the Prelim out fast with a lot of info because the pilot is so "talkative" in social media. Sure sounds like "pilot error". He clearly was way behind the plane. It was not his "A" game... (well maybe it actually was the best he was capable of). It will be interesting to learn in 2 years if he was even current. Very lucky to be alive. Preliminary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control communication information revealed that the pilot was advised to expect the RNAV/GPS A instrument approach procedure at GAI, but the pilot expressed a preference for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 14 approach procedure. The controller cleared the pilot to fly directly to the BEGKA intermediate fix (IF), approximately southwest and ahead of the airplane’s position, but instead, the airplane turned about 100° to its right. The controller provided numerous heading changes and direct clearances to waypoints on the RNAV (GPS) RWY 14 approach procedure; however, the pilot made a series of left and right turns, near course reversals, or continued established headings as the controller repeatedly requested that the pilot turn to a different heading. At one point, the controller requested that the pilot confirm he had the BEGKA waypoint and spelled it for him. The pilot responded that he had entered the information incorrectly and was making the correction. About that time, another airplane on approach to GAI announced that visibility was below minima and requested a diversion to another airport. The controller instructed the accident pilot to proceed direct to BEGKA and cleared him for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 14 approach. The minimum altitude at BEGKA, 11.3 nautical miles (nm) from the runway, was 3,000 ft mean sea level (msl). The airplane crossed BEGKA about 2,775 ft as it aligned with the final approach course and continued its descent. The minimum altitude at the final approach fix (TIMBE), 5.2 nm from the runway, was 2,200 ft msl. The airplane crossed TIMBE at 1,725 ft msl. The minimum altitude at JOXOX waypoint, about 2.3 nm from the runway, was 1,280 ft msl; the airplane crossed JOXOX at 750 ft. The decision altitude (DA) for the final segment of the approach was 789 ft msl (The DA defines the altitude at which the pilot must initiate a missed approach procedure if specified visual references to the runway are not acquired). About 1.25 miles from the runway and left of the runway centerline, the airplane impacted and became suspended in a power line tower at an elevation about 600 ft msl and 100 ft agl. Between JOXOX and the collision with the tower, the airplane descended as low as 475 ft. The published field elevation at GAI was 539 ft msl. During a conversation with 911 call center personnel while the airplane remained suspended in the tower, the pilot reported, “I got down a little lower than I should have… I thought I was closer to the airport than I was…We could see the ground, but we couldn’t see in front.” A calibrated altimeter test instrument was installed by an airframe and powerplant mechanic with inspection authority under the supervision of an NTSB investigator. Functionality testing was performed at the as-found setting of 29.40 in the altimeter’s Kollsman window, then 29.92, and finally a Barometric Scale Error Test was performed through a range of 28.10 and 30.99. According to the test report, the altimeter was “well within the test allowable error at all ranges.”
  7. https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Report_ERA23LA071_106368_12_6_2022-2_45_33-AM.pdf Prelim.
