Mooney down

[M20F]

If you look at car development they have all developed head rests that when the shoulder harness tensions help to keep your head from whipping off your neck.  

Part of the issue in a lot of planes is that the harness will hold your body but your neck is going to take some pretty serious damage as your head goes forward and then snaps back.  My understanding is the neck does well going forward but the backwards motion is pretty bad.  Thus a good head rest is needed to arrest this motion along with the shoulder harnesses.  

[Bob_Belville]

Planes, unlike cars, are unlikely to get rear ended.

[Mooneymite]

59 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Planes, unlike cars, are unlikely to get rear ended.

You've never seen how slow I fly!

Bird strikes usually occur on my tail cone.    

Edited December 28, 2015 by Mooneymite

[mike_elliott]

19 hours ago, N601RX said:

According to news reports the Sheriff reported that the FAA Investigator said the plane was overweight.

was this the same sheriff that proclaimed 
 "The engine failed because the airplane was overweight"     "The
airplane was not designed for 4 passengers"

 

[Bob_Belville]

56 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

was this the same sheriff that proclaimed 
 "The engine failed because the airplane was overweight"     "The
airplane was not designed for 4 passengers"

 

Irresponsible. Can't these geniuses find a pilot to run stuff by? 

But "not... 4 passengers" is a claim I've seen and challenged more than once here on MS.  

[Jerry 5TJ]

I'll opine that 64 gallons 100LL + 4 average US citizens is more than the useful load of almost any Mooney.   I've owned three and none could do that departure legally. 

[gsxrpilot]

I'd wager that even 4 average Japanese American's + the fuel would be overweight.

[Shadrach]

On December 28, 2015 at 8:09 PM, co2bruce said:

4 passengers leaving on a 680 mile journey, I hope they weren't over gross. I fly a long body, not sure what the useful load is on an F model. I've taken off at gross from an airport at 4000 agl, with shifting gusty winds and the performance was way different than I expected. I will go as far as to say " I was lucky the ground dropped off sharply at the end of the runway"

My F would do that trip no wind with 180lbs per seat and 1hr reserve. He may have been over gross, but likely not be much.

[Bob_Belville]

Jerry, Paul... a M20F might have a useful load of 1100 pounds! 4 standard adults is only 680# leaving over 400# for fuel and luggage. I don't agree that they must have been overweight. And even if they were 160# overweight they would just be 2900 pounds gross which would be legal in a late model J that has no more power or lift. 

The pilot might get violated but dollars to doughnuts that will not be the 1st item listed as a probable cause of the accident.

(There have possibly been a few occasions over the past 40 years when one of my M20Es took off 5% or more over their 2575 MGW in circumstances where runway and climb profile were favorable.)

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

I'll opine that 64 gallons 100LL + 4 average US citizens is more than the useful load of almost any Mooney.   I've owned three and none could do that departure legally. 

Again...With 64gals on board my F will do 166lbs per seat. Not beyond the realm of possibility for 4 Japanese Americans. Even if they were slightly over gross, I'd not hang my hat on that being the reason for the crash though likely to be listed as a contributing factor.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Shadrach

[Jerry 5TJ]

Your "F" only weighs 1680 empty?  I'm impressed. 

Agree that overweight is usually only a contributing factor...but as the accident investigators say, the alligators don't get you, but the geese can nibble you to death.

 

 

 

 

[Shadrach]

8 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Your "F" only weighs 1680 empty?  I'm impressed. 

Agree that overweight is usually only a contributing factor...but as the accident investigators say, the alligators don't get you, but the geese can nibble you to death.

1689lbs. So useful is 1051lbs or full fuel payload of 667lbs or 166.75lbs per seat (to put too fine a point on it).   We've had as much as 1060lbs useful and will again if we swap the gen for an alternator and pull the ADF. 

My plane could legally do that trip with over 700lbs in the cabin. However, with the winds the accident pilot was facing, I'd have had no choice but to plan a stop; a 35kt headwind would give me very little fuel margin to do that trip with full tanks. I've only landed once with less than 10gals (~8gals) and I don't plan on doing that again.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Shadrach

[Bob - S50]

Did I miss something?  Why are we assuming he had 64 gallons on board?  I rarely fill my tanks.  I only do that if I'm buying fuel that is significantly cheaper than my next planned fuel/leg stretch stop.  Other than that I fill to the 50 gallon tabs if it's just my wife and me.  If I'm going to be heavy, I stick the tanks and fill to max gross weight.

[Shadrach]

13 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

Did I miss something?  Why are we assuming he had 64 gallons on board?  I rarely fill my tanks.  I only do that if I'm buying fuel that is significantly cheaper than my next planned fuel/leg stretch stop.  Other than that I fill to the 50 gallon tabs if it's just my wife and me.  If I'm going to be heavy, I stick the tanks and fill to max gross weight.

I don't think that anyone who is familiar with F models is assuming that the tanks were full. I was merely pointing out that an F model with 64 gallons on board and 4 people is not necessarily over gross. While I'm not one of them, I know many full-grown man that weigh in the 150lbs range or less.  Anecdotally speaking, I would say that most of the Asian males that I know fall into the 150lbs range (+/-10lbs) save for my Korean friends and acquaintances who tend to be about the same size as most Americans.

