1980Mooney

A couple observations. It appears that he landed on Runway 05. Runway 05 has a 0.7% downslope Runway 05 has a 720 ft displacement. That means he only had 2,245 ft. usable (although there appears to be about 200 ft in the runup area before the Runway 23 threshold which could be used as overrun)

No. Grand Canyon Caverns Airport, L37, is open to the public. No approval is needed. Many airports open to the public are privately owned. For example, here in Houston all the GA airports on the west side except Sugar Land are privately owned but open to the public. (West Houston, Executive, Southwest, David Wayne Hooks). Sugar Land was also privately owned by Dr Hull (hence Hull Field) until his family sold it to the City of Sugar Land. Grand Canyon Caverns Airport, L37, is owned by GRAND CANYON CAVERNS & INN, LLC. However, Hualapai Airport, 3AZ5, (where this bozo landed) is owned by the HUALAPAI INDIAN TRIBE and is a Private airport. It is not open to the public.

Unfortunately, there’s no published ADS-B detail while the Mooney was on Final or on the runway on either FlightAware or ADSBExchange. You’ll probably have to wait 1 - 2 years for the NTSB to provide any anything.

Few details. Occurred Friday, August 30. Witness reported that it overshot the runway at Fairmont Municipal Airport-Frankman Field, (4G7). Runway is only 2,965 ft, long and trees are at the end of the runway. Wind does not seem to be a factor - was about 3 mph from the North. "Caller advising the plane went off the end of the runway down by the river. Multiple injuries reported. Units on scene with 2 patients, both conscious and alert. 1 wing broken with fuel leaking. Plane is about 100 ft off the runway. Fire Dept is using a stokes basket to bring the patients up the hill." https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/419051 Pilot and passenger survived. Plane is a 1989, M20K, 252. Current owner, age 64 years per internet, purchased it in 2015 and was based in Albuquerque until about 2020 and then Indiana. https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/200946443/n1005u-1989-mooney-m20k-252tse https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/200735563/n1005u-1989-mooney-m20k-252tse

When approaching and landing straight-in on a runway at an uncontrolled, seemingly quiet, airport, there are other hazards than unannounced traffic in the air. https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/346120

This is a hot button issue with any prospective Mooney buyer. A quick search of the MooneySpace site using Google shows that SB208 (either spelled SB208, SB-208 or Service Bulletin 208) is a subject of discussion in over 200 different topics. I have never seen a late 1970's - 1990 Mooney that did not have SB208A done and logged - granted I never looked at anything but J models. I saw some really poor looking welding repair of frame corrosion of one particular J that was in Louisiana. I passed on that plane. Yes my logs showed that SB208A had been complied with before purchase. And the fiberglass had been removed and replaced with foam insulation. It had been done about 8 years prior to my purchase. You have never seen a Mooney buyer that insisted on SB-208? Searching MS topics/discussions on "pre-buy, you will find over 60 separate discussions that specifically highlight the need for SB208 to be completed on the aircraft. Many say it is at the top of their list and to read the logs first. And many say "SB208 will need to be done" and to walk away if it has not been done and logged.

Why do you think that he would be inclined to do this on every pre-buy? He clearly stated above that on this particular plane “After reviewing the airframe logs myself, I can confirm SB-208 has never been logged which is why I want it done as part of my prebuy.”

This is an extreme example.

Not often. But it has happened. Usually other obstructions in the landing path. Roll the dice. "The pilot decided to not continue the flight to the nearest airport; he shut down the engine and perform a forced landing to a field. During the forced landing, the airplane impacted unsuitable terrain and sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage. " https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/383084

Her previous comments were not for pain and suffering nor punitive. She just wanted what she had replaced. That is when the insurance company should have made her replacement whole. Her home loses, although total, were extremely modest in absolute numbers compared to most that are able to own a plane. There are probably members here that have spent more on a hangar. So as pilots we wish to flip the narrative. It is not the wealthy estate, nor the insurance companies, lawyers or shareholders (private equity) that are greedy. It is the victims. It is like a fire - use whatever it takes immediately to put it out fully before it is a raging inferno. This is why these things blow up into ridiculous lawsuits and settlements.

