Urs_Wildermuth

2k ft? That is over 600 m? Our normal training field has 1640 ft asph and it is plenty enough for a C model unless there are obstacles. I do recall that initially I also had landings where I ate the field lenght without ever getting on the ground but this is simply a question of good speed control and getting used to the visual cues outside the window. 75 mph should be more than enough as well. What I found challenging at first was to keep the proper pitch attitude and height in the flare. It is very easy to get that wrong and if so, you land hard. After a while though you get the visual picture right and from then on it's easy. I would not beat myself up over this, you had bad luck I reckon. The way I went about it was to train landings on longer fields but setting myself a distance I want to achieve (e.g. at ZRH I have a 8000 ft runway but the first exit is at 1600 ft, so I always try to aim at that one when training short field landings). Clearly, it is different if the glide path is steeper than the normal 3 degrees and you have obstacles as apparently you had here.

A small update. We have had the accelerator pump tested and it works fine. Will check out the shower of sparks during the next scheduled maintenance. I have several pilots fly the airplane as I don´t create enough flight time currently due to other comitments. It´s only two of us who have problems starting. What is weird though is that the other 3 each use totally different procedures to start it but get it to run every time. One uses fuel pump on, wait for pressure build up, fuel pump off, pump 5-6 times and then engage the starter with throttle 1/4 inch open. Another runs the fuel pump, does not prime at all but pumps the throttle slowly while cranking. Takes him 4-5 blades to start. That is my mechanic who does it this way. I think the problem has to do with too few fuel in the engine when I do it. I am scared of carb fire so I did maybe not prime enough. I will try the method my mechanic suggested and see what I can achieve. Thanks for the tips regarding clogged pump. Will have that checked yet again.

At least the prototype is still flying...

For many that is the pet excuse. I used it for a while but it's pretty lame. In the end, many of us simply do not have the time to do this hobby the way it should be and don't have the nerve to call it quits. So maybe we need more regulation on this, not less, such as 100 hrs p.a. minimum time or re-examinations and maybe we need to stop people from flying into the mountaineous areas with special use airspace unless they are really qualified. But even then, 2 of the pilots who crashed in the alps recently were proficient enough and still crash.

Possibly, even though the crash site was fully VMC at the time of the accident. It is going to be investigated by the Swiss SUST, their NTSB. Not sure how to call this. In the last 10 minutes they most probably were flying in turbulent conditions but there should have been time and space to turn around. I have flown in that area and with the weather and turbulence there was, my primary question is, why did they try to go at all. It was quite clear that a VFR flight through the alps was impossible that day, and if they had not even watched the weather, listening to the news should have done it... in the morning of that day, a Swiss Military PC7 crashed in similar circumstances a few miles west of there. Now if a turboprop trainer with the best pilots of the country in terms of navigation abilities in the alps can't do it, then certainly not a private pilot with a 200 hp Mooney Frankly, the Swiss alps are one of the most dangerous areas to fly in Europe and need respect and great care. This year alone this is the 4th accident with people killed in about 3 months time. It is more than obvious that a lot of pilots are NOT qualified to fly there and the question remains if for the future, more strict regulation is needed to protect these people from themselves. I hate myself saying that but the figures show that mountain flying is something that most PPL's in Europe are not qualified for. It may well have to do with the fact that most PPL's fly way to few, some less than 10 hours per year due to high cost and time constraints. In any case, the current series of accidents are almost asking for something to be done.

Paul, the registration is known by now, it was D-EPPW. Hope it's not one of your customers. PIC is said to have been 64 years of age, pax 79. As for the conditions, there is a webcam image which shows the impact zone at the time. It would suggest that the place was VFR indeed, however the planes last altitude recorded was higher. This place is at roughly 6000 ft while the last altitude was 7500 ft. There are several questions open to this. A) why did they depart Donaueschingen when they knew their destination was closing at their departure time? Further, the Swiss general Aviation forecast for the area was declaring the Alps closed with most of the passes and VFR routes across being below minima. I looked at the situation today at work and there was no way they could have crossed the Alps further on. Earlier the same day, a Swiss Airforce PC7 was lost in the morning in central Switzerland in an apparent CFIT. The Alps are a very dangerous zone to fly in if there is cloud and there are too many who underestimate them.

