cujet1

I also walked from the road to the crash site. I took a good look at the trees. The trees are closely spaced, moderately tall and dense. Yet, only one branch was broken. There were no other visible upper scars on the trees. I concur with the above statement, it sure looks like the airplane came in an attitude other than flat and level, hit a tree branch, broke it off and ended up on the ground in a survivable manner. I was not there to witness the crash, so the above is simply conjecture. However, "IF" I am correct, I feel the information needs to be accurate. Mooney pilots need to know about what works and when luck is involved. I'm certainly not wanting to anger or to annoy anybody, especially the fortunate folks involved. But, I'd sure like to know how a stable approach can avoid hitting all of the closely spaced trees and simply break off one large branch, located 2/3 the way up the tree. I'm currently thinking an aircraft the size of a Mooney would have to be at right angles to the ground to do this. Are you sure the aircraft did not stall/spin at the last second?

One thing regularly missed in TFR discussions: The right to free and unrestricted travel is considered a natural right. Tinfoil hat statement of the day: Restricting travel is a favorite tool of tyranny. In the United States, there have been a number of court cases, from lower courts, through superior courts and the Supreme Court Involving free travel rights. The outcome is always the same. Regardless of the method of travel chosen, free and unrestricted travel is always ruled a natural right. There are, of course, mitigating circumstances that are beyond the scope of discussion here. Put simply, barring an emergency, government related delays to travel are always exceptionally temporary in nature. I choose the airplane as my mode of personal travel. 10m radius TFR,s that last for very extended periods of time have: A) prevented me from being home on my one day off B ) prevented me from using my airplane C) put my airplane at risk of an approaching hurricane D) put me at risk of violation/death due to maneuvering to avoid a thunderstorm In addition, the threat of the use of deadly force, against me, an American citizen, by the US armed forces, does not sit well with me. Our founding fathers would have never accepted such behavior...

You will have to use the markings and limitations originally intended for your aircraft.

I've tried to salvage a crummy situation once or a few hundred times. It's always better to perform a well executed go-around. Nice job. I can see where a pilot may become afraid of the "third bounce" that precedes the wreck. Best to avoid that 3rd bounce!

I have a good, long history with angle valve cylinders as an A+P and pilot/owner. A quick story: BPA built us a wonderful, high compression, ported, and modified angle valve engine for our "experimental exhibtion" Extra 300L. 4 of the 6 brand new cylinders failed at 90 hours, with compressions in the 50's and 30's. Being a bit annoyed with Lycoming's quality control, I personally overhauled the cylinders. Over time, I came to the conclusion that the cylinders actually failed due to localized bore overheating and that "new" is no assurance of reliable performance. Air cooled engines really are a different animal, with uneven, localized cooling. I clearly understand your reluctance to play the musical cylinder game. Certainly, you could install 4 new units, and "if" they are problem free at overhaul time, simply overhaul the cylinders. They won't have many cycles on them (like you might find with OH-exc cyls) , and they won't be at additional risk of early failure (vs. new) . However, if, you have a known good cylinder, with a simple problem (leaking valve, for example) I believe it's worth considering a simple IRAN (inspect and repair as necessary). Not only does it cost far less, but when done properly, it's as reliable as any other option. The exception would be high time units that have known weld repairs. It is not uncommon for new cylinders make several hundred hours, only to lose compression, then be IRAN'd and make overhaul with ease!

