A64Pilot

I setup at 22 squared, then lean to 7 GPH, that gives me 135 kts and is close to 50C LOP, so real LOP, but it’s still smooth. Factory single EGT probe, but that low of fuel, I’m sure everybody is LOP but at 50ish percent power, it doesn’t matter if they aren’t. That gives me 19.29 MPG zero wind. It will run smoothly down to 6 GPH still 22 squared, but it slows to 120 kts and only gives me 20 MPG, so I gain only a tiny bit on MPG, but speed drops way off, and she will stumble, a bit from time to time, not bad but it’s there. I don’t want to get fanatical about it, there probably are power settings that will work better, but 22 squared, 135 kts and over 19 MPG is good enough for me. ‘I got fanatical about it in my Maule with a multipoint calibrated MVP-50, Gami injectors and fine wire plugs, but first the 540 wouldn’t run near as smooth near as deep LOP as the 360 will with massive plugs and factory injectors, and I think the Maule was just too draggy. Difference in fuel consumption on the Maule between LOP and 50 ROP if you corrected the MP to maintain the same exact airspeed was insignificant, not even close to 1 GPH. but it wouldn’t go deep LOP, power just went away and it would stumble, and yes it was a high compression motor, but parallel not angle valve, so maybe that’s why? Just for comparison, the C-210L with an IO-520 and my Maule with its IO-540 gave about 11 MPG cruise. The 210 would carry a load though like a pick up truck. I have not yet pulled the power back on my Mooney to run the same speed as LOP while ROP to see what the actual fuel savings are, I’ll run LOP just for the cleaner plugs etc. ‘I’ll eventually get a monitor but have other things that need to come first, just got back from testing to get my IA back, that cost about $3,000 all in, and on the 23rd my left knee is getting replaced, followed in 90 days by the right knee. Maybe after buying Christmas for the kids I’ll be moving around well enough to install a monitor?

I know, I downloaded a calculator for ROP HP, close some good enough for me, I just want to be sure I’m low enough power wise or not hurt anything.

If there are no aircraft batteries available, I’d try to find an AGM car battery that would fit temporarily. I guess it’s either that or abandon the airplane for an extended time? Or plan your flights around a jump start source, your a 12V airplane so that gets easier, but don’t fly IFR until you get a known good battery, because if the alternator quits, you may lose everything electrical in a short time with a bad battery. When you do order an aircraft battery, get one that isn’t a wet cell, an AGM can’t leak. A few of us carry jumper cables for just such a need.

The more different aircraft you fly the more experience you will gain as they are all a little bit different. Getting that CFI, or actually a CFII will get you into many different aircraft. I didn’t go the CFI route myself, I had a rich Uncle pay for most of my way, paid for my A&P and my Commercial / Instrument. But to do it on your own, somebody’s got to be rich, of course you may be. 180 HP Mooney’s are fine, and in my opinion a low HP airplane is better to train in as excessive HP can be a crutch, low HP teaches you to finesse things. A fellow Army pilot friend bought a Piper Apache to build multi time when I was in the Army so he could seek a civilian job when his Army time was up, everything was fine until the first Annual and it was discovered that the engine cases had been incorrectly welded in the past and suddenly he need to buy two motors, and he didn’t have the money to do so. I’m not sure how that worked out, but an old Apache without motors is pretty much worthless. If he had gone the CFiI route, even if he did it for free, he would have not had to face that financial crisis.

Most airboats are pushers, so they need a pusher prop

While probably not the ideal answer, but are you sure it needs an overhaul? I’ve seen engines sit that long that were OK, I’ve seen some that had rust on a cylinder or two, and some that were seized it was so bad, but you may get lucky, depending a lot on where in the world this hangar is. Two houses down a Lady finally sold her Husband’s twin Comanche, it had been sitting in a hangar in Florida for almost a decade, the people who bought it were A&P’s, I assume to sell it of course, but the left engine needed two cylinders and the right was fine, they ran them for an hour or so after they did the Annual and flew it away. And this was Florida.

