Winchester, TN Mooney Accident, 18 April

[Bob_Belville]

I have read (but never flown myself) that this is how some airplanes like the cherokee 6 behave when fully legally loaded.  That the feel of it is so different with 6 on board rather than what the pilot may be used to as a peppy climber with 2 on board, that sometimes that change of behavior alone causes them make mistakes.

I have quite a bit of time in a PA32R-300 (T Tail Lance) and less time in a C-207 Skywagon. Putting another 1000 pounds or so in something like that make a big difference in performance and control feel. Perhaps some of you remember how quickly that C150 lifted off the runway and climbed the first time the instructor got out mid-lesson and told you to take it around the pattern by yourself. 

[cliffy]

It's no different in a 757. Light with 2 pilots only and gas for 300 miles? Out of 12,000' from Sea Level,  2 mins 56 seconds from throttles fwd.  With 188 bodies and fuel for 5 hrs? You wish.  And that's with 80,000 lbs of thrust. 

[Marauder]

Perhaps some of you remember how quickly that C150 lifted off the runway and climbed the first time the instructor got out mid-lesson and told you to take it around the pattern by yourself.

Yep, big difference. First thing I noticed was what a level AI looked like.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hank]

Yep, big difference. First thing I noticed was what a level AI looked like.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The family resemblance with your girlfriend is quite strong! (please don't blind me with her picture, too)

[fantom]

Yep, big difference. First thing I noticed was what a level AI looked like.

Whatever 'body shaping' club you belong to, it's time for a change...please!

[Marauder]

Whatever 'body shaping' club you belong to, it's time for a change...please!

These folks are just a constant reminder where I was headed.

[BGF_Yankee]

So all of this begs the question: Did they put all five of them in the helicopter?

 

No.  Three separate helicopters were used.  A fourth was en route, but was cancelled last minute when it was decided to transport by ground locally.  The pilot was then transported to the hospital via ambulance later as well.

 

When people say "would it fly?", what they're really asking is would it continue to fly normally after climbing out of ground effect. The NTSB database is full of aircraft accidents that resulted from aircraft that were able to lift off and little else. Maybe a weak climb on the edge of stall before either stalling or settling back twards earth and ending up in the weeds/trees shortly thereafter.

 

Exactly.  A witness reported that it rotated a little before midfield (5,000' runway) and it attempted no less than three times to climb out of ground effect, and each time the aircraft sank back down.

[DanM20C]

I ran the W&B for my C with my best (conservative) guess on the weight of the occupants.  I'm assuming 10lbs on the hat shelf and 30gal of fuel.  Without the girl in the back they would roughly be 50lbs over gross and a CG around 48.7 (49 is the aft limit).  Now if you add just 15lbs to the baggage compartment the CG will end up right at the aft limit.  Based on the photos I have seen of the girl in the back I think a charitable guess of her weight would be 165lbs.  So that puts the airplane over 200lbs heavy with a CG between 2-3" beyond the aft limit.  I routinely load my airplane as aft as possible but I pay close attention  not to go past 49".  In fact it is hard to load it that far aft but I never thought about sticking a person back there.  But I can feel a considerable difference in how the airplane flys between 48" and 45".  I'm assuming it would be a total different airplane loaded to 52".        

[Hank]

I watched a plane leave my home field on Tuesday, temps were in the low 80s. Not a plane I'm familiar with, low wing with the horizontal stabilizer halfway up the vertical, and unusually shaped windows; the pilot appeared to be solo. Ground roll was about 2000' then the plane was yanked off with no rotation and went another 2000' at about 3-5' agl before climbing. As far as I could tell, he retracted the gear somewhere in the climb when I couldn't see. He flew a crosswind and came over the hangar gear up at a charitable 1000' agl [i'm not sure, so I'll give him credit for that]. Thankfully the field is 5000' long.

[aaronk25]

Stick that crew of clowns in s Chevy suburban and you would "feel" it drive different.....

[Shadrach]

I watched a plane leave my home field on Tuesday, temps were in the low 80s. Not a plane I'm familiar with, low wing with the horizontal stabilizer halfway up the vertical, and unusually shaped windows; the pilot appeared to be solo. Ground roll was about 2000' then the plane was yanked off with no rotation and went another 2000' at about 3-5' agl before climbing. As far as I could tell, he retracted the gear somewhere in the climb when I couldn't see. He flew a crosswind and came over the hangar gear up at a charitable 1000' agl [i'm not sure, so I'll give him credit for that]. Thankfully the field is 5000' long.

Was it a Rockwell Comander? They have a reputation for being groundhogs. Probably the most comfortable cabin in class though.

[Hank]

Yep, that was it. Wondered if it was a Commander.

Was very surprised at the length of the ground roll and the unusual non-rotation jump into low ground effect, then worried by how long he stayed at 4' agl. Glad the airport has clear approaches on both ends, he'd never get out of my old field, 3000' with trees at both ends.

