Cessna 335 twin crashed on take off at KFXE today.

[Piloto]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

And that should alert you to pull the drain and clean the tank. There shouldn’t be any shit in the tank, however water is a possibility. I wonder how many people have been killed by your faulty design?

You are overlooking that in addition to the drain valves at the aux. tanks there are drain valves at the main tanks that are the ones that  get jammed and leak. The aux. tanks water and fuel flows into the main tanks and drain valves. The aux. tanks interconnect tubing and pickup outlet blocks any water or debris from going into the main tanks.

Back in the late 1980s a brand new 252 with long range tanks bound for Germany ditched 200 nm NE of LPAZ in the Azores. Before ditching the pilot contacted a Navy ship for rescue. The Navy ship spotted the plane ditching but the pilot drowned. The pilot reported his KR87 ADF was not working so he could not find LPAZ for refueling. The pilot has done this trip before multiple times without GPS.

José

Edited December 6, 2018 by Piloto

[Hank]

2 hours ago, jetdriven said:

And that should alert you to pull the drain and clean the tank. There shouldn’t be any shit in the tank, however water is a possibility. I wonder how many people have been killed by your faulty design?

Harsh, isn't it? Please post the details of your superior, FAA-approved fuel tank STC and let us judge the difference.

[jetdriven]

41 minutes ago, Hank said:

Harsh, isn't it? Please post the details of your superior, FAA-approved fuel tank STC and let us judge the difference.

OK, so maybe we should ignore the fact that the Monroy STC modified airplanes can hold a couple gallons of water that cannot be drained.  You know there have been Airworthiness Directives on both the factory tank design and the O&N Bladder system to address just this exact thing. Given that Mooney airplanes have an elevated instance of unexplained power loss in flight, perhaps this drain design is inherently unsafe. Maybe you are OK with it after learning of it. I don't think I am, if thats rthe way its engineered.

Its just poor engineering, or lack thereof. But Jose lacks basic understanding in a lot of categories.  Just read his posts.

Edited December 6, 2018 by jetdriven

[thinwing]

Hey man,I've noticed in some of your posts ,you seem to really have it out for Jose....personal attacks on his education,engineering ability,aircraft knowledge etc.I think you could tone down your rhetoric.and still get your point across...i have also noticed Jose  has never responded back angry at some pretty direct provocations  he just explains his reasoning without insulting you back...me..I enjoy reading what you both have to say...

[jetdriven]

He doesn't explain his reasoning, he either makes up some patently ridiculous hypothesis, or deflects and changes the subject.   Anyways, I'll ignore him from now on. Read his posts and decide for yourself his grasp on aerodynamics, education, and engineering prowess. 

'I'm actually pretty dumb, but I am highly proficient in the things i know, and I don't pose as an expert on things I dont understand.  Beechtalk is much better in this regard, not allowing his kind of posts to go unchallenged.  Its far higher level discussion over there. They seek the truth over there.  Too bad we dont have that here quite so much.

Edited December 6, 2018 by jetdriven

[Skates97]

On 12/4/2018 at 2:19 PM, Andy95W said:

And this is where José is absolutely correct in his implications. For many General Aviation twin-engine pilots who do not participate in regular recurrent training, twins do have more fatal accidents than singles.  Percentage-wise after an engine failure, A LOT more.

And that is the reason I won't look at a twin. I've averaged 120 hours of flight the first two years but I don't think that is enough, even with regular recurrent training, to feel that I would react quickly enough to an engine out on takeoff in a twin.

[rpcc]

1 hour ago, thinwing said:

Hey man,I've noticed in some of your posts ,you seem to really have it out for Jose....personal attacks on his education,engineering ability,aircraft knowledge etc.I think you could tone down your rhetoric.and still get your point across...i have also noticed Jose  has never responded back angry at some pretty direct provocations  he just explains his reasoning without insulting you back...me..I enjoy reading what you both have to say...

 I don't agree with Jetdrivens style of response, but I do see his point.  This is the same argument style as rain-x.  

If someone as an ounce of bull crap in them, it's hard to tell what is the truth.  That is the hard part because obviously this person has a huge knowledge base.

There was a thread about these drains a while ago and it generated similar feedback.

[Piloto]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

He doesn't explain his reasoning, he either makes up some patently ridiculous hypothesis, or deflects and changes the subject.   Anyways, I'll ignore him from now on. Read his posts and decide for yourself his grasp on aerodynamics, education, and engineering prowess. 

'I'm actually pretty dumb, but I am highly proficient in the things i know, and I don't pose as an expert on things I dont understand.  Beechtalk is much better in this regard, not allowing his kind of posts to go unchallenged.  Its far higher level discussion over there. They seek the truth over there.  Too bad we dont have that here quite so much.

Byron, you are doing right, stay with what you know and understand, leave novel ideas and new concepts to the visionaries because new concepts or ideas are never in the books but maybe in the SBIR programs.