Must be a Torque matching thing or something because I’ve flown hundreds of turbines from Pratt -15’s to -67F’s, -6 Garrets and -10’s, GE H-80’s and all of them reacted the same as a piston when you pulled power, all were single engine though. Power increases were delayed of course by the fuel control to prevent over temps, the lower the Ng, the longer the delay. On edit, if you had four blade props I think your idle was real high to stay out of the props avoid range for the reactionless mode, this very high idle may explain a delay in power reduction. I have no twin engine airplane time. I think people just aren’t wired to pull power in an Emergency, I flew AH-64’s for a long time, the AH-64 had a stores jettison button on the collective, a simple, push of the button and you lost on average about a ton of weight. During the time I flew one, there had been several aircraft accidents, that most likely wouldn’t have happened if either pilot pushed that button, and it was pushed several times, but every time it was by accident, when needed every pilot rode it in, with the wing stores on, and we had an incredibly expensive, very lifelike full motion simulator, so we practiced pushing that button often, but no one ever did. I can’t explain why, we weren’t stupid or undertrained. I can’t imagine why not, but odds are I would have rode it in with the wing stores too, even though of course being a gun driver I didn’t think I would.

Just pulling the throttle off stops pretty much all thrust, and any turbine pilot always has their hands on the throttle on take off as you can easily overtemp or over torque one if you push the throttle to the stops like you do on most pistons, they are slow to accelerate unless it’s a Garrett, but they come off of power pretty much instantly. But you know the Turbine Caribou pilot did the same thing

Depends on if your trying to impress or just taking off. BD Maule was sort of a show off promoting his airplanes, this print is from an actual picture of BD in an M5 leaving supposedly a hangar, it actually was the factory at Spence field in Moultrie, so he had more distance than just a hangar would give you, but even a light Maule will lift its mains off prior to the tailwheel, because the critical angle of attack of the wing is a higher angle than you can get in the three point attitude. A nose dragger Maule can takeoff in slightly less runway as you can get the nose higher than a tailwheel will allow.

Thanks, So at 7 GPH LOP I’m at 105 HP, that’s about what I guessed. ‘Interesting, ROP at the same MP and RPM I’m only 116 HP, I woud have thought I’d lose more LOP.

It’s all computed, even the cars that tell you fuel mileage is computed and not measured. Cars are pretty much dead accurate because the driver isn’t allowed to mess with the mixture, however as we can in an airplane and the computer can’t know what the mixture is, it’s not going to be accurate at any mix other than what the computer is set for, that may be best power, or maybe best economy? But I bet it’s data from Lycoming cruise charts, and one mixture at that. On my MVP-50 it was pretty close at best power, but who cruises there? LOP it wasn’t even close as of course you lose a lot of power LOP

What is the formula for determine HP when LOP for an IO-360? I’ve seen it quoted but can’t find it.

Well, that pretty much makes it certain that it was an inflight break up then, I just hope it was quick and maybe G’s were high enough for them to be unconscious

That’s why I asked if anyone could find evidence of major damage in the past, was she rebuilt after tornado damage or whatever? Being such a newish airplane makes corrosion less likely I think. Air speed wise, there wasn’t the altitude available to build a bunch of airspeed and the gear was down, which also of course helps keep from building a lot of speed quickly. Plus if you watch the video there just wasn’t a whole lot of forward speed, it seems to me to be coming down at a rather steep angle, nose up. So she had around 1,000 ft to build speed? with the gear down and then be nose high before the crash? 60 MPH is over 5,000 ft per min, and if I had to guess it wasn’t descending faster than that, hitting the ground is like hitting a concrete wall, and 60 MPH into a wall is incredibly destructive. I have no idea what kind of video artifact or whatever could cause this, it’s way over my head, I sort of understand CCD camera’s, about as much as say most understand how a car works. But we are all tossing around theories, which is fine as it isn’t disrespectful I don’t think, and I’m certain we will find out if the wings broke before impact or not from the investigation. My SWAG is the experts can determine descent rate by how many feet were travelled between frames by knowing frame rate, but that’s a guess too.

