Mooney Crash at Sky Manor N40

[PTK]

3 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

Really?  What's your reference for this?

I don't think I've ever flown a plane where going from land flaps to approach setting wasn't the step right after applying power...irrespective of climb rate.  Unlike the gear.

Typical procedure:

Power....set.

Flaps....approach.

Positive rate...gear up.

Getting rid of land-flaps-drag is very important in a maximum performance go-around.

I agree with you as long as you have sufficient AS. When behind the power curve as this poor guy was, cleaning flaps too much too fast can lead to a stall. Going from full flaps to TO flaps reduces primarily drag but preserves lift. Continuing to no flaps sacrifices much needed lift. The danger in the go around is the stall by not allowing the AS to increase before climb. 

Drilled into my head long long ago!

[bradp]

5 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

Really?  What's your reference for this?

I don't think I've ever flown a plane where going from land flaps to approach setting wasn't the step right after applying power...irrespective of climb rate.  Unlike the gear.

Typical procedure:

Power....set.

Flaps....approach.

Positive rate...gear up.

Getting rid of land-flaps-drag is very important in a maximum performance go-around.

I believe that aircraft was found to be flaps up gear down.  

We've referenced the significance of flap position in the other thread about this crash. 

For my J I cannot climb on full flaps safely if max performance is needed.  I can climb without flaps much better than with full.  I wholeheartedly agree wth mooneymite on this point   

@GeorgePerry  George it seems like this would be a good topic a video as it really hits home at LOC during low level maneuvering.   I recall that a Florida Cirrus accident was previously profiled... might.  

Like an SAT analogy ...

Cirrus: Stall Spin base to final:: Mooney : Approach speed control.

Had this guy not had a prop strike would there have been sufficient power to climb out of there?  Unfortunately there are videos around of planes climbing out after prop strike.  Maybe another learning point from this should be if the prop is hit it's almost certainly better to quit.  

-B

[Mooneymite]

3 hours ago, PTK said:

.... Going from full flaps to TO flaps reduces primarily drag but preserves lift. Continuing to no flaps sacrifices much needed lift. The danger in the go around is the stall by not allowing the AS to increase before climb. 

I don't think anyone is advocating flaps zero.  

You said one shouldn't raise the flaps w/o a prc.  Actually, raising flaps from full flaps to takeoff flaps should be done ASAP regardless of prc, IMO.  Maximize lift, minimize drag.

[kerry]

1 hour ago, bradp said:

I believe that aircraft was found to be flaps up gear down.  

We've referenced the significance of flap position in the other thread about this crash. 

For my J I cannot climb on full flaps safely if max performance is needed.  I can climb without flaps much better than with full.  I wholeheartedly agree wth mooneymite on this point   

@GeorgePerry  George it seems like this would be a good topic a video as it really hits home at LOC during low level maneuvering.   I recall that a Florida Cirrus accident was previously profiled... might.  

Like an SAT analogy ...

Cirrus: Stall Spin base to final:: Mooney : Approach speed control.

Had this guy not had a prop strike would there have been sufficient power to climb out of there?  Unfortunately there are videos around of planes climbing out after prop strike.  Maybe another learning point from this should be if the prop is hit it's almost certainly better to quit.  

-B

I've never seen anything like this.  I'm impressed.  With the engines up higher on the mid wings I wonder if he even had a prop strike.

[Hank]

Just now, kerry said:

I've never seen anything like this.  I'm impressed.  With the engines up higher on the mid wings I wonder if he even had a prop strike.

Yes, he struck both props, then flew home. I remember seeing this when it happened. Couldn't believe a pilot would admit to a reporter on camera that he took off after a prop strike . . . 

[kerry]

It's still amazing to watch the durability of aircraft and to here it made the 100 mile trip back home.  Although I guess its nothing compared to some of the B-17 in WW2 that were flying with 1/2 of their fuselage missing from enemy fire.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, DXB said:

I find it very puzzling that this particular pilot would approach 20kt too fast at a shortish strip, or anywhere else for that matter. I also don't know how this figure would be determined by the ntsb investigator writing the report. This was an inexperienced pilot - 200ish hrs.  But at least per public statements by the FBO renting the plane, the guy had 60 hrs in type and 30 hrs logged in the particular J model in the accident.  That's enough time to know that 20 kts over is absurdly too fast.  My C would punish me with endless floats in my first 10-20 hrs even when I was 5kts too fast. Major errors in airspeed control on final get trained out of you pretty quick - the plane has no patience for them. Then you fine tune, learning to adapt to wind conditions, weight, etc.   But 60 hrs is plenty of time to get the major errors like this trained out of you.

I dunno.  It just seems there's more here than just a pilot approaching ridiculously too fast. Perhaps pitot/static malfunction or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong.

We do not really know how fast he was going, none of us were on the flight.  Witness accounts are mostly unreliable, they were guessing at his speed.

Clarence

[bradp]

2 hours ago, M20Doc said:

We do not really know how fast he was going, none of us were on the flight.  Witness accounts are mostly unreliable, they were guessing at his speed.

They did mention something about surveillance video... from that it's possible to measure speed given two landmarks and a yardstick