kortopates

All aircraft certified under CAR part 3, which was everything prior to Jan 1, 1958, were certified with a Basic Empty Weight that did NOT include oil. Mooney's of course were originally certified under CAR part 3 and new models after '58 were added to the amended certification. But at some time, Mooney did change to the Part 23 weighing requirements that all the mid-body's and long body's go by where full oil is included in the Basic Empty Weight plus all required equipment for flight including POH, tow bar, etc. as it left the factory. There was an original equipment list provided that checked what equipment and arm was included. One should be able to resolve which rules their Mooney falls into by looking at your POH or equivalent guidance for calculating W&B, TCDS notes or even their existing W&B sheet. Its not necessary though to drain the oil for earlier models, instead its perfectly acceptable fill to capacity and use the specified arm and 7.5 lb/gal to compute oil weight and arm to subtract from the weighed aircraft with full oil. The same can be done for fuel. Both old CAR part 3 and new Part 23 rules call for the Basic empty weight to include unusable fuel only. But for accuracy (since its near impossible to be assured you have filled your Mooney tanks to the actual stated capacity) I would personally drain the tanks dry and then add in the actual unusable fuel as specified for your year & model (even on some of the same models it can change by year or serial number) - just as Mooney's weighing procedure advises. You can look up the precise unusable fuel for your model/serial number in the TCDS (I recall note 1). Besides too many people still use 6.0 lbs/gal (which was the generic weight for leaded avgas no longer in use) when FAA approved weight for 100LL is 5.82 lb/gal (although technically it varies by temperature).

Absolutely a contaminated wing will stall earlier and extra speed or more precisely a lower angle of attack should be carried through the approach and landing. But who is to say an AOA indicator no longer applies or is useless? True that one won't be using it to target for the normal Vs x 1.3 approach speed but its value doesn't end there. Air speed alone tells you nothing about your margin of lift in any phase of flight, while an AOA is still indicating your actual AOA, we just need to recognize that the max critical angle of Attack (CLmax) is now considerably less. NASA icing studies have equipped us with some very good information that we can utilize. Their studies have shown that on our GA airframes, that Rime icing typically can reduce stall angle from 18 to 11 degrees in 20 min. And that Clear icing was significantly more detrimental to performance reducing stall angle from 18 to 8; both in 20 min. Perhaps more useful for us is that they also indicate that just a bit of icing can typically reduce CLMax by 30% and large accretions in the form of clear ice horns on the leading edge typically reduce CLMax by 50-60%. Therefore they recommend maintaining a clean configuration at an airspeed of Vs x 1.5 or 1.6. I'll maintain that the "useless" AOA can be used as a reminder to keep the wing unloaded on the approach as we get near the landing environment since after all most icing accidents occur in the final approach/landing phases of flight. Therefore keeping the AOA in the solid green zone is going to help. But absolutely, a lower angle of attack on the approach and landing is critical, but I'll maintain a CDFA (continuous descent final approach) to keep the wings unloaded, keeping the airframe in a clean configuration (except for the gear) without flaps, manually flying without AP (so you'll feel any buffet) and selecting a long enough runway to allow for the extra airspeed are all important considerations to a successful approach with an iced airframe. Some worthwhile references: AC_91-74B, NASA's Online Aircraft Icing Training Course

oddly, the full autopsy report has found its way to the web, haven't seen this happen before - full details are usually treated as confidential even in NTSB reports: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/01/icon-a5-n922ba-registered-to-n529pg-llc.html

I have no idea, but that this very common with with parallel runways to keep the patterns as far apart as possible, but they don't go to right pattern on 12L either which would also make sense if that was the reason. They are only keeping 12R/30L traffic entirely on the south side which is may not be for noise since its further away from the center of the airport but it still could avoid flying over some of the residential area. Ground freq could probably have explained why if not busy.

