Virginia Accident

[ArtVandelay]

If it's so close that retraction of the gear is necessary, you probably should rethink your takeoff. At only 71-76mph the gear drag is probably not that much.

[mooniac15u]

7 hours ago, Shadrach said:

What's Vx in your J? I'm not sure that there's any confusion. Vx is the target. The fastest way to get there is a clean airframe at the lowest AOA. The only place I've seen "pulling hard" mentioned is in your post. It does not take a great deal of pitch change to start a Mooney up hill at Vx. Gentle is best and additional elevator will be needed to prevent accerating beyond Vx.   If best gradient is the goal, there is nothing to be gained by accelating beyond Vx and zoom climbing. The PP Video looks dramatic, but he's also dealing with tall trees 1600' from where he started his take off roll.

Maybe it's  better to clarify what I'm not advocating...which would be nervously holding the plane nose high with the stall horn bleating while hoping ROC will increase because the plane isn't performing as hoped. Not a recipe for success. Pulling harder will just take the plane closer and closer to an accelerated stall. High AOA at takeoff speed + 15mph will not get you up and out the fastest. It will take longer to get to Vx and both ROC and gradient will be less. 

As for the "softfield confusion"...a true softfield technique involves a nose high lift off as soon as the plane will fly (which is something less than normal stall speed due to lift of ground effect). The plane is "unstuck" at high AOA, held in ground effect while AOA is reduced to maintain alt above the airstrip as speed builds in ground effect. When airspeed is adequate a normal climbout follows. That's a good way to get the gear up and out of the mud, but the early lift off will probably eat up more ground distance while accelerating to Vx. 

People are talking about lifting off early and then accelerating in ground effect rather than just rotating and climbing at Vx.

19 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

And without any intention to offend here... the process of learning from other's mistakes involves understanding what we would/will do differently. For me, I can see a different course of action for every decision from before landing at the field and all the way through until hitting the tree.

1. When traveling with family, loaded, a full fuel... pick long runways at larger airports.
2. If required to land at a small field with a short runway, don't load full fuel to give a better margin of performance.
3. Always use the full runway length.
4. When runway length is in question, use short field technique, get off the ground, accelerate in ground effect, climb out at end of the runway.
5. Plan for an out on every takeoff. In this case, right instead of left would have been out over the water with plenty of time to climb.

I've got less than 1000 hours of Mooney time, but have made these very same five decisions many, many times. So far its working out.

 

As far as pulling hard, I was referring to this:

On 10/13/2017 at 3:07 AM, ragedracer1977 said:

I tried this yesterday, to see if it's a tool I want in my toolbox.  Flying out of P52 Cottonwood AZ (3560 MSL, DA was close to 6000, 4200' runway).  Full fuel, around 380lbs in the front seats (pass and me).  I used the full length of the runway, short field take-off.  According to my GPS log, I was off the ground in 994'.  I cleaned up and accelerated to 100 mph IAS and pulled.  By the end of the runway I was 214' AGL. In comparison to the day before, less than half tanks (about 20 gallons, so about 170lbs lighter), same folks in the front seats - standard takeoff, similar weather.  1216' takeoff roll.  131' AGL by the end of the runway.  

I'd definitely add this tool to my box.  It's not very comfortable for the passengers, there is a little G load followed by less than 1G at the top, (he didn't mind though, I told him what we were doing so he was prepared - and he has lots of hours in the right seat with me), but it does work pretty well.  I was 50' AGL within ~2600'.  I could have got there sooner, but I was really letting the speed build.  And this with a pretty significant DA.  

 

[Shadrach]

On 10/14/2017 at 9:32 AM, mooniac15u said:

People are talking about lifting off early and then accelerating in ground effect rather than just rotating and climbing at Vx.

As far as pulling hard, I was referring to this:

 

ugh, now that I reread, I see some sub-optimal techniques being suggested.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

6 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Only a guess, but I think gear retraction was left until clearing the obstacle to allow the pilot to concentrate on flying?  Its really only a matter seconds before the plane is clear and high enough.

I do agree that Mooney's test pilots and engineers knew what they were doing, or the manual would be written differently.

Clarence

Are you saying they learned everything that was optimal at the time the POHs were printed?  A number of them have written articles in later years saying "we were doing it wrong and we don't do it that way anymore."  The 26 squared you posted above is a perfect example of this. 

Bob Kromer  has a few things to say that contradict your assertion.

