Mooneymite

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! Thank you. All this chest beating about "he should have done this, or that", or "I would have done such", ignores the basic problem of hypoxia: you lose crainial computing power. Hypoxia can make a razor sharp military pilot into an idiot very quickly and he's the last person in the altitude chamber to realize it! Obviously something went wrong, but if this is a case of hypoxia, the pilot needed an oxygenated brain to handle it properly. This pilot was no neophyte.

The sad thing is that the autopilot has the capability of descending the aircraft to 10,000' if ATC had the ability to data-link such an "over-ride" command to the autopilot..... It would sure beat watching a "death flight" on flightaware. The autopilot on the jet I fly, has an emergency descent mode in the event of cabin depressurization.

Check for blue fingernails.....

The Mooney Flyer is a real resource! One of the best thing about it is that I don't have a pile of them gathering dust in my hangar! Always fresh and clean on-line.

Looking at the Mooney chart in my C's POH, it looks like the critical items are, Density altitude and Obstructions (Duh!): At sea level, 2575 gross weight, the landing roll is only 595'.....HOWEVER, with a 50' TCH, the total landing distance jumps to1550! At 7500' DA, 2575 gross weight, the landing roll is 750'. With that 50' TCH, the total jumps to 1795'. So, if the 1500' runway allows you to touch down, on speed on "the first brick", getting stopped shouldn't be a problem. If you're crossing power lines, or trees it's a totally different situation. The takeoff numbers offer remarkably similar performance. NB: The takeoff numbers are for wing flaps at the TAKEOFF position....anything else and you are a test pilot.

I operate mine LOP.

I'd like to go, but the "brother-in-law" is coming this weekend.... Maybe I should go!

I'm not aware of Hobbs meters being part of the equipment in classic Mooneys. Hobbs meters can be hooked up to measure time the master switch is on (rentals!), how long the engine has produced oil pressure, or how long the aircraft has been airborne. Mine was added to record flight time since that's what TBO is based on (not tach time), but it wasn't original; it was added later. Now, this same function can be recorded by the Garmin 430/530 by recording time above a certain ground speed (usually 40 Kts.).

It's great to look at the prices for Mooneys on Barnstormers, then go and see what your local tax collector thinks your Mooney is worth! According to my local assessor, Mooneys are fetching fabulous prices right now. However, he declined to buy mine at the assessed price.

I recently finished the annual on my Mooney and would add that there are waaay too many screws associated with inspection panels in general. The belly panels are just the worst. Seems like Mooney could have easily knocked several hours off of the time to complete an annual by incorporating hinged panels in some places and quick openning panels in others. If you think how quick it is to open the oil access door on the top of the cowl and then think how nice it would have been to put that same design on all the access panels! Did Mooney designers not know that the airplane would have to be inspected annually?

God equipped us all with a really cheap oxymeter: If your fingernails have a bluish tint, you don't need an oximeter....you need Oxygen!

>>>>> Instead of trying to cook the books, why don't you see about lightening her up. <<<<< Some people inflate their tires with regular air, others use nitrogen. Personally, I prefer helium. :-) (Just kidding, honest)

Thanks for the history! It looks like there are gear fairings. I wonder if anyone ever fit wheel pants on one, or if Mooney ever offered them? Properly stream-lined, the speed difference might be so small as to not justify the increased insurance premium of a retract. Cirrus has proven that fixed gear are not all that draggy.

Any chance there was "just a spot" of water in a tank? Approach/Landing attitude may have caused a slug of water to move to the pickup point. This would be very tough to replicate, or troubleshoot.

Just imagine how much these chocks would cost if they had a mil spec number!

All my aviation experience has been with 4, or 5 pt harnesses. They just feel more secure. I'm sure there is a reason aerobatic aircraft are not generally equipped with a diagonal automotive 3 pt. style belts. :-)

Impressive!

Generally, I agree. However, my son got his first jet-job specifically because of all the Mooney time in his logbook. Apparently, this employer thought a Mooney was a good building block and mentioned it several times.

Try starting here.... http://mooneyspace.com/gallery/image/35849-access-the-back-seat/

The electric flap motor will run as long as you hold the spring loaded switch either up, or down. There is no automatic motor shut-off other than the spring centered switch. The drive mechanism will spin harmlessly at either end of travel, full up, or fully extended. Works good, lasts long time. Don't forget to put grease into the drive mechanism via the "grease cup" periodically. When I bought my Mooney, I found this had not been done recently....maybe never.

First time I got into a vintage Mooney and surveyed the instruments, I got vertigo and we hadn't even started the engine!

Sad. Maybe there will be a resurgence of interest as our highways get more congested. :-)

You are right, reading the whole ACE gives a different perspective than the snip from the CPA. The referenced policy letter addresses retrofit shoulder harnesses which will generate paperwork. The subject shoulder harnesses are attached to the aircraft in some fashion. It is a great source for those wishing to permanently install in an older aircraft. It is of interest in this topic only because it gives insight into the FAA thinking on the subject. Non-installed shoulder harnesses would not fall under the ACE. It would be analogous to applying panel mount GPS regulations to a non-installed iPad. Two different worlds. Once again, I am not recommending non-installed shoulder harnesses. I am not aware of any regulation which would cover their use, pro, or con. It is up to the individual pilot to determine if they are better than no upper torso restraint, or a personal hazard.

Perfect, Hank! Just have them turn the ship into the wind. :-)

A permanent installation is the real solution. However, faced with flying a plane with only lap belts, this is a portable alternative to NO upper body restraint. I thought I was very clear that I am not advocating his as an alternative to a permanent installation. However, if you ride in, or instruct in a Mooney that doesn't have shoulder harnesses,....whatchyagoingtodo?