There were 2 different approaches to this. Early designs used squat switches. Later used an air safety switch. With squat switches, if you hit a good bump while taxiing or a momentary gust while rolling on takeoff, the switches may unload and sense as if the plane was airborne. Or a switch might be defective and stuck sensing airborne all the time. With airspeed safety switches, they can be miscalibrated to a low speed or defective and stuck sensing airspeed. In either case if the lever is up while fast taxiing or in high speed roll on takeoff, the gear could collapse

I bet if they had "offered up enough to buy a new mobile home, etc" that this would have been solved a year ago without a lawyer ever getting involved by the homeowner. The accident was tragic and luckily no-one was at home or they would have likely perished also. But look at what appears to be happening - how it looks to the home-owner and also the community The estate of the late good doctor, (who was a wealthy "renowned plastic surgeon in Los Angeles", his FAA address is a spectacular Beverly Hills home that recently sold for $16 million) is hiding behind a mysterious plane co-owner named "Biplane Co" (which may turn out to be owned by the estate of the late doctor) The supposed "co-owner" is hiding behind AIG. AIG is hiding behind lawyers The home-owner is not getting replacement value after a year of dickering. She has hired a local attorney now. Remember this is New Mexico. I grew up there and have passed the vicinity of the crash site many times over the decades. A lot of residents just scrape by. In this case the homeowner is a 37 year old single mother of 2 kids. Apparently she works at local New Mexico based Century Bank. Her co-workers set up a GoFundMe page. https://www.gofundme.com/f/miquella-benavidez-and-children She owns an incredibly modest home on perpetually barren land southwest of the Santa Fe horse-track and not far from noisy Interstate 25. (only a couple hundred feet from the frontage road). Her home is (was) a double-wide mobile (manufactured) home on land adjacent to her parents. The Santa Fe County values her home at a whopping $132,000 on land valued at $102,000. You can see that the crash burned up her pickup truck also. She may not have carried much insurance on the mobile home or truck. But she did not destroy them. The pilot/owner of N5251C trespassed on her property and destroyed them. The amount of money that could come from AIG and/or the doctor's estate to make this right would not be large. I bet $200k could have fixed everything up if they had been reasonable and forthcoming early on. Yet it does not seem to be happening. If AIG will not make her whole, then she has no recourse except to sue. This gives aircraft owners and pilots a bad name. We certainly look like a bunch of wealthy entitled greedy bastards that are not responsible for our actions. And everyone wonders why community support for GA is declining. It is crap like this. As @Parker_Woodruff said above, maybe this is a fishing expedition by a less aviation experienced local attorney. But as it gets more visibility it may invite more aggressive and knowledgeable legal talent. That is how these crazy lawsuits and wild settlements get started. Remember that there will be no sympathy by local residents for the California doctor or AIG. Local long-time residents, like the homeowner and her parents, generally blame outsiders, like all the "beautiful people" that come to Santa Fe, for driving up living costs making it impossible to live close to the city center instead on these dirt lots that they can barely afford. And if AIG had made a reasonable settlement all this would never have gotten this far and would be over.

Back on topic. I know that you got plenty of recommendations to reskin or buy a used aileron, rebalance and repaint with quotes of over $3k from experiences about 8 years ago. I am sure that it will cost you much, much more now. If you have piles of money to burn then that makes great sense - I know many will say "no biggie" and "if that is an issue for you then you probably should not be owning a plane". But why make this a few $ thousand problem when it should only be a few $ hundred. I had a similar situation when I purchased my J about 25 years ago. Before it had wingtips it suffered rash on the outboard tips of the ailerons. My A&P at the time, an old-timer that started with Boeing in Wichita in the 50's, was a wizard in aluminum. He repaired/rebuilt all the cracked up aluminum gliders in Houston at the time. He straightened the tip out and put on a small doubler. Rebalanced. At the time the painting was just a touch-up. Rocket Engineering did not have a problem with it when they installed the IO-550A and wingtips. I don't baby my plane and I fly as fast as I can as often as I can - frequently at Vne. People can wring their hands over a repair like this but it is not an issue. Save your money for something that matters.

Won't a glance at the red spot immediately tell you if your tires have experienced any slippage on the wheel? I know the red dot is supposed to represent the lightest point for balancing and should be immediately adjacent the stem. No need for a picture.