[Marauder]

2 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I don't think that anyone who is familiar with F models is assuming that the tanks were full. I was merely pointing out that an F model with 64 gallons on board and 4 people is not necessarily over gross. While I'm not one of them, I know many full-grown man that weigh in the 150lbs range or less.  Anecdotally speaking, I would say that most of the Asian males that I know fall into the 150lbs range (+/-10lbs) save for my Korean friends and acquaintances who tend to be about the same size as most Americans.

Why do I have a feeling you just called me fat?

[Shadrach]

5 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Why do I have a feeling you just called me fat?

I would never call you fat (your ability to house a 15" pizza at one sitting notwithstanding :-) ), just stating that most American men that I know can't count themselves 150lbish range. Most are 170 up even if they're athletic. My anecdotal observations only. No real data…

Edited December 29, 2015 by Shadrach

[Marauder]

Just now, Shadrach said:

I would never call you fat (your ability to house a 15" pizza at one sitting notwithstanding :-) ), just stating that most American men that I know can't count themselves 150lbish range. Most are 170 up even if they're athletic. My anecdotal observations only. No real data…

I see you were amazed at my ability to consume a whole pizza in one sitting. And for the record, she said it was supposed to be around 12"

[Marauder]

And you should count yourself lucky that you didn't lose any fingers in that mayhem. The crust was flying for sure. 

[Bob_Belville]

Seriously folks, how many, if any, Mooney accidents/incidents can any of you recall that involved a Mooney being over gross and that causing the problem? I recall an infamous character (in TN?) a year or 2 ago who took off with 5 adults on board including a lady(?) in the baggage area. I think they mushed in beyond the runway, didn't they? Others?

The M20 (1955-1958) was a 4 place, 150HP Mooney! 

45 years ago I flew quite a bit in a Cherokee 140. 4 place. Of course we had to be sure we had enough runway and that the terrain was manageable with anemic climb...  

[Oldguy]

1 minute ago, Bob_Belville said:

Seriously folks, how many, if any, Mooney accidents/incidents can any of you recall that involved a Mooney being over gross and that causing the problem? I recall an infamous character (in TN?) a year or 2 ago who took off with 5 adults on board including a lady(?) in the baggage area. I think they mushed in beyond the runway, didn't they? Others?

The M20 (1955-1958) was a 4 place, 150HP Mooney! 

45 years ago I flew quite a bit in a Cherokee 140. 4 place. Of course we had to be sure we had enough runway and that the terrain was manageable with anemic climb...  

And if I recall the selfie they took just before takeoff, I don't believe they were of the 170# adult types....

[Marauder]

3 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Seriously folks, how many, if any, Mooney accidents/incidents can any of you recall that involved a Mooney being over gross and that causing the problem? I recall an infamous character (in TN?) a year or 2 ago who took off with 5 adults on board including a lady(?) in the baggage area. I think they mushed in beyond the runway, didn't they? Others?

The M20 (1955-1958) was a 4 place, 150HP Mooney! 

45 years ago I flew quite a bit in a Cherokee 140. 4 place. Of course we had to be sure we had enough runway and that the terrain was manageable with anemic climb...  

In fact, I think all the women could have come from my harem.

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, Oldguy said:

And if I recall the selfie they took just before takeoff, I don't believe they were of the 170# adult types....

Yeah, I don't don't want to tempt any "hey, watch this" types but my experience is that we do have a pretty decent margin of error in our well engineeredand well built Mooneys. Particularly those with a MGW of 2575!

[Marauder]

Just now, Oldguy said: And if I recall the selfie they took just before takeoff, I don't believe they were of the 170# adult types....

Yeah, I don't don't want to tempt any "hey, watch this" types but my experience is that we do have a pretty decent margin of error in our well engineeredand well built Mooneys. Particularly those with a MGW of 2575!

I think the only concern I have with flying at gross is that, at least in my plane, the handling is a bit different, especially if I am aft CG. Not a show stopper, but I could see how people who aren't prepared for it, could do something stupid.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[M20F]

11 minutes ago, Marauder said:

I think the only concern I have with flying at gross is that, at least in my plane, the handling is a bit different, especially if I am aft CG. Not a show stopper, but I could see how people who aren't prepared for it, could do something stupid.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think this is true for a lot of people.  I hear a lot of talk about spin training, unusual attitude, etc. but very rarely do you see anyone talking about going up and practicing stalls, slow flight, etc. at maximum weight and forward/aft CG limits.  

Very few people will be confronted with an unintentional spin or unusual attitude, but most pilots will at some point put themselves in an extreme flight envelope situation with very little understanding of it.  I encourage everyone to get a CFI or a competent fellow pilot and play around with differing flight envelopes more than anything else.  Barry Schiff wrote a really good article about this for AOPA a couple years ago but I can't seem to find it.

Edited December 29, 2015 by M20F

[Oldguy]

17 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Yeah, I don't don't want to tempt any "hey, watch this" types but my experience is that we do have a pretty decent margin of error in our well engineeredand well built Mooneys. Particularly those with a MGW of 2575!

Agree completely. And it is a bit different taking off close to GW at sea level or near it on a cool day versus taking off at a DA of 3,000 or so. And the CG is what I find really affects how comfortable it feels on climb out and landing.