Except that I don’t think it’s ever happened in a Mooney, ever? Add in that airspeed wasn’t all that high, then add in the unlikely event that both wings break exactly at the same moment so that the airframe remains level, and as has already been pointed out in other aircraft that have had high speed breakups from being over G’d, usually the horizontal goes first as it’s developing a shed load of downward force to force the nose up in a high G situation, remember the center of balance is forward the center of lift. ‘Not saying the wings didn’t break, but if they did staying in a nose up attitude and level is I think really unusual. ‘I’m betting in some kind of video phenomena that is over my head to understand as it seems more likely, and for whatever reason the aircraft was in a deep stall, but again to be wings level is sort of unusual, so my guess is he saw the ground rush and did what any of us would do and pulled hard. We won’t know until the report comes out, but I do think then we will.

Looks very similar to this crash, which was from control locks. Boeing lost the bomber contract for the B-17 I believe from a crash with control locks installed, both the Caribou and the B-17 had experienced test pilots onboard.

I’ve heard a similar story many years ago. ‘I’d bet myself that the wing is strong enough so that something else will break first, horizontal or empennage maybe? On edit I’m sure you have heard the story of them braking the fixture when they tried or test to destruction, that’s not really all that uncommon. ‘At Thrush we broke the fixture when we tried to pull a wing spar box to failure. we had already completed the pull to ultimate and the spar wasn’t any good for anything so why not? We only pulled the main spar assy, not need to waste a whole wing on the test we were doing. We took the wing spar cap life limit from 29,000 hours to 60,000 hours and increased gross weight from 6,000 lbs to 10,500 lbs, so of course there was a lot of structural substantiation involved.

I think it has do do with frame rate and speed of object, but I’m sure we have all seen bent props on a Gopro or similar camera before, I think the broken wings are from a similar effect. But boy they do sure look real

I woud bet money that any flight profile that would cause structural failure in a Mooney would be well outside of a parachutes envelope. I believe but am not certain that an SR-22 at normal cruise is outside of the deployment envelope due to speed, some who know will say I’m sure. It’s my understanding that the CAPS is excellent for those that run out of fuel or maybe get scared in IMC, but I think on the fastest model. it’s deployment airspeed is less than 140 kts.

I’m hoping video artifact as well, like you see on a prop? If the wings failed. I’m certain that the NTSB will find that very quickly, they are very meticulous. Oh, and to expand on an earlier question about CO poisoning being heater related, yes it’s probably more likely if a muffler has a crack when the heat is on, but exhaust leaks very often occur outside of the heat shroud and you can get CO poisoning at any time of year, heat on or off. A good CO meter is possibly a lifesaver, I need to get off of my butt and get one myself, before you guys read about me.

The Sim is going to show you what’s it’s programmed to, not necessarily even close to reality. G is airspeed dependent, we proved for example that on an S2R-H80 even at gross weight if you stayed within the VNE, the wings couldn’t generate enough lift to break themselves, but if you were going fast enough, then certainly.

It was a 92 model, my swag is corrosion is much less likely in such a new airframe. I would say thunderstom turbulence as T storms have even torn up Century series fighters and even Scott Crossfield couldn’t survive a T storm penetration when he was vectored into one, and if he couldn’t no one can. ‘But that video seems to indicate the wings folded just prior to impact, and the aircraft seems to be in a stalled attitude, but no spin, so the nose up wasn’t prolonged?

More pure speculation, but often when someone is overcome by events, like trying to deal with a difficult problem, they load shed less important actions, like maybe talking on the radio. ‘If the aircraft were failing structurally, he may have been struggling for control, and only partially paying attention to the radio. ‘Some of you smarter people with computers than I am, how old was the aircraft, and was there a 337 in the past for serious structural repair? I don’t see wires or a pole braking both wings, and leaving the aircraft still pointed in direction of flight. There will I’m certain be enough left to analyze

Maybe make wind chimes? Other than decoration I don’t think they have a use, or I can’t think of one anyway, the can’t use for Aviation I take to mean not Experimental either. ‘I’ve see an Avia prop straightened with a pipe wrench on a flying airplane before, but on a Crop Duster and those guys will do anything, he was proud of himself because he used a piece of leather to keep the wrench from marking the prop. An Avia prop is unusual as you literally screw the blades in and a clamp holds them from turning. I take that yours wasn’t a Hartzell, because I think pretty much anything that condemns a blade also condemns the hub on them, but maybe it’s just the bigger props.

Hang them on the wall? This was my prop strike, at least your hub is still good.