Hank

Virginia Accident

Recommended Posts

Saw this on another forum. Damage looks bad, but only minor injuries. 

Is the owner here? The Mooney Summit will want contact info if known--contact @mike_elliott if you know. 

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/killed-in-warren-county-plane-crash-survive-earlier-crash-in/article_b358ae01-8866-5ad3-a83d-e505f65812fe.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

25 minutes ago, kpaul said:

Interesting, according to the FAA that aircraft was exported to Australia.

http://aviationdb.net/aviationdb/AircraftDetailPage

Think you got the tail number wrong.  It's N7884V.  Looks like the guy just bought it last month.

If I've got the right guy, he's a naval aviator and a graduate of Top Gun. 

Edited by ragedracer1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Think you got the tail number wrong.  It's N7884V.  Looks like the guy just bought it last month.

If I've got the right guy, he's a naval aviator and a graduate of Top Gun. 

I've seen several planes with that paint job, including Summit last weekend, but from what I  could find on the tail number, it's a C model. Hearing that he's a Top Gun grad, i understand the success of the "landing" a little better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hank said:

I've seen several planes with that paint job, including Summit last weekend, but from what I  could find on the tail number, it's a C model. Hearing that he's a Top Gun grad, i understand the success of the "landing" a little better.

Flight originated in Pensacola.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't someone die?  News article says fatality and hospital.  In what way was that a "good" landing, because all didn't die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

Didn't someone die?  News article says fatality and hospital.  In what way was that a "good" landing, because all didn't die?

The journalism sucks.   They are talking about 2 separate crashes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MyNameIsNobody said:

Didn't someone die?  News article says fatality and hospital.  In what way was that a "good" landing, because all didn't die?

Two accidents--fatality in an Experimental; Mooney between two trees then into a house, two adults and a minor released from hospital before the story was posted. The second is what I call "good landing."

Built safe for over 60 years. No chute required. Again . . .

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ragedracer1977 said:

 It's N7884V.

that tail is for a 1964 C

this looks like a long flight.  I am not sure how many fuel tank variants there are in a C but I would never fly this long in my 64c,,,I am good for just over 4 hours at best....

maybe they have longer range bladders or something else.....

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N7884V

Edited by Jim Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

that tail is for a 1964 C

this looks like a long flight.  I am not sure how many fuel tank variants there are in a C but I would never fly this long in my 64c,,,I am good for just over 4 hours at best....

maybe they have longer range bladders or something else.....

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N7884V

I've gone 4:40 twice in my C, and had 11-12 gal left on landing, or 1:15. Would not want a 5-hour flight . . . . Movement is too nice . . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hank said:

I've gone 4:40 twice in my C, and had 11-12 gal left on landing, or 1:15. Would not want a 5-hour flight . . . . Movement is too nice . . . . .

I could prob do that......but I would be very concerned during the let down about sudden airport closure bad weather etc...I fly for a company now that we land with well over 2 hours of gas every flight.....

My lear 24 days different story......The low fuel light came on almost every flight at Top of D.... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hank said:

Two accidents--fatality in an Experimental; Mooney between two trees then into a house, two adults and a minor released from hospital before the story was posted. The second is what I call "good landing."

Built safe for over 60 years. No chute required. Again . . .

I bet his wife is saying, next time please use the door key.  That is definitely the "best" off airport landing phot ive seen in terms of dry humour.  So glad that everyone is ok.  

Andrew

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hank said:

Two accidents--fatality in an Experimental; Mooney between two trees then into a house, two adults and a minor released from hospital before the story was posted. The second is what I call "good landing."

Built safe for over 60 years. No chute required. Again . . .

I can't find any information on the accident involving the experiment. Perhaps you know something about it to think that chute has something to do it, Hank? 

Always love it when Mooney pilots brags about the construction when people died flying other types of planes: "Ah, only if he was flying a Mooney...." 

It's just a tad bit crass and probably more so if Experimental's fatality turns out to be something preventable with a BRS. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tommy said:

I can't find any information on the accident involving the experiment. Perhaps you know something about it to think that chute has something to do it, Hank? 

Always love it when Mooney pilots brags about the construction when people died flying other types of planes: "Ah, only if he was flying a Mooney...." 

It's just a tad bit crass and probably more so if Experimental's fatality turns out to be something preventable with a BRS. 

 

My comments on the Mooney accident had nothing to do with the experimental fatality, other than the reporter putting them in the same article with few details about either one. That would make me me more of an ass than I like to be . . . 

The "no chute neededed again" simply ties this accident with very minor injuries to chrixxer's night, urban off-field landing with no injuries and Dan's unconscious, night, off-field landing with only minor injury, and not a chute between all of them. It is very poor form to make fun of someone else's misfortune, but I'm glad to see that you think so little of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Hank said:

My comments on the Mooney accident had nothing to do with the experimental fatality, other than the reporter putting them in the same article with few details about either one. That would make me me more of an ass than I like to be . . . 

The "no chute neededed again" simply ties this accident with very minor injuries to chrixxer's night, urban off-field landing with no injuries and Dan's unconscious, night, off-field landing with only minor injury, and not a chute between all of them. It is very poor form to make fun of someone else's misfortune, but I'm glad to see that you think so little of me.

Hank, for myself I've decided "Tommy" is a troll, at least on the chute subject, and I regret engaging him on a recent thread that involved chutes. I will refrain from doing it again.   

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unconfirmed, but guy reportedly filled up with low price gas at W75 and then departed from intersection (1500' remaining) with a 5 KT tailwind.  Came to rest approx 1700' from end of runway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Hank said:

My comments on the Mooney accident had nothing to do with the experimental fatality, other than the reporter putting them in the same article with few details about either one. That would make me me more of an ass than I like to be . . . 

The "no chute neededed again" simply ties this accident with very minor injuries to chrixxer's night, urban off-field landing with no injuries and Dan's unconscious, night, off-field landing with only minor injury, and not a chute between all of them. It is very poor form to make fun of someone else's misfortune, but I'm glad to see that you think so little of me.

You called the second landing a "good one. Then to say that it's Mooney's construction. Then to say it's not the chute that matters. 

You must have known something about the first accident that I don't. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

If you don't, then my little gentle reminder of the tactless nature of your comment stands, Hank.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Fly By said:

Unconfirmed, but guy reportedly filled up with low price gas at W75 and then departed from intersection (1500' remaining) with a 5 KT tailwind.  Came to rest approx 1700' from end of runway.

Do you have the link to this accident?

I couldn't find anything. There was a fatal accident involving a Piper towing a glider in Virginia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Hank, for myself I've decided "Tommy" is a troll, at least on the chute subject, and I regret engaging him on a recent thread that involved chutes. I will refrain from doing it again.   

 

Screen Shot 2017-10-08 at 8.31.01 AM.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

middlesex-plane-into-home-1.jpg.9a56aa1e6b917c06985396ebd7170ad1.jpg

Maybe he was looking for a hangar home.   Glad everyone is ok. It looks like he didn't stop flying it until the crash - best result from a bad situation.

Just looking at the length of the flight in a C model and the absence of fire at the crash I wonder if there was any fuel on board? The ship's gauges on our older Mooneys are notoriously inacurate.  https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N7884V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The news reports are saying he'd just taken off from W75 which is only a few miles away. But the absence of any fire is suspect. Going between those two huge trees would have ruptured both tanks and 100LL would have been all over the trees, house, etc. I also wonder about the choice of location. It seems that just about anywhere would have been better than here. 

Screen Shot 2017-10-08 at 9.29.48 AM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*