Shadrach

You should have opened with the limitations of your POH! I knew that some of the early owner's manuals are limited. Stopping at 5000' just is not sufficient for planning. We have airports here in Maryland that see DAs in that range in the summer time. Performance data can be interpolated, but it would be preferable in the event of an inquiry to have factory numbers to show as a reference. The truth is that a well sorted M20E is probably the best of the fleet for departing in the conditions that you have described. You're flying a light airframe that will be making >80% horsepower. I can't imagine anything other Mooney besting your E's runway performance with a 700lb payload.

I do not believe that when my flaps are in the take off position (15°) that they align with a fully deflected aileron, but my indicator could off a bit. It is unlikely that the flaps retracted under load if the system is in good working order.

Just to be clear, you are taking off with the flaps in the take off position, not the fully deployed position, correct? I only ask because I find the wording of your post a bit confusing. From the cockpit, the visual differences between flaps up and take off flaps are minimal. I would say the same thing about the differences in air loads. There may be some airframes out there that have never exceeded Vfe with the flaps deployed but they are in the minority. We have not performed SB M20-217 on our aircraft, largely because the kit does not appear to be available. We thoroughly clean and inspect both side of the stub spar at every annual. So far no cracks, in spite of a few known overspeed events in the last 50+ years... It's good practice to thoroughly inspect the stub spar every year, especially if the SB has not been completed.

I totally agree with everything you’ve said. However (), you know all too well that technological advancement far outpaces regulatory evolution. We live in a day and age when one can buy inexpensive instruments and be assured they will deliver precise, reliable information that is easy to read, download and share. I think there is probably room for a lighter regulatory touch here (as well as in other areas). If the goal of the regulatory body is to maximize safety, then regulators should be seeking to create a regulatory environment that facilitates maximal adoption of any well understood, reliable technology that contributes to safety of flight. I am not so sure that they’re doing the best job of keeping the end goal in mind. Experimental aviation provides a means to analyze and showcase areas where the certified, regulatory, framework increases safety and to also showcase areas where it generates almost no statistical difference in safety. If an area of the regulatory framework isn’t increasing safety…what is it doing? It certainly isn’t increasing availability and decreasing costs. The fatal accident rate in experimental aviation is much higher than certified. The precise stats might be fuzzy but the delta is large enough to be undeniable. More freedom granted and less regulatory oversight increases risk/decreases safety. However, I’ve not found a single instance where an experimental operator’s uncertified nav lights, strobe system, landing light or engine monitor contributed to their or anyone else’s demise. Regulators should be seeking to maximize the safety ROI from regulatory activities, yet there seems to be little interest in analyzing the areas where the FAA/PMA/TSO certification has no statistical effect on safety. I applaud the FAA for loosening the regs around AOA indicators. I would like to see that type of consideration more broadly applied. It would also be nice to see data on how many AOA equipped aircraft have been involved in stall spin accidents since the regs were relaxed.

I am always skeptical of “crusade” narratives in these types of matters. I think $235k is on the light side for from what I have read of the incident. However, lawsuits are practical matters. When one starts framing a disagreement on the damages from what was surely an accident as “the Righteous vs the Wicked”, practically has left the building.

Ouch…

This is a PIC decision, not really one for committee. Without knowing this specific airplane or its condition, one can only give general advice. I can say that this mission is well within the scope of operations for my M20F. I can say the M20E is identical to my M20F save for 10” of fuselage. At 250lbs under his max gross of 2575lbs, his bird weighs 2325Lbs I can say that at that weight under the conditions mentioned, I would expect my M20F to be airborne in under 2000’ and easily exceed 500fpm ROC through 10K. That being said, over the years, I have collected a fair amount of repeatable, real world performance data on my specific airplane, so I know what it will do. If plane and pilot are both healthy and current, this should be well within the aircraft’s performance envelope.

I wonder how the risk of getting out of bed stacks up against the risk of relying on a Cirrus Jet brakes? There have been at least five brake failures this year that caused accidents. One ended up partially submerged in water.

I’m not being silly. I’m using hyperbole as a rhetorical tool to illustrate my point. Punishment for poor decision-making that may have led to accident should be separate from indemnification for the loss. We do not want insurance companies approving or denying claims based on the circumstances of an incident, unless there is suspicion of fraud.

