Mooney Aerobatics

[Wakeup]

I am just curious.  How can a home built plane like a RV built by who knows who can do aerobatics and a Mooney can't??   

Thanks. Troy 

[Hank]

It's all in the design. Aerobatics requires higher wing loading, especially negative g; I would imagine tail loading is also higher. Then apply a safety factor. 

[takair]

A big part of it is also spin recovery.  RV's can easily recover from a spin.  

[Hank]

1 hour ago, takair said:

A big part of it is also spin recovery.  RV's can easily recover from a spin.  

Oh yeah. Please don't test-spin your Mooney to see what happens. My Owners Manual simply says "DO NOT SPIN THIS AIRCRAFT," then explains methods to try recovery, with a warning that a one-turn spin may require 2000' of altitude to recover. Don't think the test pilots went beyond one turn, and they flew in the right seat, beside a quick release door and wore a parachute.

Details, details, details . . .

[N201MKTurbo]

My hangar fairies tell me that a Mooney will do rolls and split S's. 

Just remember that if you crash you make us all look bad!

[Guest]

You don't see RV10's doing aerobatics, just as you don't see many Pitt's specials doing long cross country flights.  Different mission for both.  

There is video of the prototype 707 doing rolls.

Clarence 

[Raptor05121]

I'm sure many of you have seen the bone-stock A36 at SnF who does 1G loops and such. I'm sure its easy to do on paper. But then again, I think the all-moving tail is the weakest link in a Mooney should you decide to stress the airframe.

[Jeff_S]

33 minutes ago, Raptor05121 said:

I'm sure many of you have seen the bone-stock A36 at SnF who does 1G loops and such. I'm sure its easy to do on paper. But then again, I think the all-moving tail is the weakest link in a Mooney should you decide to stress the airframe.

If you're referring to Pat Epps' Bonanza or one of its ilk, it is fair to say that it is "bone stock" because Beechcraft did certify a particular model of Bonanzas for aerobatic use. However, they are not the common Bonanzas, so we wouldn't want just an Bo-driver to think he could climb in and start doing loops and rolls. 

Then again...maybe we would! (ha, just kidding)

[BDPetersen]

Back in the '60's it was rumored by one of the factory pilots there existed a very unofficial list of recommended entry speeds for some maneuvers. Half a century later, don't try it.

[Raptor05121]

9 minutes ago, Jeff_S said:

If you're referring to Pat Epps' Bonanza or one of its ilk, it is fair to say that it is "bone stock" because Beechcraft did certify a particular model of Bonanzas for aerobatic use. However, they are not the common Bonanzas, so we wouldn't want just an Bo-driver to think he could climb in and start doing loops and rolls. 

Then again...maybe we would! (ha, just kidding)

Why am I not suprised. Announcer keeps selling it like its an everyday model.

What in the world made Beech decide to certify an aerobatic model of a 6 seater touring airplane?

[1964-M20E]

Look at the C150 aerobat probably not much different from the regular C150.

Can the Mooney do aerobatics yes if you keep the g loading low enough.  Do you want to do aerobatics in your Mooney probably not.

 

 

[Raptor05121]

I think the difference between the 150 and Aerobat was a couple of ribs extra in the wings and tail and maybe a reinforced floor if I remember correctly.

[peevee]

2 minutes ago, Raptor05121 said:

I think the difference between the 150 and Aerobat was a couple of ribs extra in the wings and tail and maybe a reinforced floor if I remember correctly.

Maybe an extra bulkhead or two in the tailcone, they still oilcan pretty good though

[Shadrach]

I'm certain that the Mooney airframe is more than strong enough to perform most aerobatic maneuvers. However, there is more to the story. Aerobatics require chutes (spins exempted for CFI training). Can you imagine getting in or out of a Mooney with a chute on?...in the air?...in an emergency?... Also some method of egress must be available should one need to exit. Given the nature of the door fasteners, itwould likely require more than "hinge pins" to ensure the door would cleanly depart the airframe in an emergency. Then there are spins, not something Mooneys are certified for. This is not to say they won't recover, but they just don't have the margins of recovery if something happens in a botched maneuver. 

In terms of rolls, split S's and even loops, I am sure that a Mooney is capable of performing these maneuvers flawlessly if executed properly by the pilot. A wise man on this bored once said that doing aerobatics in unapproved aircraft is like riding a moped - probably fun while you're doing it, but not something to brag about later.

