cliffy

One of the best and definitive diagnosis I've ever seen. Nice write up!!!! And in time for Oshkosh? WOW! You wanna open a shop in my city? :-)

YETTI- Just trying to get my head around what I think I'm reading. The plane is on jacks at the jacking points and the tail is on the ground with the gear (all wheels) in the air? The tail is being held down with weight in the baggage area and 320 lbs of rocks on the stabilizer? Or, are you saying, that the 320 lbs is suspended from the tail ring holding the tail down to something other than the tail ring on the ground? Like close to a level attitude? It may just be me being confused

Saw horses for secondary safety fine. Saw horses for primary support? You may find that the CG is far enough fore or aft of the tiedown point (main spar) that the airplane will rotate fore or aft beyond the spar line and dent the wing skin. I'll guarantee that if you try to jack the entire airplane at one time with saw horses you'll wind up off of the spar line. Give it some thought and be careful if you do. BTW, down under in Australia, it is against the regulations for anyone (owners included) to jack all 3 wheels off of the ground on any airplane unless one is a licensed aircraft engineer!

RULE #1 When changing aircraft tires-ALWAYS, ALWAYS , ALWAYS REMOVE THE VALVE CORE FIRST BEFOR YOU DO ANYTHING WITH THE TIRE RULE #2 REREAD RULE NUMBER 1!!!!!! Even if the tire is flat you need to be in the habit of removing the tire valve BEFORE you touch the wheel. This sets up the habit pattern of always doing it right. If you forget just one time and the tire has air in it, it can explode as you loosen the wheel bolts and kill you!!!! Also always check the wheel bolts before you loosen the axle nut to see if all the nuts are on the bolts and some not broken off. We see broken wheel bolts often. That's why we deflate before we even remove the axle nut. If nuts are missing what do you think is holding the wheel together? Can we all say- the axle nut !!! If you are going to do this, do it safe. I've seen a tire and wheel come apart, it's not a pretty sight. It's just as dangerous and working on a split rim truck tire, it can kill you if not done correctly. There is more to it than first meets the eye.

What does a used C Mustang cost these days? TWO blow torches, pressure, more seats, single pilot, aluminum frame, factory built- etc etc

Be sure to ask about the story behind setting the big press-mill in place in its hole, in the middle of the Mooney factory, many decades ago. It was Texas ingenuity

What the world needs (the older Bs Cs Ds Es Fs Gs world) needs is a good 2 axis autopilot with GPS tracking and Alt Hold for under $2000 I'd love to have one. OH wait, TruTrac makes one don't they? That and something "Aspen like" would be the cat's meow for the old school crowd.

As mentioned, the electrical system downstream from the alternator will have to be checked and/or reworked to allow the added current rating (wiring, CB, etc) Also the question was asked- Why? Only real reason is added electronics that draw more current from the system. One should really do an electrical load analysis to see what the continuous amp draw of all the electrical components is (when running at the same time) and compare that to the output of the generator. 80% of the generator capacity for continuous draw is the "rule of thumb" . More than that and the electrical system needs to be upgraded. It really isn't as simple as a drop in replacement (in a certified airplane). It may be just a plain, unnecessary expense. .

There are no studies that I have seen that include a "secondary input force " such as a car running over the wing at the same time a landing is accomplished. This is truly a unique experience with this particular incident. The studies I have read dealt with the airplane only and the angles at which the airframe impacted the plane of the surface it came in contact with. In the OP crash the the tank would not have ruptured in the manner it did had it not been for the input of a secondary force (car) at the same time of the contact with the ground. The tank did not rupture from the impact of the landing only from the secondary force of being run over and crushed by the car thereby compromising the wing structure in force lines not attributable to the primary crash vectors. Now this secondary input may well have been beneficial to the ultimate outcome of the crash as it dissipated energy over a longer period of time as opposed to hitting a solid immovable object such as a wall or tree. The pilot walked away basically unhurt As noted in a previous post, wings can shear off on trees etc but the forces involved in doing so in many if not most cases render the accident unsurvivable regardless of post impact fire. Post impact fire is not the big issue in an unsurvivable accident, in most cases, with light aircraft from what I have read. . It is actually very interesting to read how little of an impact angle and at what little speed it takes to render an accident non-survivable (no post impact fire involved). Once you get above the area of 70 kts impact speed the angle of impact becomes very shallow for survivability. In one study I read, shoulder harnesses actually played a much smaller role in survivability than most would tend to believe. Their "window of help" was fairly narrow. I ask again, how many off airport landings that are survivable resulted in non-survivable fires in Mooneys from ruptured fuel tanks? Not many, if any, but I'm looking for more data and if I find data that shows that post impact fire in Mooneys is a serious factor in survivable accidents, I'll change my mind on the subject. The point I was trying to make was that we have a stronger wing than any other plane out there and by the time the wing fails in a "normal" crash scenario and the fuel tank ruptures most likely we are in a world of hurt (probably dead already) and the post crash fire will make no difference.