"I certainly don't want anyone to get the idea that I am a "know it all". Quite the contrary - I am still learning every day, even after 4500 hours in the cockpit. If you have different opinions or better ideas, I am always receptive to them. That is the reason for the "Letters" section of this magazine - to share your opinions and ideas with 5,000 of your fellow Mooney pilots."

"The induction system is tuned for full throttle settings--the cylinders get a more even distribution of induction air with the throttle full open. Unless specifically required by the manufacturer in the POH (and the Mooneys we fly are not), forget that old practice of reducing the throttle after take-oil to "save the engine". Forget the old "25 squared" idea. There is no reason on a normally aspirated engine to reduce the throttle for climbs. Why sacrifice climb performance for nothing?"

"the idea of reducing the RPM in climb to "make the engine last longer" is simply wrong. "

 

I'll say that I disagree with a number of Bob's recommendations for my own reasons and observations.  I do however appreciate that he's open to the notion of still learning. The average person has free access to far more information today than a Mooney engineer did in 1967.  We also have a lot of time in service to tell us things that could not have been known in 1967 because the in service testing had not taken place. 

 

 

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

I bet Bob has continued to learn a thing or two since he wrote those MAPA Log articles.  Like his 50 dF ROP cruise mixture setting recommendation. I’d be surprised if he would still recommend that blanketly like he did then. 

Or his  immediate lean to100df ROP for climb.  Likely efficient, but not real kind to cylinders.

[bradp]

13 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Maybe it's  better to clarify what I'm not advocating...which would be nervously holding the plane nose high with the stall horn bleating while hoping ROC will increase because the plane isn't performing as hoped. Not a recipe for success.

You mean like this:

analyzing it from a pure technique perspective and putting on hold for a sec the personal mins conclusions from our nice Canadian narrator it’s pretty much what you shouldn’t do on multiple levels. 

[ArtVandelay]

Or his  immediate lean to100df ROP for climb.  Likely efficient, but not real kind to cylinders.

As long as cylinder temperatures remain within limits (

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Are you saying they learned everything that was optimal at the time the POHs were printed?  A number of them have written articles in later years saying "we were doing it wrong and we don't do it that way anymore."  The 26 squared you posted above is a perfect example of this. 

Bob Kromer  has a few things to say that contradict your assertion.

"I certainly don't want anyone to get the idea that I am a "know it all". Quite the contrary - I am still learning every day, even after 4500 hours in the cockpit. If you have different opinions or better ideas, I am always receptive to them. That is the reason for the "Letters" section of this magazine - to share your opinions and ideas with 5,000 of your fellow Mooney pilots."

"The induction system is tuned for full throttle settings--the cylinders get a more even distribution of induction air with the throttle full open. Unless specifically required by the manufacturer in the POH (and the Mooneys we fly are not), forget that old practice of reducing the throttle after take-oil to "save the engine". Forget the old "25 squared" idea. There is no reason on a normally aspirated engine to reduce the throttle for climbs. Why sacrifice climb performance for nothing?"

"the idea of reducing the RPM in climb to "make the engine last longer" is simply wrong. "

 

I'll say that I disagree with a number of Bob's recommendations for my own reasons and observations.  I do however appreciate that he's open to the notion of still learning. The average person has free access to far more information today than a Mooney engineer did in 1967.  We also have a lot of time in service to tell us things that could not have been known in 1967 because the in service testing had not taken place. 

 

 

You must be giving me credit for someone else's post about power settings???

Clarence

 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, bradp said:

You mean like this:

analyzing it from a pure technique perspective and putting on hold for a sec the personal mins conclusions from our nice Canadian narrator it’s pretty much what you shouldn’t do on multiple levels. 

I've see this clip many times. The funny thing is, the pilot thinks the world of himself for not stalling and has done interviews letting everyone know just how awesome he is for not ending up in the trees. I admit that he could have made a bad take off worse, none the less he demonstrated that even a TAT TN'd Bonanza will climb like a brick if mishandled.

[Shadrach]

16 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

You must be giving me credit for someone else's post about power settings???

Clarence

 

Did I misunderstand? Were you not suggesting the POH recommendations as the best course of action?

[Shadrach]

46 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

As long as cylinder temperatures remain within limits (

You mean the 450df factory redline?

[ArtVandelay]

You mean the 450df factory redline?

Internet error:
Id put 400° or less in () but it got lost. Factory limits are only good for engine manufacturers bottom line (more $ cylinders). I set my alarm for 380°.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Did I misunderstand? Were you not suggesting the POH recommendations as the best course of action?