Crashed yesterday on a flight from Donaueschingen towards Albenga near the resort of Braunwald, canton Glarus in Switzerland. News report in German with pictures 2 on board, on pilot (64) and one pax, both perished. What went on is unclear. They departed in the evening from Donaueschingen direction Albenga and crashed half an hour after departure after apparently sending a distress message. The weather in the Alps was bad with cloud and turbulence, however a picture of the crash site taken by a webcam at the time shows the area in VMC with a cloud cover above it. General Aviation Forecast showed all alpine crossings to be closed for VFR due to low cloud over the passes. The destination was closed already at the time of the crash, so one wonders why they still tried to go there.

I've had my M20C / Powerflow up at 17500 ft... albeit at a day which had 20° C over ISA, so DA was close to 22'000 ft.

No, I am bloody glad it's not something expensive which is broken! Being a stupid owner comes cheap in this instance.

Yea! Never had such problems with the C150 I used to own....

Hello James, with that I merely meant that the engine has not run that day. The massive problems usually only are present at the first start up, consequent start ups during the day work better, but still not good. As an example: Last week one of my pilots did our standard procedure, pumping 7 times, waiting 30 seconds and then engage the starter. The engine turns fine, then fired once or twice, when he disengaged the starter it stopped. He then had to try 4 more times until it did start and he had to pump the throttle vigorously in order to get it to fire. He then flew to a nearby field, where the engine started on the first try, but still with a lot of pumping of the throttle. Thanks for this procedure. Will try it asap. As far as I remember, I have never ever seen a drop in pressure when pumping the throttle. So you are saying the fuel pressure should drop or not? I am confused now: If the fuel pressure drops with pumping, is the accelerator pump broken? Or the other way around? Well, ok, if I can get the thing to start next week, I'll look at that too. i am not counting my chickens anymore before the engine runs. So far, I've had to go home 3 times as it simply refused to start. From what I read here, it definitly looks like there is something wrong with the accelerator pump, the engine appears not to get enough fuel. I'll have that and the shower of sparks checked next week. I would think, from what you guys posted, this is a high probability that it's one of the two.

1-2 strokes won't do anything and never did. We always needed 6-7 cold and 3-4 warm. So I'd say there is a pre-existing problem somewhere. Will do, thanks.

Yes I do. I think so. It could well be that we have an intermittent fault as not everybody has had it. I'll definitly investigate in this direction. I believe Skytec. Need to check. A new starter was installed at overhaul 300 hrs ago. Just read the troubleshooting guide, none of the problems. The starter turns the prop just fine. Both at engine overhaul in 2011, 300 hrs ago. I don't know if it's possible that the magneto timing needs service, but I'll ask that question. I will check if the plugs got replaced at last annual or cleaned. Normally they do that. The last time they found the spark plugs contaminated or faulty, I was told. This annual went through without any issues at all, just very basic annual (the first of it's kind in 8 years of ownership where there was no issues found). The very irritating thing is that it apparently does not happen to all of us, just to me and one more pilot. This starts to massively impact my confidence in the airplane and in myself. Why can two other people start this plane on first try every time and the other guy and me have problems every time? What the hell are we doing wrong if we do everything exactly as they do? One of them even filmed his start up and he does everything the same way we've done it for years and the darn thing starts right up.

popping here and there is what a good description is of what it's doing. Thanks smwash02. I'll be glad to hear more opinions and will take what I can learn here to my maintenance.