[MyNameIsNobody]

201='s Commander 114 & Cardinal killer. In the marketplace back in the day and in the skies.

201=Economical performance and stout build sold in the 70's & 80's...

Mooney dominated them in sales. Maybe carbon China Mooney can reboot...

[Shadrach]

Stout? Yes. (Love the trailing link gear)

Comfortable? Yes

Economical? Not so much. Any of the NA machines would be hard pressed to break 150kts save for the Super Commander which has an IO580 and the fuel flow to go with it.

Ok (but not great) at hauling a load.

Wing life limits attached...ugh.

[DaV8or]

Yep, that was it. Wondered if it was a Commander.

Was very surprised at the length of the ground roll and the unusual non-rotation jump into low ground effect, then worried by how long he stayed at 4' agl. Glad the airport has clear approaches on both ends, he'd never get out of my old field, 3000' with trees at both ends.

 

Most likely the Commander 112 is what you saw. They use the same engines as our mid and short body Mooneys and aren't good performers. The very first 112 was 180 hp carbureted like a C and a real sloth getting into the air. Later Rockwell went to the big bore engines and the plane became much more acceptable performance wise. The turbo 114 is well liked by those that have them. It's a plane that trades speed for comfort and some people prefer that. They also look really cool and absolutely have a commanding presence on the ramp.

[Shadrach]

Even more so than cool, they look expensive.

[carusoam]

No plane, no gain!

Their advertising slogan in the late 90s early new millennium...

They were still in production at the time.

Like an old M20R, it's got a lot of digital BK stuff in it...but no screens.

Chubby = slow...

Best regards,

-a-

[AndyFromCB]

I have always wondered what the parts availably is like, especially for the newer 115TC. To me it was seemed like a perfect airplane. When I think Mooney, I think BMW 3 series, when I think Commander, I think Mercedes S class. Just looks so comfortable. I guess I've never met an airplane I didn't like.

[DaV8or]

I have always wondered what the parts availably is like, especially for the newer 115TC. To me it was seemed like a perfect airplane. When I think Mooney, I think BMW 3 series, when I think Commander, I think Mercedes S class. Just looks so comfortable. I guess I've never met an airplane I didn't like.

 

I agree. The Commander seems perfect for retirement years. Easier to get into, comfortable and spacious and not in a big hurry to get anywhere. I've always admired the Commander on some level.

[Bob_Belville]

I watched a plane leave my home field on Tuesday, temps were in the low 80s. Not a plane I'm familiar with, low wing with the horizontal stabilizer halfway up the vertical, and unusually shaped windows; the pilot appeared to be solo. Ground roll was about 2000' then the plane was yanked off with no rotation and went another 2000' at about 3-5' agl before climbing. As far as I could tell, he retracted the gear somewhere in the climb when I couldn't see. He flew a crosswind and came over the hangar gear up at a charitable 1000' agl [i'm not sure, so I'll give him credit for that]. Thankfully the field is 5000' long.

Rockwell Commander 114? www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Aircraft-Ownership/Aircraft-Fact-Sheets/Commander-114

[Jerry Pressley]

Crazy that Commander would cease building the fastest single (ie Meyers 200D) in order to build the slowest underperforming 112.  114 was a little better but I would guess this was a 112 or 112A

[Jerry 5TJ]

I enjoyed a 114B for several years. It was solid, comfortable & faster than my E model but used more fuel, naturally. 

The Commander felt to my Mooney-attuned pilot sense as if it needed another 4-6’ of wing span.

Engine out it would reach the ground fairly rapidly.  

[flyboy0681]

23 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

I enjoyed a 114B for several years. It was solid, comfortable & faster than my E model but used more fuel, naturally. 

The Commander felt to my Mooney-attuned pilot sense as if it needed another 4-6’ of wing span.

Engine out it would reach the ground fairly rapidly.  

My hangar neighbor has a 114 and whenever I visit I am amazed at just how short the wingspan is. When the Mooney is in the hangar there's just enough room at each wingtip to get by, with the Commander there's something like two feet on each side. But one thing's for sure, it's a really comfy cabin. Slow but comfy.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

My hangar neighbor has a 114 and whenever I visit I am amazed at just how short the wingspan is. When the Mooney is in the hangar there's just enough room at each wingtip to get by, with the Commander there's something like two feet on each side.

In my old T Hangar, there was approx. 18" between each wingtip and the wall. I could turn sideways and slip by. If the plane was in the exact center . . . . .

[steingar]

I remember the submarine Mooney, I was thinking about buying it.  Got submerged in a flood, they just slapped some paint on it and pencil whipped it an annual.  The sucker who bought it flew it under the influence, so the crash was blamed on him.  I'd steer clear of anything coming out of Morristown.