Blue on Top

@Hank I 100% agree! There is a gentleman in Kerrville that had a whole collection of wonderful memorabilia. This picture was taken at one of the Mooney (MAPA?) Homecomings that was in Kerrville. He had an outstanding collection!

And of course there are all the records that Mooney made.

I tracked down Larry Ball's daughter a little more than a year ago to see about writing/co-writing a follow-on book to Larry's "Those Magnificent Mooneys" book. She is an author. We talked a little via email, and the subject was left with: she would contact me if/when she started on the second book. I don't think that she will. The longer this goes, the more history will be lost ... and rumors and rumors of rumors will become fact. I love the old ads (and this thread)! Still looking for the "Mooney lady sitting on the tail" ad.

As we used to say in college, "You can't spell gEEk without a double E. ... and, yes, being a AAE (Aero/Astro Enginerd) is a VERY cool job!

That article is wonderful. CEO Jerry Chen gave it to me as a pep talk while I was Chief Engineer in Chino. Mooney needs to get back to those philosophies.

@WaynePierce If you want to shoot from that location, I would recommend just removing the skid and tie the camera mount into those mounting bolts. I would make sure that there are no scrape marks on the skid currently, though. Your camera will perform the same task as the skid is doing now. The first wood wing I bought had that part shoved well up inside the empennage ... and made it difficult to remove the tail. The Flight Test rule used to be that the installation had to include at least one screw/fastener. Tapes are much better now than they used to be, and cameras are much smaller and lighter. PS. If you move forward of the skid (tiedown), the skid will protect your camera.

Thanks, @Skates97! I had a Christmas Amazon gift card from my nephew burning a hole in my pocket. A Dragon Touch 4K camera will now be arriving on my front porch on Friday . I'll let you know how it goes! Now to get @KSMooniacon board for a short tuft flight Thanks! -Ron PS. I'm hoping these emojis inserted within text won't be counted against my total ... or I'll soon be out of emotion. :]

Do you have a picture to share from this installation? Is it pointing forward or toward the vertical? Or can it do either in this installation? Thanks! PS. Also landscape or portrait from the same mount orientation?

Awesome thread @r0ckst4r! I'm thinking of purchasing a GoPro4 (refurbed) and mount it to the horizontal stabilizer. Is double-stick and aluminum tape okay to hold it on? Will the aluminum tape stop the Wi-Fi? Can I switch from stills to video in flight? Note: I won't be the one flying at the time Thanks, Ron

@hammdo Cool finds! The glide ratio one shows the propeller stopped. I think that would be the only way to get 13:1 glide ratio. There is an awesome video (yes, literally a video tape series ... some are now on YouTube, though) called the "ABC Wide World of Flying" that shows the delta between idle thrust, windmilling and propeller stopped. I think it is in a Cessna. Great show. The bottom ad has to be one of the first. There was an article written by Al Mooney about a 4-place airplane design he was working on (that eventually became the M20). It was in "Flight" magazine, and it talked about his design philosophies. Awesome read! The company was still in Wichita at the time. Thanks for sharing, Don.

"Only paperwork" is short for "a lot of Engineering work." Is it easy? Fairly to a skilled engineer that knows what to look at. "Only paperwork" includes a new owner's manual/POH/AFM/ etc. Btw, @M016576, (I just had a discussion with a bunch of CFIs about this) That C150 is technically legal to go ... until he has an accident ... and insurance gets involved. In a part 25 (or high end part 23) airplane, it is illegal to takeoff or land if the conditions are outside what is published in the AFM/POH. Small, Part 23 airplanes don't have guaranteed performance. I like your stance.

These look like all the other ones that I have worked with at Cessna, Beech, Honda, etc. I think that the main reason (as has been mentioned above) is that it was accomplished after the original wing was designed, and making changes is very, very expensive ... especially when the quantities are so low.