There is a downside to poor decision making, it's called enforcement action. Making judgments on decision and contributory negligence may seem clear from arms length. That clarity often fades to opaque as the situation gets closer to home. If you think your insurance is expensive, imagine having your loss denied because you made a mistake. I mean I know this board is populated with boy scouts, but hypothetically try to imagine the loss from a claim denied for questionable behavior...not that you would ever do anything questionable...never...especially not in the eyes of your insurance company....they would always see an incident from your perspective and agree with your way of thinking...it's only the baddies that would have denials...all other claims would always be fairly adjudicated...definitely.

Do you have an operator's manual for your aircraft? Does it list take off distances for DAs above 5K? This is the take off table for my 67F. Should be very doable in a E, but does warrant consideration.

Claims are not denied for questionable judgment. Insurance companies are not in the business of delivering punitive actions against the customers that they insure. That is the domain of the enforcement agency that regulates the activity . It is with good reason that regulatory enforcement and indemnification are separated.

This video is not doing the owner any favors with the investigators. Agree that all of the gear collapsed at the same time. I think that it simply could not or was not cranked into the over-center position.

Rural folks often go out of their way to facilitate the solution to a problem.

A lot of it is luck... The only flat tire I've ever had in a Mooney occurred during an unplanned landing at a small field with no FBO. My right seater got queasy so I diverted to the closest field. She was puking in a zip lock by the time we turned final. The tire blew 600ft into the ground roll. It was a Saturday with no one on the field. I called the airport owner who gave me the number of a local A&P. He was working on an aircraft 200NM away but he gave me the number of a local to let me into his shop as well as permission to use tools and a jack and borrow a wheel off of an abandoned 201 that had been sitting on the apron for several years. Not ideal, but I was on my way in a few hours. I returned and reinstalled the wheel a few days later.

I was at the hangar this morning and did some experimenting with the latch. I previously thought that pushing on the latch pins would just push the mechanism further over center making it impossible to push them into the retracted position. I was wrong. The pins can be pushed back into the retracted position. However, it takes considerable effort...in excess of 10lbs of pressure at a precise vector to push them in with the door open. With it closed, you would also have the friction from the striker plate acting on the sides of the latch pins. It's just not going to happen in any conceivable scenario other than a very unlikely mechanical/maintenance failure. I will confidently continue to leave my baggage door unlocked in flight to ensure that it remains available as an emergency exit.

Is that Texan for Burrito? Having lived in the San Antonio area for years, I know that they do love Messcan food.

One of the great joys of aviation for me is being able to easily visit places that are significantly removed from the well traveled highways, and major metropolitan areas. I try to support these operations when possible because I want to keep them in existence. In general, it’s good practice to call an unknown FBO before making a decision to patronize. One can get a pretty good sense of hospitality from a phone call. I wish more pilots left Airnav ratings (I’m guilty as well). All of the above being said, I’ve been treated well and I’ve been treated poorly by FBO large and small. I also make it general policy to tip line people. It’s sets a nice tone out of the gate.

So what do you like most about it? What are the most noticeable improvements?

My F model starts “passing gas” through the injectors right after shut down. You can hear the fuel burbling through the system while pushing back or tying down. The airplane will hot start without priming from shutdown right up until it won’t (probably ~1hr or a bit longer depending on OAT). If it won’t start without a prim then give it a little prime. Why people make this out to be difficult is beyond me.

That lever is literally resting against the baggage door. It would require a large hammer to recess it further.

I can’t speak to the K models. The vintage bids have a thin steel lever that sits flush against the the door when closed. It has a slight curve at the tail of the lever so one can get a finger tip under it pry it open. This is an image of a salvage door, but it’s identical to mine. In the position depicted the latch is locked over center. If you pushed on either of the latch pins it would only push the internal mechanism further over center latched position. It requires a fair amount of effort to open. It’s not difficult but definitely potential for the fairer sex to brake a nail. Like any over-center link design, the initial pull through center requires more effort. It’s been absolutely bullet proof. Any baggage door mishaps have been pilot induced. Over the years Mooney spent a significant amount of energy refining components of the M20 airframe…not all of them were improved with refinement…indeed sometimes simplicity and reliability was sacrificed.

Yes, I’ve seen the dramatic footage. That incident was apparently a maintenance induced failure. I am not familiar with the “safety clip” referenced in the accident report. The latch on my bird is pretty much bomb proof. The only benefit I can see to locking it before flight is that it forces the pilot to make sure that the latch is closed.

Have you ordered the aircraft’s FAA airworthiness documents? Anything submitted to a FSDO should be should be in the record. For $10, it’s a low risk investment. https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/copies_aircraft_records

I think the egress comments were centered around an emergency. As in jammed lock after a crash and potential fire hazard.