Shadrach

Yes, both of those are excellent trainers and both are well suited to all the maneuvers I mentioned. As you well know, Flight training in the USAF, is a full time job. The quality, intensity and frequency of the instruction is not typical of the civilian world. I don’t remember the actual numbers but I remember being surprised reading the total time of some military pilots and seeing that the bulk of there time was in their assigned combat aircraft and comparatively little in anything else. Also surprised by the low TT numbers for some of the combat pilots. It’s a testament to the training.

The benefit to be gained is the full picture of what took place. One cannot simply divorce the pilot from the outcome. Pilots are way more than just a few links in the accident chain that lead up to an incident. I don't need to know everything about every incident, but when it bears looking into, it bears looking into. Again, it is not out of malice. I also appreciate seeing how these airframes fair in all manner of crash scenarios. I deeply appreciate the many times I have seen a Mooney with bent and crumpled extremities surrounding a well intact steel cabin structure. Perhaps gear ups are different and there is nothing to learn from seeing them or probing a little deeper into the back story. I personally think that all public incidents are fair to examine, but not all are interesting enough to warrant it. As to your story with an instructor on board, there but by the grace of god go I... I have done some boneheaded things with instructors on board and I've seen high time pilots do dumb things when they are being critiqued. I was once riding shotgun with a 6000hr ATP in a Baron who was getting back into GA airplanes (I am not a CFI, just flying with a friend). There was ILS traffic that prompted tower to ask us to extend downwind, between that, talking to tower, talking to me and looking for traffic, he failed to drop the gear as he normally would. I waited until we were on about 2 mile final and then casually said "this looks like as good a place as any to drop the gear". He went white and mumbled some sort of excuse. He later owned it and thanked me catching it. I explained that he probably would have caught it before TD. I knew how he felt and described how I had once made it to short final with the gear still up. I think that the pilots who gear up feel personal shame after the incident. I think the pilots reading about it feel both empathy and sympathy. If they don't, it's likely they don't have enough flight time to have witnessed their own shortcomings.

Some may disagree, but I think there are benefits to learning in a clapped out rental 152. They can safely perform spins, aggressive departure stalls, accelerated stalls, cross controlled accelerated stalls, full forward slips, full side slips, slips to landing...and more with little propensity to bite the student. Clapped out trainers are designed to tolerate the abuse from both the overly confident and the overly timid...And if one destroys one, it's not a huge loss to the fleet. I do not understand the desire to prolong primary flight training by doing it in a high performance aircraft. I took my intro lesson in a 1966 C150F on July 29, 1998, I soloed on August 12th, 1998 with 12.5hrs. (we had to break for three days to change a cracked cylinder). My next flight after solo was on the same day. I did 2.1hrs alone with the aircraft with 16 landings. The following day I did 1.4 and 5 landings before lunch and 1.4 and 6 landings after lunch…all solo. I came back and finished up the following summer break, taking my ride on August 8th, 1999 with just under 46hrs TT, 22 of which were solo. The point is, a lot of learning and skill honing takes place when it's just student and machine. Training in a complex aircraft robs the student of the opportunity to get that first license to learn early in their training. Everyone is different I suppose, but I felt like having a plane that was simple enough to solo early on really accelerated my confidence and skill acquisition. When I returned to college after getting my ticket, I met a guy who was training at a local flight school. He was training in C172s. He had 20hrs more flight time than me but it was spread out over long period. He had yet to solo because his training was so spread out that each additional lesson was half review. Soloing is as much a license to learn as getting the ticket, if not more so. If one is aggressive in their training, one could have a PPL finished faster than one could find and buy the right Mooney. If you have the time and money to shop for a Mooney, you have the time and money to devote to primary training. There is little practical reason to complete training in an HP/complex aircraft other than bragging rights. Which to use an archaic fighter pilot phrase, strikes me as "all balls, >ick and no forehead"...

@A64Pilot Great post! Thanks! So during auto rotation, is the main rotor driving/providing torque to the tail rotor so as to allow yaw control? Did you ever experience any failures that required an Autorotation?