[steingar]

RV9 isn't aerobatic.  Moreover, lots of RVs can't be exited worth a damn in flight (hinged canopy anyone?) but trust me that doesn't stop their owners from doing aerobatics.  Can't say I blame them.  Fun machines.  I'd have one if Mrs. Steingar didn't pack so gosh darn much.

[M20F]

12 hours ago, Wakeup said:

I am just curious.  How can a home built plane like a RV built by who knows who can do aerobatics and a Mooney can't??   

Mooney's can just not legally, all in the paperwork.

[Shadrach]

32 minutes ago, steingar said:

RV9 isn't aerobatic.  Moreover, lots of RVs can't be exited worth a damn in flight (hinged canopy anyone?) but trust me that doesn't stop their owners from doing aerobatics.  Can't say I blame them.  Fun machines.  I'd have one if Mrs. Steingar didn't pack so gosh darn much.

I think the hinged canopy on the 14 has a pin release as do the side opening canopies on the tandom models. I think they're likely a hell of a lot easier to get out of than the back seat of a Decathlon.  

I'd bet that a fair amount of the Mooney fleet has been on it's back a time or two, but then you could say that many business Jets as well.

[MB65E]

Jim Pietz has a F33C bonanza which left the factory as a bone stock aerobatic bonanza. He does a nice routine, lands, fills it with fuel and flys home. 

Its a really smooth routine!

Its all about the machine and the training you receive. I have not rolled my m20e, and don't need to. 

Highly recommend some light aerobatic/upset training. It will open your eyes. It's only slightly addictive.

-Matt

[peevee]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

RV9 isn't aerobatic.  Moreover, lots of RVs can't be exited worth a damn in flight (hinged canopy anyone?) but trust me that doesn't stop their owners from doing aerobatics.  Can't say I blame them.  Fun machines.  I'd have one if Mrs. Steingar didn't pack so gosh darn much.

I think a -7 or a -14 would be just about ideal for me, but it just won't do what our 231 can as far as speed and altitude. In fact as I'm finding out in my other thread, not much can.

The dynon setup in the -14 looks pretty sweet though! Wonder if you could turbo normalize a 14, maybe not with the io390 or whatever oddball they use, but that would be one sweet setup.

[Marauder]

I also think most aerobatic planes that do negative Gs and inverted flight have adaptations to deal with fuel and oil requirements where gravity rules don't apply any more.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DonMuncy]

4 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

 I think the all-moving tail is the weakest link in a Mooney should you decide to stress the airframe.

Are you saying the tail structure is weak, or the fact that it "all moves"

If you are talking about the pivot arrangement, that is probably not at all significant. I have heard Bill Wheat (on old Moony test pilot, if you are not aware), tell about replacing the pivot bolt with a 1/4 inch bolt. I think the standard bolt is 5/16 inch. In any event, he tried to get an FAA inspector to ride with him, but the guy refused. But Bill took it up and flew it that way. He said it acted a little funny with the "slop" in the joint, but otherwise had no problem. I will leave it to the engineer types to tell us how much safety margin a 5/16s to 1/4 inch bolt allows.

[carusoam]

The combination of simulated wear and added slop in Bill Wheat's demonstration is engineering brilliance.

The Mooney is capable of several maneuvers that are within it's design strength.

Where it all goes awry, is when the pilot exceeds the limitations that are built into the plane.

Any error that requires pulling out of a steep dive is going to be accompanied with large g-forces.

We can pretty much add aerobatics to the list, like...

1) flying into thunder storms.

2) flying into known ice without a FIKI system.

3) flying into IMC without an IR.

4) flying without enough gas.

5) flying with water in the tanks.

6) flying with too much weight like a fifth person in the baggage area.

7) Taking the runway without knowing DA and related lack of performance.

8) Doing aerobatics without the necessary equipment or training.

The result may not work the way you expect... Then what.

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

I think the difference between the 150 and Aerobat was a couple of ribs extra in the wings and tail and maybe a reinforced floor if I remember correctly.

The most notable difference is the emergency hinge pin on the door.  While the tail ma be the first to go, that does not make it weak. The engine mount bolts don't look particularly large for the job. 

[hoot777]

12 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

My hangar fairies tell me that a Mooney will do rolls and split S's. 

Just remember that if you crash you make us all look bad!

The 707 did a barrel roll over Seattle --if done correctly a one g maneuver-also the head Boeing Test pilot did it--he was sharp !!! Its all about safety factors and design.

[carusoam]

Welcome aboard, hoot. 

Twin Mooney, engine out, 'ordinary' pilot....replete with entry speeds... (Bob Hoover)

http://youtu.be/g7R7jZmliGc

Best regards,

-a-