  8. Because of the winds his trip up to KHPN in White Plains NY took 1 hour 14 minutes arriving about 10 AM (15Z) The trip back took 2 hours 28 minutes. He left White Plains at about 3 PM (20Z). As one of the early safety reviews noted the weather deteriorated during the day. It was clear when he got to White Plains. It was changing as he left. KHPN 271456Z 18004KT 10SM CLR 09/01 A2983 RMK AO2 SLP104 T00890011 56011 KHPN 271556Z 19005KT 10SM BKN120 09/02 A2979 RMK AO2 SLP091 T00940022 KHPN 271656Z 16006KT 10SM BKN100 10/04 A2975 RMK AO2 RAB20E52 SLP077 P0000 T0 1000039 KHPN 271756Z VRB03KT 8SM -RA SCT027 SCT080 OVC100 09/04 A2971 RMK AO2 RAB36 SLP063 P0000 60000 T00940044 10100 20039 58041 At Gaithersburg it was getting worse. He took off from KGAI at about 9 AM (14Z). He crashed at about 5:30 PM (22:30Z) KGAI 271356Z AUTO 18003KT 10SM FEW045 OVC095 10/03 A2982 RMK AO2 SLP114 T0 1000033 KGAI 271438Z AUTO 21007KT 10SM -RA SCT022 BKN027 OVC060 10/06 A2982 RMK AO2 RAB05 P0000 KGAI 271456Z AUTO 20004KT 10SM -RA BKN020 OVC027 10/06 A2981 RMK AO2 RAB05 SLP109 P0000 60000 T01000061 58018 KGAI 271556Z AUTO 18008KT 10SM -RA OVC016 11/07 A2976 RMK AO2 RAE1458B37 SLP091 P0000 T01060072 KGAI 271638Z AUTO 19009KT 4SM RA BR BKN010 OVC014 09/08 A2971 RMK AO2 RAE00B19 CIG 008V011 P0001 KGAI 271656Z AUTO 17009KT 6SM -RA BR BKN006 OVC011 09/08 A2970 RMK AO2 RAE00B19 CIG 005V009 SLP073 P0005 T00890083 KGAI 271750Z AUTO 14008KT 6SM -RA BR OVC004 08/08 A2961 RMK AO2 P0009 KGAI 271756Z AUTO 16003KT 6SM -RA BR OVC004 08/08 A2962 RMK AO2 SLP046 P0009 60014 T00830083 10106 20078 55044 KGAI 271856Z AUTO 18003KT 8SM OVC004 09/09 A2957 RMK AO2 RAE07 SLP029 P0000 T00940089 KGAI 271956Z AUTO 12004KT 3SM BR OVC004 10/09 A2951 RMK AO2 RAB1857E55 SLP006 P0003 T01000094 KGAI 272015Z AUTO VRB03KT 3SM BR OVC002 10/10 A2950 RMK AO2 KGAI 272056Z AUTO 15004KT 2SM BR OVC002 11/10 A2947 RMK AO2 PRESFR SLP995 60003 T01060100 56050 KGAI 272110Z AUTO 14007KT 1 1/4SM BR OVC002 11/10 A2946 RMK AO2 KGAI 272156Z AUTO VRB04KT 1 1/4SM BR OVC002 11/11 A2945 RMK AO2 SLP987 T01060106 We don't know when he checked the weather. If he checked KGAI at about 11:40 AM it was OVC014. At noon it was OVC011. At about 1 PM it was OVC004. I was going to speculate more but the Prelim is out.
  9. It is a decision if: You must always be able to make a descent to landing on the intended runway using normal maneuvers and a normal descent rate, The flight visibility (that you observe) must meet or exceed the minimums published for the approach, and You must be able to distinctly identify one of the approved visual references for the runway (often called the "runway environment")..i.e "runway environment in sight" If you cannot satisfy all 3 then it is a minimum.
  10. Another angle. The upper fuselage definitely looks buckled behind the front seats and front/upper steel frame missing. Another angle - see news video https://whdh.com/news/plane-crash-in-falmouth-kills-pilot-sends-passenger-to-hospital/
  11. Here is your pic redacted to show the prop damage and that the upper front of the steel cage and fuselage is largely missing. I suppose it is possible that first responders cut some off but you don't see it on the grass in the upper "above shot" picture. Also the frame/fuselage appears to be buckled right behind the front seats (at the beginning of the rear windows) and cutting by first responders would not do that. Granted the "buckle" could be aluminum that was bent back by first responders so I might be assuming too much.
  12. Correct - blades are not feathered. But it does look like the spinner is crushed. But if it wasn't spinning when the blade and spinner contacted the turf, then the plane had to be upside down in order to crushed the top of the spinner and bent the top blade back. The top cowl is gone and you can see that most of the firewall is gone and about half of the upper steel cage/fuselage is missing. You can see that what is left of the fuselage is crushed and buckled just ahead of the rear windows. It took a tremendous force crushing against the upper fuselage to do that. Contact with the ground upside down might do that. It is hard to imagine a perfectly horizontal tree branch would do it.
  13. Both victims have white/gray hair. Not sure what people think they are seeing - could be a first responder packing up - but removed it in order to keep the discussion on topic.
  14. These are the best pics of the prop that I can find. Yes the Missile conversion includes a full feathering Hartzell Scimitar 3 blade prop. When feathered it gives about 50% more glide distance than a regular J to about 16/1 glide ratio. The blades don't look feathered. In the first it almost looks like the plane landed on its nose.
  • 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.