It does have the shower of sparks. I wonder if the switch is bad indeed or intermittent. Would explain why some people have this problem and others don't. Could also mean that when maintenance checks it, it won't do the evil deed.... nothing as frustrating than an intermittent fault. The mags have 300 hrs since a full overhaul. Once the engine is running, they work perfectly, mag check is good (it was not before we got them overhauled). From my experience as well as what the other pilots who have the problem said, it was always once that the engine had properly fired, it runs very well. It's to get it to fire the first time, which is the problem. It also feels like there is not enough fuel to get it to fire or it runs out of fuel after that burst of firing I've been describing. The question is, what do you do next? You give 6-8 pushes on the throttle, it doesn't fire. So how many do you do now? Why does it start if you pump vigorously? Is that an indication of too few fuel available to start? Yes. No idea how they tested it but it had the annual and they knew about this and checked all they know to check. Same maintenance organisation has had this plane for over 20 years and know it well. They are as puzzled as we are. One of their people had it happen to him pre-annual, after the annual it started fine, so they assumed that whatever they had done had fixed it, but it re-occurred. Right, thanks for the tip. I'll have that looked at. Engine has around 300 hrs since overhaul (2011), with around 50 hrs flown p.a. since.

Hello all, I'd like to pick your brains on a problem which has been driving me slightly miffed in recent weeks. I own my C model since 2009 and since then, usually start up was never a problem at all. Our procedure as set was always the same: - Electrical fuel pump on, till pressure shows, then off. - Priming 6-8 times with the throttle (cold engine) or 2-4 times (warm engine) - Engage starter and the engine would run. Since this year, start up has become a real pain. I've had to leave the airplane two times unable to start it, had to request mechanic assistance (ext power) twice more and I keep getting feedbacks from the other pilots. The engine turns, most of the time fires shortly but when you disengage the starter,it stops. In subsequent tries,it either never ever fires again or again just once or twice. What we found is that during the start up one has to pump vigorously with the throttle, which sometimes leads to a start. 2nd and 3rd start after the engine has run is unproblematic, even though even then pumping the throttle is required. In two unsucessfull attempts, the engine definitly was drowned, with fuel leaking on the front tyre. Two of the pilots report they have NO problems at all and think we are too stupid simply. Well, it's possible,but we follow the exactly same procedure (one of them filmed it) and have no success. As I said, the previous years we never had any problem whatsoever. Maintenance has looked at it and found nothing wrong, even though they also were unable to start the engine at least once. They report, plugs and magnetoes are fine, carburettor as well. My feel is the engine does not get enough fuel the first start, then finding a good mix for starting in following attempts is difficult. Any idea on where to start looking would be appreciated. We have a major problem with this, as our airport has departure slots and we can't afford dicking around with the engine for hours every time we want to go flying. I also feel this is not how a standard O360 A1D should behave. Thanks a lot.

Well, we have not had a reoccurrance in now some time so I suppose it must have been bad operation by the pilots involved. That is me and one other guy.

I've had the powerflow system on my Mooney C ever since I bought the plane and I would not want to be without one. Basically that is why. My C will do 150 kts at 6500 ft with 2500RPM/25". I understand that this is quite high for a C and has to do with the powerflow exhaust. The previous owner who installed it wrote that he would need 1" less MP to achieve the performance wanted.

Thanks guys! This is pretty much what I thought. The thought of hitting the downlock in an uncommanded release is outright scary, but I wonder how that happened. In the event I had, the lever never got higher than my tigh and the gear stayed there, right in transit about 50% between up and down. I immediately pulled the throttle back and kept the nose up to get the speed down and then initally put the gear all the way down and locked first, then, after a short assessment, put it back up again at about 80 mph. What I did notice however was a quite pronounced nose down pitch movement, the moment the gear released which the AP could not counter initially. Wondering how to include this in our abnormal checklist. Uncommanded gear extension - Speed ....................... reduce to below 120 mph - Gear ......................... down and lock - Situation .................. assess If no damage visible and airplane flies normally - Gear ......................... as required - Consider following abnormal Landing Gear Indication Procedure If abnormal behaviour encountered or damage evident - Landing gear............... keep down and locked Follow abnormal Landing Gear Indication Procedure

Folks, a question for you. In recent days, we have had multiple cases where the landing gear of my M20C extended uncommanded, after the Johnson Bar escaped the uplock. This is not very funny when it happens, two cases were below 120mph and one at 140 mph. First of all, is there any maintenance action necessary if the gear has extended above 120mph? We did a visual inspection after landing and everything seemed ok. 2ndly: What can cause this? We never had this in 7 years of ownership and now 3 times in a row. The last time I was PIC and I did retract the gear again and it held, so maybe it was not completely in. Are there still sources to get a better uplock? Maybe ours is too worn? I always thought of the manual gear as being an assett, but right now I have my doubts.