Thanks, @PT20J, Skip, this is a snake pit but I will always be open and honest with everyone. The regulations for STCs and ATCs (Supplemental and Amended Type Certificates) are identical for both the follow-on applicant and the OEM, respectively. Similarly, there are no differences in the regulations for primary and secondary composite structures. With that said, though, OEMs know more about their airplanes, have analysis models and know which parts are more critically loaded than others. The roll cage tube change was implemented for solid reasons. Similarly (and we are fighting this in ASTM right now), currently the FAA has no control over which STCs can or cannot go on the same airplane. Here's a good non-Mooney (Cessna) example. On the C185 there is a wing tip extension STC (4', I believe). There is also a substantial gross weight increase STC. Both are approved STCs. No one has looked at combining the gross weight increase STC with the wing tip extension STC. The wing tip STC probably proved that the wing would not fold at the strut. The gross weight increase probably proved that the wing, strut and fuselage bulkhead could take the load, BUT no one has looked at both at the same time. A good OEM will step up to the new regulations for every modification that they certify. By regulation, they have to; it's called the changed product rule. At one time there was talk that every modification (STC) would have to go through the OEM. Obviously STCers didn't like that idea. It was then changed to it had to go through the same ACO (Aircraft Certification Office). This would alert the OEM (and they could point out potential issues), and one ACO would know all the modifications (and potential conflicts). This died, too, for the same reasons. Sadly, it is a grey area in a black and white world ... engineering. Bottom line: Yes. STCers have an easier job certifying changes because they don't have the resources to look at everything. And OEMs should not be forced to give out their data and analysis tools.

@mike_elliott Do you know why Mooney never made a change to make the TKS conformal to the airfoil shape?

Whoever posted the article about the TB20 TKS system, thank you! It is also a scab on system (after the airplane is built and added later). The airfoil on that airplane is not as critical as the Mooney but a lot of the issues are similar. The Mooney was also the first GA airplane with TKS. Just because an airplane is FIKI, does not mean that one can fly into any condition. There are icing conditions that can overwhelm every system ... even hot leading edges. Been there ... don't want to do it again. FIKI used properly allows the airplane to get out of the situation.

@exM20K I love your attitude! And, ironically, were it not for Covid (and my wife and I not going back to Illinois for Christmas), I would hop in my car and buy you lunch at Pilot Pete's! Costs for the tests are mainly aircraft time ... and my time doing the modification. It's moving up my priority list.

This is a fascinating thread! Hearing the rumors and listening to what people think is simply way freakin' cool ... and sometimes scary. As it turns out, I have done a few of these gross weight increases while working for an OEM, and I am in the process of doing another one right now for Blue on Top LLC. As has been mentioned above by different posters, there are several areas that need to be addressed: structures (wing positive & negative bending, landing, etc.), performance (takeoff, landing, stall speeds, etc.) and others. It might very well be "just paperwork"; it might not. From a Flight Test standpoint, 10% is typically the maximum amount that is allowed without new test data being required. As @PT20J mentioned, OEMs (Mooney in this case) and STC holders (Rocket Engineering) typically won't give out free data ... nor should they. It would bring unnecessary liability to them. Sometimes there are ways around this.

I'm 100% agreeing with your numbers, @exM20K, but if a non-FIKI airplane is, say, 5-6 knots slower than book. The 10 AMU is now down to 4 or 5 AMU, and Mr. @mike_elliott is going to be laughing at me ... harder than normally. IOW, I'm trying to scope the program to see if it is worth the effort.

I'm an aerodynamicist. I can eliminate drag in many areas ... to a point. I'm waiting for a comment (or two) from @mike_elliott

@exM20K Thanks for the great info! Will a stock airplane (without TKS) meet the POH numbers? @mike_elliott 10AMU per airplane does excite me

IF I can get the FAA to allow me to aerodynamically modify an airplane for a flight without having to put it in the Experimental category, a willing donor airplane owner in the area and a day of temporary modification work, I could have a good answer. It might be possible now that I am back in Wichita and know a lot of FAA ACO, MIDO and FISDO personnel. Just sayin'.

@Petehdgs "Pedantic" is an awesome word. Well over my head. Kudos to you!

I had to look up "pedantic". It fits me. I'm working on it. I laughed at the idea of getting 90 lbs. of useful load back. I wish I could do that for you ... and everyone else. I'll be talking to the FAA in the new year on what I can do aerodynamically without putting an airplane in the Experimental category (note:@Petehdgs). Depending on how that is accomplished, it could devalue the airplane a little, a lot or not much at all. Your reply above is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! Others, please feel free to chime in. Thanks, Ron

I’ve asked this elsewhere, but this thread seems to be a better place. Would it be worth it to get the speed back for FIKI owners?

Hummmmmmm. Maybe this would be a good topic for "The Mooney Flyer"?