I merely posted the page from the J POH, as there was question of the technique. Not to say that you or anyone else should operate their airplane per the manufacturer's FAA approved procedure.  It's your plane, do as you see fit.

Clarence

[Shadrach]

19 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I merely posted the page from the J POH, as there was question of the technique. Not to say that you or anyone else should operate their airplane per the manufacturer's FAA approved procedure.  It's your plane, do as you see fit.

Clarence

I'm not trying to be argumentative.

You extolled the virtues of the factory engineers in a follow up to the above post. I think the fact that the same airframe has had so many different techniques and Vspeeds over the years is a testament to the fact that engineering data was an after thought. Mooney is not alone, they are just one of the worst offenders. Their POHs in my opinion are an informational starting point at best. They are light on technique, light on data and dreadfully inconsistent. 

[ragedracer1977]

9 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

People are talking about lifting off early and then accelerating in ground effect rather than just rotating and climbing at Vx.

As far as pulling hard, I was referring to this:

 

Sorry if I gave the impression I pulled 'hard'.  I did not.  The load was something more than 1G, but less than you would feel in a 45 degree steep turn.  So, maybe 1.2G's, given a 45 degree turn is 1.4g.  That would have increased my stall speed by about 10%, or to about 70mph, I only climbed till my speed dropped to about 80mph.  Pushing over at the top was somewhat less than 1g, but no where near 0.  Next time I'm at the same field (sometime next week) I'll try the take off by the book (Vx - gear down, t/o flaps, and about 80mph) and see what I get by the end of the runway.  I know with a Vy t/o and light, I was about 130' AGL by end of the runway.  Heavy, and accelerating in ground effect and then pulling up, I was at ~215' AGL by runway end.  Will be interesting to see what happens at Vx.  

Edited October 14, 2017 by ragedracer1977

[Hank]

6 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Sorry if I gave the impression I pulled 'hard'.  I did not.  The load was something more than 1G, but less than you would feel in a 45 degree steep turn.  So, maybe 1.2G's, given a 45 degree turn is 1.4g.  That would have increased my stall speed by about 10%, or to about 70mph, I only climbed till my speed dropped to about 80mph.  Pushing over at the top was somewhat less than 1g, but no where near 0.  Next time I'm at the same field (sometime next week) I'll try the take off by the book (Vx - gear down, t/o flaps, and about 80mph) and see what I get by the end of the runway.  I know with a Vy t/o and light, I was about 130' AGL by end of the runway.  Heavy, and accelerating in ground effect and then pulling up, I was at ~215' AGL by runway end.  Will be interesting to see what happens at Vx.  

There's nothing like data to end an argument! 

[MyNameIsNobody]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I've see this clip many times. The funny thing is, the pilot thinks the world of himself for not stalling and has done interviews letting everyone know just how awesome he is for not ending up in the trees. I admit that he could have made a bad take off worse, none the less he demonstrated that even a TAT TN'd Bonanza will climb like a brick if mishandled.

Is it documented that he Mishandled, or that he asked the plane to perform beyond its capabilities?  I would never fly with that guy again.

[MyNameIsNobody]

I will just shrug and say to myself "Not surprised this happenned" if people are routinely going out of short strips, heavy and barely clearing obstacles.  "Your ego is writing checks you can't cash"...is a line that comes to mind.  That said, fly it however you feel like flying it.  What me worry?  I am definitely not good, so I don't want to rely on being lucky.

[Guitarmaster]