I never yet forgot to put it down but I had a gear warning in flare (just about at touch down) once which scared the bejazis out of me... Turns out that the Johnson wasn't properly locked but somehow managed to show green anyhow initially. During touch down it appears to have shaken loose sufficiently to trigger the red light and sound, but thankfully stayed in. I immediately grabbed the handle and pressed forward with all strenght I could muster and braked to a stop, then gave it another push up and the warning ceased and it clicked in place. Lesson learnt: really shake and yank that lever on final to make darn sure it is secure.

Hmm. I must say I am quite surprised about this, particularly in the US. Apart, this is not my experience normally. Over here, there are whole magazines full of new cars, forums which discuss every new model enthusiastically and shows where millions of people flock to see the new offerings. Not many of them will ever buy one, but the interest is very much alive. Apart, i felt that particularly the M10 was something quite important for the Mooney brand too. Don't get me wrong, i will probably never buy new either, actually never have, I am 55 and into my 3rd car, all of which were 2nd hand. My plane is 4th hand as far as I can tell and I am darn glad I could afford it! But that does not mean the developments in new airplanes do not interest me, particularly if the brand which furnishes spare parts for my own plane depends on new sales. I always thought that there is a small but dedicated market for the expensive M20's we have currently but there would be a much larger market for something like the M10 or the often discussed entry level M20. That is why I was a bit surprised when after the first couple of posts, things became absolutely silent on the M10 and the interest in the fact that there was a significant development in the 20 also remained quite subdued. In the end, we all depend on Mooney to survive as a company and they can only do that by selling new planes. And all of our planes were once new too, without the sale of new planes, there is no base for 2nd hand ones in 10 years or so.

I'll settle for a 170 kt Diesel. But you do get the drift... Mooney has to come back to what made it big: Efficient, economical and affordable airplanes which make the best use of available power and deliver the best knots per buck.

If true, best news I've heard today. Re the used Cheyenne vs new Mooney comparison, well, that is worse than apples and oranges. Any idea how much a Cheyenne costs to keep? That 300k difference or what it was will be eaten up in no time at all. Anyhow, people who shop for planes like a Cheyenne are hardly the typical Mooney customers, are they. Other than that, the calc is easy enough. If there are new planes produced, if the make is alive, it will do all of us some good. If it goes down, we have a huge problem with the maintenance of the fleet. Apart, any newly sold Mooney will probably free up a previously owned one at prices where those who will never buy new will buy. Well, I hope the news re the M10 is true.