Indeed it was Phil's C model before his Eagle @mooneyflyer

I didn't even know about the movie till this thread which inspired us to watch it last night on Amazon. Thanks for the post! You'd think filming the takeoff through the tree tops would have led to the real accident posted, but I assume that was pure Hollywood. Couldn't imagine a plane not coming down in those circumstances though. Trying to look up the accident airport, i did find this short video of a C172 doing a touch and go there and it does look like a pretty short field but doesn't really look like the strip they filmed the scary takeoff from either.

All the K's are 42 psi on mains and 49 on nose (nose is same as J) . Even the Encore's increase to max weight of 3130 didn't change the tire pressure which is heavier than the Rocket's landing weight (3083 lbs - the rocket's take off weight is 3200 lbs - or 70lbs more than the Encore). But I see no mention of tire pressure changes in the Rocket POH supplement - perhaps @Yooper Rocketman miss recalls that or I missed it in the supplement?

Too funny, I am always pointing out the importance of using TRK and DTK for real world partial panel. As long as you have WAAS with TRK being updated at 5hz, who cares about a bouncing compass - at least until you loose all electrics in which case a review of compass errors with turns and timed turns is still worthwhile. But I encourage using TRK & DTK on all approaches - partial panel or otherwise. Non-WAAS though is too slow at 1hz to be helpful.

250 lb increase from weighing it does sound excessive. But is also crazy to weigh a plane and not expect it to go up in weight, which is reason enough IMO to stick to calculated W&B updates. I'd carefully go back and review every superseded W&B update looking for mistakes and if still convinced the 250 lb weight increase is not justified, I'd re-weigh it or even re-do it by re-calculating the last update based on the Turbo STC info for weights. If you know the paint job included a full strip before re-paint, then that shouldn't change W&B. And of course there is nothing wrong with weighing it to verify the CG is very close to the calculated CG and using the weighed version for informational purposes only -i.e. not using it officially.

I agree with Henderson. Since I started flying into Vegas it was initially McCarran when prices were quite reasonable and very convenient - but that didn't last. Then it was VGT, but these days Henderson wins easily with the free shuttle to the strip hotels as well as easy car rental access. Its been a while for me, but I recall needing to call ahead to reserve a seat on the shuttle or you would lose out.

Yes composite tanks have an age limit of 15 years. Others can be 24 years or even unlimited depending on markings. Here is handy chart: Hydrostatic Test Requirements CYLINDER DOT TYPE TEST INTERVAL LIFE LIMIT DOT 3AA 1800 5 years Unlimited DOT 3HT 1850 3 years 24 years DOT SP8162 1850 5 years 15 years DOT SP11194 1850 5 years 15 years DOT 3AL 2016 / 5 years Unlimited 3AL 2216 There are even lighter carbon fiber wrapped cylinders out now, but so far I haven't seen anything bigger than 48 cuft but its only 6 lbs! Can't say on your Charlie weights but very possible. all the later model K's had much more weight in the tail to begin with given their electric Standby vacuum system and at least a 77 cuft tank.

I would expect steel is rare. Mooney list 3 cylinder models in the IPC, a 76, 77 and 115 Kevlar cyl, I can't really tell what the smaller cyl materials are without doing more research. But if for example the 76 is a steel tank, the Aerox version weighs in at 25 lbs. In contrast my 115 cuft Kevlar is 18 lbs. Much lighter at near double the capacity for a few hundred $ more.