Members of the Man Will Never Fly Society are not opposed to flight.  Birds do it, Bees do it, even educated fleas do it, as Cole Porter once said.  But when you stop to think about it, do you actually believe that a machine made of tons of metal will fly?  Small wonder that the editor of a Dayton newspaper said, when informed of the mythical first flight in 1903.  "Man will never fly.  And if he does, he will never come from Dayton."  

José

Edited December 6, 2018 by Piloto

[afward]

52 minutes ago, Piloto said:

Byron, you are doing right, stay with what you know and understand, leave novel ideas and new concepts to the visionaries because new concepts or ideas are never in the books but maybe in the SBIR programs.

Members of the Man Will Never Fly Society are not opposed to flight.  Birds do it, Bees do it, even educated fleas do it, as Cole Porter once said.  But when you stop to think about it, do you actually believe that a machine made of tons of metal will fly?  Small wonder that the editor of a Dayton newspaper said, when informed of the mythical first flight in 1903.  "Man will never fly.  And if he does, he will never come from Dayton."  

José

Jose, what is novel about your solution?  And what new concepts are you proffering to us mere mortals?  Seems like you're just re-treading ground the manufacturers have looked at 1000's of times and arrived at the same general set of solutions.  In other words, are you sure of your various solutions' superiority because they are visionary, or because of hubris?

[Piloto]

31 minutes ago, afward said:

Jose, what is novel about your solution?  And what new concepts are you proffering to us mere mortals?  Seems like you're just re-treading ground the manufacturers have looked at 1000's of times and arrived at the same general set of solutions.  In other words, are you sure of your various solutions' superiority because they are visionary, or because of hubris?

Because nobody before me came up with an achievable, elegant solution for Mooneys extra range

Novel: Unlike other aux tank mods. The Mooney aux tanks are not tip tanks, thus reducing the possibility of flutter and maintaining same wingspan for hangar entry clearance. There is no aux. tanks transfer pumps required since transfer is by gravity eliminating a pump/power failure risk. By not having these items cost is substantially reduced.

José

Edited December 6, 2018 by Piloto

[afward]

Ha, if you say so.  I'm not quite educated enough on the intricacies of the timing of each "extra range" STC and your solution to really determine for myself who gets priority on that.  I do know aviators and manufacturers have been trying to figure out various clever tricks to get more range since flying distances became a thing, so "do it on a Mooney" may not be a very good qualifier with which to declare it "novel" or "a new concept".  Maybe it is, in which case I think most of us would highly appreciate if you posted a copy of the documentation so we can learn from such a "visionary" idea.

Edit: You edited your statement from an objective statement (mine is "first") to a potentially subjective statement ("achievable, elegant").  My above paragraph doesn't really apply to the new text.  What are your criteria for "achievable" and "elegant" that qualify your solution but not the existing STC solutions?

Not cool changing the text like that.  It breaks the flow of the conversation and can lead to large misunderstandings.

Edited December 6, 2018 by afward
Calling out the edit

[Piloto]

You can check all the STCs data at: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

STC# SA1913SO

José

[afward]

D'oh!  I never knew the Monroy STC holder was a member here.  So that makes more sense now.  I thought you were talking about some unpublished concept you'd come up with and gotten 337'ed somehow.  Mea culpa!

[Piloto]

9 minutes ago, afward said:

D'oh!  I never knew the Monroy STC holder was a member here.  So that makes more sense now.  I thought you were talking about some unpublished concept you'd come up with and gotten 337'ed somehow.  Mea culpa!

Don't worry.

José

[aviatoreb]

A good idea is never so good that it can't be improved.

Jose' there is a lot I like about your STC and I had it installed in my Mooney, done about 2 years ago.

But it does look from what I have seen here that it would be even better if that hold had been designed so at to be flush with the bottom of the tanks rather than 3/8'' above.  Is there a reason it should not be done this way that would make the system worse other than the legality that this is what is written in the the STC design, or the "other people did it" argument referring to some Cessna's?  What if a person wanted to modify the install (if done legally with a field approval) in what was would modifying the setup so that the hole was flush with the Botton would that make the system worse?  Seems like it would alleviate the problem of permanently trapped fod and also water which poses a threat to sudden stoppage in flight.

[Piloto]

2 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

A good idea is never so good that it can't be improved.

Jose' there is a lot I like about your STC and I had it installed in my Mooney, done about 2 years ago.

But it does look from what I have seen here that it would be even better if that hold had been designed so at to be flush with the bottom of the tanks rather than 3/8'' above.  Is there a reason it should not be done this way that would make the system worse other than the legality that this is what is written in the the STC design, or the "other people did it" argument referring to some Cessna's?  What if a person wanted to modify the install (if done legally with a field approval) in what was would modifying the setup so that the hole was flush with the Botton would that make the system worse?  Seems like it would alleviate the problem of permanently trapped fod and also water which poses a threat to sudden stoppage in flight.

Like I explained before drain valves holes at the very bottom cause debris to jam the drain valve and cause to drain from the valve stem top. But the main tanks original F391-35S still can be used. It really does not matter because any water contents always end up in the main tanks.