This sentence made me laugh! When I look at all the components of a helicopter, I would think that every flight requires a considerable degree of optimism. Things are tough all over. I’ve an acquaintance with a Beech that had a gascolator spilt (water in gascolator turned to ice). Beech would make the part for something like 12k. Thankfully he found salvage. I think you may be right that the factory is preventing the aftermarket from producing parts. Univair has the expertise, the business model and the cash flow to support many different and far more obscure aircraft. Mooney will never be a successful at parts manufacturing and sales if owners can have parts produced well below list. The “We don’t have any inventory and we don’t have the cash to manufacture at scale” business model is not going to work. Mooney has a direct line to a large customer base here. To my knowledge they have never reached out to identify a specific need. They could do group buys to scale up production. This would serve customers with an existing need and build inventory reserves. However, I’ve not seen much communication from them other than some flowery optimism on things to come that never do. Despite all of this, I remain confident that the fleet will continue to find service. There are too many airframe flying that are beloved by their owners. Solutions will present themselves unless artificially deterred. While not as ubiquitous as a Cessna, it’s still way more common to see a Mooney at the pumps then almost any tail dragger.

Simply forgetting to lean the engine on the last leg could have caused such an incident. Sucks to see on off airport landing so close to an airport. We had Cessna Conquest come up just a few miles short of his intended stop. Pilot died when he was just minutes from what would have been touchdown…

My post needed proofread. It was meant to read that I did not get the impression that you’d been judged. It’s been edited accordingly. getting involved in a sale is a totally different situation.

Do you feel like you’ve been judged personally because you had a gear up? That’s not been my impression. The details of the incident are not top of mine for me but as I recall you had an instructor in the plane. There are instructors that I have flown with that make me feel my brain power has been cut in a half. It’s a weird friction in the cockpit that degrades rather than improves performance. I have worked through it with some not all. I have also Phone with instructors that know how to bring out the best in their students. Sometimes $hit happens. I’ve never thought any less of you because of your gear up. And I’m 99.9% sure you’ll never have another.

Nothing a cylinder removal shows is likely to fail catastrophically. Spalled cams degrade performance, they don’t end an engine’s life without giving significant warning. There are no guarantees that an engine won’t fail. A tell tale sign is how it runs. Does it provide smooth operation with good performance within desirable temp ranges? It has fresh oil in the sump. Measure the level and note the color. Then go test fly it for a few hours and note the changes. There is only so much that can be done to verify. However, most engines that run really well with good temps are not just waiting for a new buyer to self destruct. They typically soldier on.

Doxing an anonymous individual on social media out of pettiness is one thing. Discussing a person’s publicly available information and actions is quite another. Both are uncomfortable for individual being discussed. Only one is done with malice.

I looked at your flight on ADSB exchange and the data reflect performance consistent with your claims. I was inspired to do this because after using historic weather to calculate DA for my flights (added to my last post), the numbers, adjusted for weight seem to be right at or slightly better than book. Particularly the July numbers. I am very curious about what’s behind this disparity. It’s either a data issue (seems unlikely), a climb profile issue or some other unknown.

That is unfortunate. That thread was full of useful insights into unfortunate events. If I screw up and anyone can learn from what I did, feel free to discuss ad nauseam. Sometimes personal information is important to the story. We’ve had two accidents within 30 miles of my home where personal information contributed to the total picture. Both we’re in Gaithersburg Md. The Mooney pilot that flew into the power line tower, flew a Cherokee 6 into the ground during high DA operations decades before he decided to descend below minimums into a tower. A local Dr. stalled his Embraur Phenom on an IFR approach into Montgomery Co Airpark. He killed himself, everyone on board and a mother and two children in a house. He had a previous incident just 4 years earlier at the same airport where he lost control of a TBM700 and departed the runway. In both of these cases and many others, the personality, past decision making and previous event history of the pilot are an important part of the story. Sure the thought of having one’s name and images of one's aircraft published on the internet after an embarrassing if not fatal incident is uncomfortable. However, personal reputation is something you risk when you endeavor to do something like fly an airplane…. Or even drive a car. If one puts a car into the front of a convenience store there are going to be pictures in the paper along side the name of the driver.

I stand corrected. I thought Mike had suggested simple fuel mismanagement and you had suggested a mechanical/maintenance issue leading to fuel exhaustion (as the OP of that thread stated). If that’s not the case, I apologize for the mischaracterization.

My opinion is that it is unreasonable to ask for an invasive inspection when an aircraft is in service with a reasonable useage history. Especially in the case of an engine at 1850hrs. It should be priced as run out. If it runs longer (and it likely will), great. The only time I think it is reasonably to ask for a cylinder removal is under very special circumstances where both parties are very engaged but have reached an impasse. For instance a low time engine that is not in service and has not been for an extended period. Even in that situation it’s reasonable for the seller to refuse. It also reasonable for the buyer to pass.