A couple of interesing points. 1) Jet fuel is heavier than Avgas. 2) We fly by weight 3) Modern gasoline aircraft engines (think experimental Lycomings/cont with mods) are very close in BSFC numbers to modern diesels of similar output. In other words, the HP produced, per hour, per weight of fuel is now extremely similar. 4) air cooling produces less cooling drag, as less air is required to transfer the BTU's. A 400 degree cylinder head transfers heat much more readily to the air than a 200 degree radiator. The rad requires more airflow. 5) automotive conversions are universally less efficient than a stock Lycoming. One key factor is internal friction. Piston ring swept area is a major friction factor. A large, slow moving piston has considerably less piston ring swept area (and will transfer less combustion heat into the cooling system) than a smaller piston moving faster. (or a larger numer of small pistons moving slowly) _______________________________Lyc O-360__Conti O-360__Chevy 350 Bore___________________________5.125______4.438________4 Stroke_________________________4.375______3.875________3.48 Number of cylinders________________4__________6____________8 Displacement (in^3)_____________361.01_____359.66_______349.85 Piston ring swept area (in^2)_____281.76_____324.16_______349.85 Ratio of swept area to displacement________________0.78_______0.90_________1.00 6) direct drive is also more efficient and safer. 7) the engineers that designed the lowly Lycoming were actually remarkably "on target" with regard to power to weight, reliability and fuel economy. Aircraft engines are better than we give them credit for. 8) Modern technology such as high compression, direct injection, electronic ignition and so on, promise to improve the conventional aircraft engine considerably.

One important item that is often overlooked. An EI has a completely and totally different mode of failure. So, the addition of an EI is, I feel, a significant safety improvement, when coupled with a conventional mag. You won't find yourself with 2 magnetos, each with 500 hours total time, and each with carbon arcing inside the distributor cap. As strange as it sounds, aviation is full of examples of dual failures. Especially when both failing components have the same time, are the same part number and so on. Please understand, I am a huge fan of EI. The overall improvement is worthwhile. Faster starts, fewer fouled plugs, more efficient operation under ideal conditions and (the big one) smoother operation.

Quote: banjo looks like electroair are getting there STC for Mooney Lycoming models next week just got an email from Michael Kobylik from Electroair. Should be an interesting mod, electoair claims the real advantage happens at altitude with a significant power and economy improvement.

There are all sorts of ideas on landing gear retraction. But, one needs only to look at how the pro's do it. Positive rate of climb, gear up. End of discussion. Retracting the gear won't cause a crash, but leaving it down certainly can, and has.

Quote: jetdriven Something not discussed here, magneto timing. His engine was a FREM IO-360-A3B6. No dual mag. Which, I bet you, means 20 degrees of timing. I wish I would have documented ours better but this makes a huge difference in takeoff distance and climb. For those of you who think 20 degrees of timing is "more conservative" I fail to see how less horsepower at the crank is more of anything. I would wager that all things equal, that at the 3000' point a 25 degree timed engine is going to have another 50' of altitude over one that is not. If anyone wants to have a contest I'd be glad to hold it. And a blank checkbook means an airplane that has more maintenance induced failures an an owner with less money. Check out that thread about precautionary landings and engine failures. 3/4 of them started off with "after having XYZ done, I had an engine failure." Money does not equal safety. A knowledgeable pilot and a mechanic, with a mentality of looking for trouble without always finding any is the best policy. Brains are the best tool in the hangar. I do fly at night and all over. I do not worry about engine failures, although I do prepare for them.

I fly a Cessna Cardinal RG. I'd be lying to you if I said the performance was the same. The Mooney is faster, climbs much better and so on. Sure, the 177 RG responds very well to mods and you could spend 21K, or more, on mods and have yourself a 157 cruiser. But, you must remember the RG is 300 pounds heavier and has less "real world" HP. Mine will achieve 143Kts true, when light. 135 when heavy, at 8500, 2500RPM, peak egt, 9.5GPH. As many RG owners are finding out, Cessna does not stock many parts for the RG. They will offer to fabricate them, with long lead times, and stunningly high prices. A recent quote for an incredibly simple and crude nose steering bungee was listed at $30,000. I'm not sure if the post listing that price was a joke, or serious. But, Cessna's prices for older aircraft parts is, without a doubt, in the absurd range. I see no advantage to an old Cessna, v an old Mooney. Factory support is not there for either.