Yes, the pilot is here. Yes, I recently purchased the aircraft. 
I flew from Pensacola on Friday and landed at W75 with about 10 gallons remaining. I filled up Saturday morning (54 gallons on board) and was planning to continue to New England. I checked the fuel during preflight as usual and I saw no water. I looked at the windsock as I finished my preflight and it was about 5 knots with a slight crosswind, but favoring 19. My plan was to back taxi and use the full length of 19. I looked at the windsock again as I was about to taxi and it was limp. I don't have a voice recorder so I'm paraphrasing from what I remember. During taxi, Unicom asked me my direction of travel. I said north. Unicom said that the winds were light and variable, not favoring a particular runway, and that no traffic was known to be inbound. He said I could use 01 if I wanted to be closer to course. At this point I was at the one taxi intersection with 01/19 and he said I could take off from there or back taxi and 180. This is where I made my first mistake. 
The taxiway intersection is not in the middle of the field. It is closer to the approach end of 01. But if you look at the taxiway diagram it is a short runway and the intersection cuts off a significant amount. I allowed this distraction to alter my plan and I elected to takeoff runway 01 from the intersection without fully considering the decision. 
There are trees not far past the end of the runway. I don't normally climb at Vx, but as I saw the trees I pulled for Vx and made my second mistake. I over-rotated and entered a power on stall. As I was barely over the treetops while I was attempting to correct, but the sight of the trees right beneath me tempered my forward pitch correction and I re-stalled. I lost lift on the left wing, rolling left. I did not have enough control to really pick a spot at that point, but I had enough rudder to keep the nose between the trees. Or I didn't and it was luck. I honestly can't say. It happened pretty fast by that point.
I am a Navy pilot and TOPGUN graduate. I have my ATP and CFII. I completed my BFR in a 182 just a couple of weeks before I bought the Mooney. I am meticulous about safety and planning. I used to preach to students about the three things a pilot can never use: fuel in the truck, runway behind you and altitude above you. I frequently talk about complacency as a major cause for accidents, not just in aviation. 
I want to be clear, I am not attempting to place any blame on the Unicom. However, I allowed that brief conversation to distract me from my very solid plan and change to a very poor one. 
The left wing sheared off from the tree on the left side. The right wing entered the house with the fuselage and was leaking fuel. Debris from the structure prevented me from being able to open the door enough for escape. Neighbors called 911 and told us to stay put, but fuel was leaking and I wanted us out. A man who happened to be at the airport and getting ready to fly saw everything from my intersection takeoff to stall. He jumped in his truck and found us. He took charge of the group at the house, got the power to the house secured, apparently there was house wiring on or around us, climbed into the house and started pulling debris away so we could get out. This man subsequently held out gear, picked us up from the hospital after we were released, took us to his home and then brought us to a hotel. I am forever in his debt.
The footwell crushed around my legs, but I was able to pull them out on my own only with minor abrasions. My plexiglas windshield was shattered and I have some lacerations on my head and bruising on my right arm. My wife was in the back seat next to our 13 month old son, who was in his car seat. My wife has a fair amount of bruising and soreness. My son has minor rash from his car seat restraints. Fortunately the home was unoccupied. We are very fortunate. 

I'm a little late to the party, but thanks so much for sharing!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

Is it documented that he Mishandled, or that he asked the plane to perform beyond its capabilities?  I would never fly with that guy again.

Here's his full narrative. 

http://www.flyaoamedia.com/aviation/my-scariest-moment-as-a-pilot/

He was in a G36 Bonanza with a TAT intercooled turbo normalized IO550. 

Deparying rnwy 25 at 3W5 which 20-30 miles north of Seattle.

Elevation 267'

2600' runway.

He pulls it off just before the intersection taxiway and is treated to a stall horn which continues the rest of the way down the runway and as he squeaks over the trees.

He's gone through a litany of theories and explanations over the years, but seems to have settled "wind shear". 

It appears to me that he was aggressive in trying to get airborn as you can see the nose bobbing before takeoff and during his attempts to climb.  

I have no idea what technique he was using or what odd wind currants may have contributed. All I can say is the plane appeared to mush off the runway and the stall horn protested almost any increase in AOA. This continued to what was nearly the crash site. I'm sure it took some discipline to avoid a stall. 

We've all learned some things the hard way and I'm sure this was a defining moment for him as a pilot. 

When it first occurred, he was razzed a bit by some folks and he really took no responsiblity for the near crash and all the responsibility for the save. Perhaps time has moderated his position.

 

 

 

[Tommy]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I'm not trying to be argumentative.

You extolled the virtues of the factory engineers in a follow up to the above post. I think the fact that the same airframe has had so many different techniques and Vspeeds over the years is a testament to the fact that engineering data was an after thought. Mooney is not alone, they are just one of the worst offenders. Their POHs in my opinion are an informational starting point at best. They are light on technique, light on data and dreadfully inconsistent. 

So what are the changes to V speeds for a J or Bravo or Ovation over the years of their production? I am curious to know the changes you are referring to.

And as far as I know, no popular GA aircraft manufacturer advocates soft field technique over a obstacle clearance one (Vx) for clearing obstacles. 

The differences in technique are not just confined minor changes of the speed. The time to rotate, the ground effect usage, and the final climb speed are all drastically different. Not disputing that it "may" give a better obstacle clearance than Vx but the technique is risky and maybe gives only minor advantage (10 feet) when it's done ABSOLUTELY right that only when gear collapse is a real possibility that it is justified. 