There was one with James Cagney as a Canadian bush pilot in the late 30s or early 40s flying float planes. Can't think of the name right now.

Show me pictures of any Mooney that had a "crash landing" UNDER CONTROL where the wing came apart! First and foremost, it's all up to you, the pilot, as to the outcome of an off airport landing. Aside from non-survivable crash attitudes (angle of impact to surface of impact, yes there are studies on this on the net), Mooneys look to me to be way better than the rest of the fleet in post crash disassembly. It's all due to basic design. Most everyone else "bolts" their wings on to the fuselage structure or center section. Ours is one piece from tip to tip, thereby not having any "weak" joints to come apart right at the fuel storage source. My guess? After reading some of the aforementioned studies, if it's an acute enough angle of impact with enough energy to rupture the fuel tank in a Mooney it's probably acute enough to be non-survivable regardless of the post crash fire. We don't need no stinkin' bladders (for post crash fire control) :-) Al designed a strong wing! Be a good enough pilot to fly it. Wheels up or wheels down in a crash is another thread discussion.

Why not ask to make a paper copy of the boards at/from an MSC that has them?

WOW!

None better than "The High and the Mighty" with John Wayne. I can hear him whistling the tune right now.

We're wrecking them faster than they can build them.

I remember reading something about the air scoop inlet way back when. Gotta try to remember what it was. Long exhaust pipe keeps the belly clean as does a little extension to the breather line Keep us posted

Every system will have its own a critical altitude where, by design, the system will not maintain max MP anymore. It usually is found in the POH. It is usually defined as where the wastegate closes fully but with a fixed wastegate the function is the same. When testing the actual altitude where the MP can not be maintained MAY vary some (a couple thousand feet) due to normal wear, atmospheric conditions, etc. But if the CA is way lower than called for that starts the investigation as to why. Bad turbo, bad wastegate, system leaks? BTW a little Mouse Milk squirted on the wastegate linkage and valve axle once and awhile does wonders in keeping them free and working. Old trick I learned decades ago on Navajos.

Getting out in a hurry? Another good point for 2 doors!

Boring cylinders (although a dull subject :-) is/was a standard aircraft engine process. The cost delta value between new, good used and bored cylinders is something only the owner can value in his application. There is no horsepower increase ever noted with bored cylinders in aircraft.

Get the correct wrench as mentioned No problem after that. Don't use teflon tape as mentioned Dry installation

BTW I've flown in and out of that airport for 50+ years Landing on SF Road ain't so easy as it's VERY busy with cars. I have a couple of friends who crashed on it right about there, 2 years ago.

" A Vertical Tale" by Slick Cruiser If it's old enough and has a Brittain autopilot I have dibs It'snot even off the street yet and we're dividing it up :-)

Decent planning was the key. In the 757 and a visual to 28 SFO you're doing your decent planning from the east side of the bay down near SJC, You needed 210 kts clean at 10 miles out and near the GS for a smooth transition to landing configuration. 20-30 kts faster or a 1000' higher at 10 miles and you might not get stable by 500'. It was a glider. The 73 was easier. Draggier airframe and the boards worked better at slowing you. The 727 was a different world with its (wing disassembly) boards. :-)

Come on folks, some of you that are so interested in having a chute chime in on the recurring cost aspect. Is it really that valuable to you at $2000/year ?

Are you saying that the RJ system has no critical altitude listed in its performance manual? That the RJ system wastegate never closes? I have no access to an RJ manual but most every other turbo system I have ever worked on or flown had an altitude defined by the manual (when operating correctly) at which the waste gate was finally closed and above which the manifold pressure would begin to drop. "Critical Altitude" for the turbo system. Any altitude lower (sometimes WAY lower) shows a turbo weakness, bad waste gate or system leaks that the turbo can't keep up with. The question is, does the turbo system match what the book says it should do or not? Guess work aside. If one is testing a system the "I would think" procedure won't cut it especially if it has financial risks like the cost of a turbo replacement after a purchase that the prebuy didn't find. If I'm doing your prebuy you can bet I'll check this so I don't get blamed for not finding a bad turbo system when your first annual rolls around and you won't be faced with that expense. Isn't this where we get into that high cost of the first annual business?