Same…

Are they an advertiser?

No it’s the one where Mike called it exactly as it looked (fuel exhaustion) and the FAA report report agreed.

Alpine is still a going concern. I almost bought a beautiful grey market, 1978 Henna red Alpina 323i. This was in the 90s and the rear shock towers look like Swiss cheese from all the rust. I wish I had bought it and kept it

This incident occurred on 09/29/2023 at the end of a flight from Gallatin, TN KXNX to Martinsburg, WV KMRB. Current owner who is instrument rated was registered as owner on 10/31/2023 and is based in Winfield, LA. Previous owner was based in Gallatin, TN (where the incident flight originated) and does not show an Instrument rating in the FAA data base. plane flew home back to TN the day after the incident. Looks like one other short hop (perhaps a test flight for new seller) before repoing to LA on 10/15/2023.

CELs are an accepted reality. Love my 535d but the emissions system is overly complex.

The E39 M5 is a keeper. It will always be loved as one of the best analog street cars ever made. I never owned one but have been fortunate enough to drive several. The best was dealer prepped with lots of Dinan goodies. I still have vivid memories of running it up rat one between Stinson Beach and Mill Valley , CA. The owner, a buddy of mine who was in the right seat with white knuckles had asked me to showcase its capabilities. I was young and stupid (nut not a teenager), so I obliged. Low mileage and one owner cars are becoming unicorns.

A few things may be at play. First I think that the POH is off. Norman @testwest calculated Vy for a 2740lb J model at 86kts/99mph. Second, Vy decreases with weight. So flying book numbers for MGW is leaving some ROC on the table. For max performance, I typically shoot for 95-100MIAS Calculating the numbers out using book Vy, your were still fast for your weight at 113mias. 2230/2740= .813 √.813=.902 .902*113= 102mph calculated Vy at 2230lbs I pulled out some random flights and calculated initial ROC. These were not all conducted Vy. But they are all solo flights, so 2100ish lbs. July 3rd flight - Weather 11:53Z 83°F DP 53°F RH 36 % 29.31inhg Field DA 3249’ 825’ to 2825’ = 2000’ ascent in 1:42 for an average ROC of 1176fpm. Jan 24 flight - Weather 1853Z 34°F DP 17°F RH 50% 29.04inHg Field DA 254’ 1450’ to 3300’ = 1850’ ascent in 1:32 for an average ROC OF 1206fpm Dec 15 flight Weather 1763Z 46°F DP 34°F RH 63% 29.73 inHg field DA 308’ 825’-3825’ = 3000’ ascent in 2:09 for an average ROC 1395fpm

To be honest, I did not time it in the plane. Perhaps the time stamp data on ADSB exchange is incorrect. I will say that the calculation surprised me. That being said at light weights, indicated rates in the 1300-1500 range are not uncommon for the first few minutes. I’ll try again in the next week or so.

I wonder if this sort of thing is more common to Mooneys. I too have had more than one experience like yours. I would recommend folks photograph there nose truss any time the plane is dropped for maintenance. 50/50 chance that the shop that found my dented truss during annual employed the person that dented it. had another shop insist on pulling my 400hr Bendix mags for IRAN and time it into the wrong hemisphere on reinstallation. And many many more. You don’t really know what’s been done until you get involved personally or find a really solid mx pro. We all make mistakes; the incentive structure with regard to correcting vs masking them is very different in owner involved mx. My worst experiences have been with large repair stations.

This one hits close to home for me. Our aircraft was a demonstrator for a Mooney dealer. Purchased less than a year from its airworthiness date with ~100rs tots time. We have all of the original documents from day one. 16 years ago during a rather paperwork heavy annual (9k for an annual inspection and a Lasar Nose truss) we were told that we had been operating illegally for 4 decades because the manual that the dealer provided was incorrect. I said fine, please order the appropriate manual. I believe the line item was $200 on the bill. What we got were by-folded photocopies stapled together in the fold. I read through it once and I don’t believe it’s left the hat rack since. There two things I can say about the situation. 1) The main difference between the two manuals is that the “correct” 1967 manual has ridiculously optimistic book cruise speeds while the 1968 manual is much more reasonable. 2) The new manual had no bearing on the safety or operation of my airplane. I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t be operating with the correct manual. I just saying that it sucks to be mandated to buy a lousy $200 manual with inaccurate information.