José 

[aviatoreb]

10 minutes ago, Piloto said:

Like I explained before drain valves holes at the very bottom cause debris to jam the drain valve and cause to drain from the valve stem top. But the main tanks original F391-35S still can be used. It really does not matter because any water contents always end up in the main tanks.

José 

Why isn’t the main tank drain subject to the same critique then?

Edited December 6, 2018 by aviatoreb

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Piloto said:

You are overlooking that in addition to the drain valves at the aux. tanks there are drain valves at the main tanks that are the ones that  get jammed and leak. The aux. tanks water and fuel flows into the main tanks and drain valves. The aux. tanks interconnect tubing and pickup outlet blocks any water or debris from going into the main tanks.

José

I’m not the smartest guy in the world, so I need you to help me understand your statement above.  I’ve trimmed your post to the first paragraph.

Your second sentence says water and fuel flow from aux to main.  Your third sentence says the interconnect tube blocks water passing to the main tank.  Which is it, or can it really do both at the same time?

In the picture I posted earlier which I snapped in one of your tank STC’s, there is an aluminum plate riveted to the inner tank skin into which the drain valve is screwed.  Is this done correctly per your STC?  Perhaps this installation is done wrong and I’m totally mistaken and suggesting that your design is faulty when it’s actually the installer who messed up.

Clarence

[Mooney in Oz]

10 hours ago, Skates97 said:

And that is the reason I won't look at a twin. I've averaged 120 hours of flight the first two years but I don't think that is enough, even with regular recurrent training, to feel that I would react quickly enough to an engine out on takeoff in a twin.

The way to react quickly enough Richard, is similar to what you do each time you take off in your Mooney and where you will go in the event of an engine out. In a twin it is also knowing exactly what you do and where you will go after going over it in your head before the takeoff roll.  In other words, during every takeoff expect an engine to fail and know precisely what you'll do about it.  

The more pressing problem is after you clean it up and achieve control, how will the aircraft, assuming a basic GA twin, perform on one engine regardless of what the performance charts indicate, which are predicated on an optimal operating engine and flown by a very current test pilot.   

[thinwing]

Clarence..I think what he's saying is that any water or debris ultimately ends up in the main tanks via gravity feed that are protected by existing main drains.

[aviatoreb]

15 minutes ago, thinwing said:

Clarence..I think what he's saying is that any water or debris ultimately ends up in the main tanks via gravity feed that are protected by existing main drains.

But then why have those drains at all if they are irrelevant  but 

not necessary.

[carusoam]

There is no doubt in my mind how Mooney tanks work... And I’m pretty sure I understand what is described by José...

 

How most Mooney tanks are built...

1) The drain is near the bottom of the tank. Close, but Not at the bottom of the tank... (took me a few years to recognize this)

2) The volume below the drain is about a gallon.  Alex has a really nice pic of a stained area where water had probably been there a while... (before he re-sealed his ship’s tanks...

3) Further up from the bottom is the fuel pick-up

4) from the top of the pick-up to the top of the tank is useable fuel...

 

In a different way... there are three regions in the tank caused by the location and type of fuel drain used...

Level 1) un-drain-able fuel... that includes water, and foreign objects like dirt and collected insects... alcohol fuel additive is needed to remove water here, physical clean out to remove everything....

Level 2) drainable, But unuseable fuel... allows for a safety distance of good fuel that doesn’t normally enter the fuel pick-up... unless the turns are unusually uncoordinated whith the nose pointed down... water that collects above this level gets drained when the sump opens...

Level 3) Good quality fuel, fully useable in flight...

 

My applause for the guys discussing this topic and not losing typing control.

Is this un-drain-able fuel idea new to anyone?  I think that it may be...

 

On the topic of changing the drain’s height...

The added aluminum block in Jose’s design pics is indicating a higher level of this un-drain-able location...

1) as long as the drain is below the fuel pick-up, it will operate in a similar fashion.  Under most conditions...

2) the operation doesn’t change, very much...

3) Things can change if more un-drain-able water is retained in the tanks... during uncoordinated and nose down flight...

4) It would be advisable if you know you have had water enter the tanks... to take the effort to have the water removed... just for those uncoordinated events...

 

Like I said I’m unsure about Jose’s additional tanks with inter-connect tubes and all.  I am Just familiar with the part about Mooney tanks and getting the water out...

Let me know what I missed. It is probably something big. 

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

[thinwing]

Anthony....nice!

[ArtVandelay]

The amount below the drain is a gallon?! The POH says it’s 1 gallon unusable (below the fuel pickup).

[Guest]

9 hours ago, thinwing said:

Clarence..I think what he's saying is that any water or debris ultimately ends up in the main tanks via gravity feed that are protected by existing main drains.

If that is the case, then his post is confusing at best.

If the drain hole height is 3/8” above the lower skin and the fuel pick up line to the main tank is above that level I don’t see sediment and water will transfer to the main tank where it will be drain through the Mooney installed valve which is at the lower skin level.

Clarence