Glad to see that the thread is lively and the issues are coming onto the table. Thanks for participating. I did maybe voice my original post in a bit of a provocative way but while those of you who pointed me to the relevant threads of course have a point, those threads did not explain why there was no mentionable interest from the outset. Actually, I was not very much referring to the cancellation when I said there was few interest, but it struck me that there was almost no discussion at the time when the M10 was announced (I realize there were some messages, but if I compare this to other product specific fora I read, it showed very few interest in the development) as well as when the Ultra specs came out too. My question why has been answered pretty much in the past 4 pages of messages. In short, the products offered by Mooney are way too expensive (which it has in common with most other companies as well) and even here, there is considerable doubt about the economical viability of such a new airplane. So in short, it is not only Mooney which have the problem that legal hassles (certification and product liability) has driven up prices for new airplanes to unreachable heights. However, some of the competitors are selling and have an avid followership who will buy the new products (which of course frees up used airplanes for those who can't afford a new one) and appear to be more solid in the market. The obvious question is, what can Mooney do to improve that. My personal theory is that Mooney lacks an entry level bare bone model which most competitors have, often not really with the intent of selling it but to simply show potential customers a base price which may be significantly lower than what the customer ends up buying. This is something every car company does but for the biggest luxury brands. Cirrus has the SR20. I don't have the numbers but I think it's sales figures compared to the SR22 are absymal. However: The client who thinks about buying will be attracted to start his thinking process towards a new Cirrus by looking at the relatively low price of an SR20, only to during the process switching to the SR22 he really wants. The question here would be, would he even talk to Cirrus if the base price of the lowest entry model was in the range of the top models. My personal opinion is, much less likely. Another factor which has been addressed here is the "wife" factor of the parashute. I agree. Cirrus did the shute originally to overcome certification issues but I guess it took them a very short time to find that the shute will do for their sales pretty much what that old chewing gum commercial did for sugarless gums: "I love it because it's the only gum my mummy allows...." I reckon that was and is a huge pro Cirrus argument. Many people, particularly spouses, are very anxious passengers and the comfort of having that shute must be an overwhelming one to them, even though some pilots may sneer. Personally, I think the shute adds a significant safety factor particularly at night and in low IMC. Of course this has it's price in terms of maintenance as well as payload. So where are we with Mooney in this regard? Mooney has no equivalent to the SR20 for starters but it has two top level models and that is it. The reaction in this forum here is more than clear, way too expensive to even think about. Mooney does not offer a shute system either, but is in good company there. And actually, Cessna sells a good number of C172's without them anyhow, I reckon the plane most hurt by the lack of a shute option for them is the Corvalis, which is the better plane than the Cirrus but has the same problem than our Mooneys... when a wife is confronted with the idea of a new plane, she will go "oh well, IF you have to have one take the one with the shute, never mind economy, speed or anything else.". I thought the M10 would solve the entry level issue quite well, while still offering a quite capable traveller with the M10J. I also thought that adding a shute system to the M10J would probably be feasible. Now that the M10 is dead in the water, we are basically back to square one. When I look at the M20, I am looking at those who sold best. By type, the best selling Mooney ever was the C model, followed by the J. Why? Because it brought the best bang for buck. In other words, it delivered the best performance (to this day) per horsepower and provided a stable and fast travel platform at an economical cost. The top models never sold that many, neither did the E outsell the C, nor did the models which followed the J/K series ever come close. With the move to big bore engines, Mooney moved away from it's core business of economical and efficient airplanes to luxury racers. A bit like if Toyota were to dump the mass product cars they sell for Lexus only. So what can Mooney do? In my opinion, Mooney needs an entry level offering more than ever, which has to be in the price range of maximum the SR20. To install shutes in the M20 cell is very difficult if not impossible, but they could set points which price and performance. For me, that kind of plane would have come fairly close to what the M10J would have been, but with the M20 cell. - A basic Mooney cell with a 180-200 hp engine, if at all possible a Diesel. There are NO fast Diesel planes around, a 170 kt Diesel (as the M10J was supposed to be) would definitly catch the attention of the market. I don't know if it would make economical sense to shorten the cell to J levels but if it could be done, it should. - Take the lessons learnt from the M10 and M20Ultra projects into the new entry level machine: More pre-fabricated parts, possibly more composite materials, less luxorious interior, possibly a bargain panel as well with Aspens instead of G1000 and possibly open avionic choice. - Introduce alternative avionic fits also for the top models. Not everyone likes the G1000 suite. This should be done with a minimum of development cost and work. Any newly developed plane should most definitly offer a shute as an option at least. Maybe this would bring back the interest in new airplanes also to those who live of the 2nd hand market. It has to be remembered that each of our planes had to be new at some stage and be sold to someone who found it attractive enough to buy. Without new sales, there are no new second hands either and the aging fleet we have will end up with more and more problems. So it can only be in our interest if the Company thrives and does not revert back to being a parts supplyer as it was for some years.