Right. I think what you are inferring is that the tubes should be changed every time the tire is changed. It can get pinched during reinstallation or weakened as it flattens/spreads out a second time. It is better to have tire treads that last 2X without disturbing the expensive Airstop tube. When I was younger I used to change my own tires and tubes. I would try to reuse tubes and generally had good luck. However now I let my A&P do it. He will not re-use tubes under any circumstances due to failure rate.

Ohhh…you are really new to all of this. Just stack that spinner up in the hangar for now. Good luck.

Are you just talking about the "access panel" (#5)? Or the panel with float/pick-up (#1) and dial face (#3)?

When you say "hard to replace" - do you mean "hard to source" or "hard to install"? They are hard to source because they are Mooney OEM parts with proprietary faces manufactured by Rochester Sensors company. Mooney Corp has little cash and is slow to order anything from third parties. Installation is easy.

Those are “NOS” (new old stock) original design for the J model (you are correct that they are 880024-005). The original capsule was made with an aluminum domed back and an aluminum crimped ring holding the plastic lens in place. (Notice that they match the picture posted in 2023 regarding wing gauges). Newly manufactured wing gauges by Rochester for Mooney are all plastic case and lens bonded together (the back of the plastic version protrudes as a step rather than a smooth dome.) Both designs work the same and both fit in the receptacle on the wing interchangeably. Just be sure to dig the old RTV out before bonding in with new silicone. Anyone with a J that needs replacement wing gauges should jump on a set.

I am not sure if you are new to aircraft ownership, but you should have a separate propeller log for your complex propeller, It should show all work done to your prop over its life. If your A&P changed the spinner at any time after the prop was originally installed, then it should be entered and found in your logs. You may not always have your trusted A&P that "has known the plane for 2+ years" but you should always have your logs. And you should become knowledgeable regarding their history. I bet your A&P does not know off the top of his head and he also finds the answer in the logs.... Just my 2 cents.

It has been discussed many times here. The issue with PowerFlow on the J models is that the induction and exhaust system on the on M20J is really well optimized ("tumed" as you refer to it) in its stock form. Whether it was luck or good slide rule/LoPresti common sense engineering of the J, the gains to be rung out over the stock design are minimal. In 2020, @PT20J highlighted that the PowerFlow rep was at MooneyMax and admitted so much. Other owners like Wistarmo (who is no longer on MS) reported no improvement when bolting it onto a 1993 MSE. PowerFlow, founded in 1997, has been putzing around with this for nearly 30 years. If they can't find more power for the J, either through flow studies/testing, engineering or just plain trial and error, I doubt anyone will. They were first working on this when the J was still in production. Certainly no one else will waste time and money for a shrinking fleet. On the other hand, the PowerFlow has been reported to deliver some benefit to pre-J's because of their sub-optimal plumbing.

I suspect that the farmer feels bad too…for his field. I wonder what he will charge to allow trucks to drive in and destroy his crops.

You mention an overhaul above. How long has it been “hostage” since the O/H engine last started/got it warmed it up to operating temp/flown ?…surely not the entire 26 months. Or will this be your break-in flight?

.."there have been many gear-ups in Mooneys in the last couple of years". It is not just the last couple years. It has been all the time. A lot of people here are in denial that gear-ups are the main reason that Mooney's have high insurance rates and why they are nearly uninsurable for new pilots due to rates. You just provided the proof. You have a $200k hull Cirrus with ZERO time in MAKE & MODEL. And only $2,400/year.

I see where you are going, however, Mooney is not orphaned. It remains an active corporation; although it effectively is a parts manufacturer that continues to carry the legal structure, overhead costs, certified service network relationships, vendor/supplier relationships and liabilities of a company that thinks it is still in the complete aircraft manufacturing business. That is not a sustainable business structure economically - it's no wonder Pollock used the word "precarious" to describe the current company situation to @Matthew P. @Matthew P mentioned that he thinks that the MSCs are part of the issue. Of course, since they are legally bound with Mooney by reseller agreements and intellectual property agreements (the "documentation" that you highlight above that you would like shared). And historic vendors of Mooney proprietary parts remain bound to Mooney by legal agreements, both intellectual property (once again all the "documentation" that you would like shared) and reseller agreements. (like Garmin, Eaton, Rochester, etc). Proprietary parts suppliers will not (can't) deal directly with owners, and MSC's will not touch OPP. Not sure where these "group buys for OPP" will come from as long as Mooney remains an active legal entity.