Will this apply to our OP's situation? Let's see, new Mooney driver on a sealed runway? I would say stick to Vx and hope for the best. 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Tommy

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

So what are the changes to V speeds for a J or Bravo or Ovation over the years of their production? I am curious to know the changes you are referring to.

And as far as I know, no popular GA aircraft manufacturer advocates soft field technique over a obstacle clearance one (Vx) for clearing obstacles. 

The differences in technique are not just confined minor changes of the speed. The time to rotate, the ground effect usage, and the final climb speed are all drastically different. Not disputing that it "may" give a better obstacle clearance than Vx but the technique is risky and maybe gives only minor advantage (10 feet) when it's done ABSOLUTELY right that only when gear collapse is a real possibility that it is justified. 

Will this apply to our OP's situation? Let's see, new Mooney driver on a sealed runway? I would say stick to Vx and hope for the best. 

Tommy, I'm not sure how to respond because it seems you're suggesting I recommended a soft field technique and something other than Vx. Soft fields are for..,uhhh soft fields...not pavement. Vx is best for obstacle clearance. The best way to get to Vx is what has been discussed here.

as for POH. I posted a pic of my F's climb performance page. The 67 F POH says Vx is 94mph from SL to 16K. The 78 J says Vx is 76mph at SL increasing 2mph for every 5000' of altitude. Same airframe; same Power, same MGW. Vx delta of 18mph. Surely you don't think that both numbers are correct?

Edited October 15, 2017 by Shadrach

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Tommy, I'm not sure how to respond because it seems you're suggesting I recommended a soft field technique and something other than Vx. Soft fields are for..,uhhh soft fields...not pavement. Vx is best for obstacle clearance. The best way to get to Vx is what has been discussed here.

as for POH. I posted a pic of my F's climb performance page. The 67 F POH says Vx is 94mph from SL to 16K. The 78 J says Vx is 76mph at SL increasing 2mph for every 5000' of altitude. Same airframe; same Power, same MGW. Vx delta of 18mph. Surely you don't think that both numbers are correct?

Hard to say if it's across two different models of almost a decade apart. What about on a same model? Agree that later POHs will have better advice based on more and better data collected than earlier ones. What I take issues with are the people who think they have MORE and BETTER data than factory based on their own experience with one or two planes. Does it mean I always take the factory advice, no, of course not. I run my engine based on the general recommendation of Mike Busch because he has just as much data if not more than the factory. 

Sorry wasn't directed at you about my comment on soft field but rather it's directed at those who recommend a soft field in this incident over a short field. My take is that if a short field can't clear those trees then a soft field will most likely  result in hitting those trees at a higher velocity. 

The issue here, as you rightly pointed out, is not the runway condition but the runway length.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Tommy

[Shadrach]

19 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Hard to say if it's across two different models of almost a decade apart. What about on a same model? Agree that later POHs will have better advice based on more and better data collected than earlier ones. What I take issues with are the people who think they have MORE and BETTER data than factory based on their own experience with one or two planes. Does it mean I always take the factory advice, no, of course not. I run my engine based on the general recommendation of Mike Busch because he has just as much data if not more than the factory. 

Sorry wasn't directed at you about my comment on soft field but rather it's directed at those who recommend a soft field in this incident over a short field. My take is that if a short field can't clear those trees then a soft field will most likely  result in hitting those trees at a higher velocity. 

The issue here, as you rightly pointed out, is not the runway condition but the runway length.

I don't know that runway was impossible, but certainly not a walk in the park.. I routinely operate out of an 1800' runway year round with DT's at both ends that limit length to <1600'. I have unfortunately seen several aircraft in the ditch off one of the departure ends, but that's normally from landing long. 

WRT to the POH. "Hard to say if it's across two different models"... Seriously?  I'll say it again: Same airframe, same mgw, same power.  18mph (23%) delta in Vx. They can't both be right.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Shadrach

[Bob_Belville]

8 hours ago, Shadrach said:

as for POH. I posted a pic of my F's climb performance page. The 67 F POH says Vx is 94mph from SL to 16K. The 78 J says Vx is 76mph at SL increasing 2mph for every 5000' of altitude.

• Your F manual matches my '66E manual for Vx clean.
• The J speed seems to be KIAS. Or perhaps it is with takeoff flaps which would probably be best practice for obstacle clearance. 
• (FWIW, my '66E Vx, with takeoff flaps is 70 kias = 80 mIas; Vx clean is 82 kias = 94 mIas).