Sorry, but insufficient data to tell if its ignition or mixture. EGTs need to be corroborated with CHT and FF. I don't see any of that, otherwise its too easy to draw the wrong conclusion. Without the dialog, I can say that I was led to think the graph looks like a mag test isolating one mag at a time suggest a bad plug and thus my first impression was an ignition issue like Ross @Shadrach questioned. But the dialog says that it wasn't that at all but leaning the engine from ROP to LOP, but I can't tell if FF is shown. Without the FF I am left more confused to understand the 2 peaks. Anyway, in the interest of helping, we can usually separate mixture from ignition by looking at CHT. If they both move together then we can assume its mixture as Anthony @carusoam speculated. But clogged injector won't cause it to peak much higher than the others EGT wise at the same time but it will peak much sooner time wise than the others (on less fuel) and because of that will be much lower on the LOP side since its running more LOP. But judging by the other EGTs they look to be peaking pretty close to one another (but again changes in FF is are unknown so there is too much speculation). On the other hand, if EGT and CHT are moving opposite from one another that a sign of being ignition induced. There is nothing there to suspect or eliminate induction leaks at this point - at this stage we need to think of induction as merely a mixture anomaly - and we're not there yet with this little to go on. Hope that makes sense. Personally, I would want to do more data analysis before turning any wrenches. Flying the Savvy Test profile would for example provide the diagnostic data to point in the right direction; if the plane isn't grounded at this point. Another oddity that needs to be considered and understood is that we're seeing significant fluctuations in all EGTs, but I am assuming "significant" without knowing sampling rate and scale. If this was during an isolated mag (i.e. mag check) this would be likely ok or normal, but if its truly during just a leaning period then this is not right and should be resolved. It could simply be excessive background noise by improper installation of routing the EGT leads along ignition wires too. But too hard to say with only a snippet of data.

Alpha Systems provided a heated pitot tube option for that reason.

$60 is a great bargain! I pay over $1K annually in county property taxes. Countys assess it's value; probably relying on reported sale information. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shouldn't be a problem. Mooney has been always been installing the magnetometer in the wing. They install them on the left wing same area but opposite wing of where the AP aileron trim servo is installed. Speed brakes are further inboard where long range fuel tanks are or would be. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Both for what? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apparently 1 inch Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve heard of pilots putting the gear down after the gear up landing. Doesn’t really help with the FAA nor the insurance company. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pre-Lim report says piloted by a “private pilot”, was there a reference to a student pilot? Report also says a teaspoon of water was found in the carburetor bowl. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't tell which Mooney model. But most modern models have them above the co-pilot knees under the the panel. Check for near battery voltage at the field wire on the back of the alternator with battery master and alternator switches on. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's easy, Top Gun is a very respected MSC very close at Stockton. Go there unless they've been maintaining it for the previous owner since a fresh pair of eyes is always a good idea. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur that 99% is fine, since it will get ridiculously expensive beyond that. But the concern would be what is the remaining 1% in case its harmful. ISO-HEET is 99& alcohol and 1% proprietary. The 1% proprietary part is a bit scary if its not compatible with our fuel system. But whatever it may be, its pretty diluted in a fuel tank. Yet its pretty expensive compared to 99% isoproyl alcohol; just package conveniently which can make it worth while to many.

Foremost, because I am not an expert on the sealant, the prohibition on Prist pertains to the current production aircraft - so its just as applicable to modern sealant. My limited understanding is that the non-modern sealant is the dating back to the vintage Mooney's. I believe all the mid-body's such as our K's since the 80's were sealed with "modern" sealant or material which is equivalent to todays but I can't factually say, except that is also about when the prohibition on Prist began by the factory as far as I know and continues in today's production aircraft. I personally have never used it, and I've only very seldom used IPA, but I am also anal about keeping the cap o-rings in good shape and use the more modern longer lasting material. But I know I have gotten a little water into the fuel system every time I remove the caps when they are soaked despite trying to mop up the water first with a towel. But I have never experienced the condensation issue flying in the flight levels for past 15+ years either. But through Savvy I see a lot of fuel contamination issues, so I am certainly not implying aircraft shouldn't need it. Many clearly do on occasion, especially since our fuel system is particularly vulnerable to it, but luckily I have managed to avoid any.

The retrofit drawing (with instructions) is available from Mooney for probably about $40-50. Don't know about this one, but all the ones I have are big fold outs making them hard to repro. They can be ordered from any MSC.