Mooney Crash In Houston County TN

[aviatoreb]

Quote: KSMooniac

Some facts to interject into the discussion... when the vast majority of GA planes were designed, there were no crashworthiness requirements!  Under the old CAR 3 regs that Mooneys, Bonanzas, etc. were certified, there were only static strength requirements for in-flight loading.  Therefore, it is somewhat correct to say they were designed to the same standards, but incorrect to say they are equivalently crashworthy.  Mooneys in fact are more generally survivable than just about any comparable plane due to the steel cage.  Steel is stronger, and will yield to a greater extent than aluminum, and thus it will absorb a LOT more energy than a 100% aluminum airframe, and thus ultimately transfer less energy (lower g-forces) to the occupants.  (just like the bicycle helmet analogy)  Insurance rates reflect this.  Whether Al Mooney chose the steel cage design for better crashworthiness or just as a good engineering decision... I don't know, but it most certainly is a safety benefit!

[aviatoreb]

Quote: jbs007

[jetdriven]

crash energy = M * V squared.      That V will get you every time.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: JimR

[KSMooniac]

Bladders are most certainly a good thing in the event of a crash!  Whether or not it is worth 35 lbs of useful load is another thing.... :-D  (I don't want to go down that road again, b/c someone will ask if my life is worth 35 lbs!)

Good call on bringing the DA40 into the discussion.  That is another modern Part 23 plane that has a tremendous safety record thus far.

[johnggreen]

231flyer's preference list has been sop for many years and I think still correct.  This has been a valuable discussion and truly lots of good points without anyone getting on a high horse.  Congrats!!

I will add two things, well three, that come to mind.

First:  Plowed fields.  You almost never see them anymore.  Low till and no-till planting is almost universal in the United States so furrows are not the issue they were twenty years ago.

Secondly A VERY INTERESTING SIDE NOTE.

As I have pointed out, one of the true advantages of a Mooney is its in-flight integrity.  You almost never hear of a structural failure.  That's good.  I read, actually on the Beech blog, a survey of exactly how many Bonanzas of various models had suffered in-flight structural failures; usually, of course, from encounters with thunder storms.  In most instances the first structural failure to occur on the Bonanza is the horozontal stabilizer.  That causes the nose to pitch down, the wings to fail in a downward motion, the fuselage then splits on top just aft of the windshield and the occupants are usually ejected from the airplane.  The good news is, that in that scenario, the occupants are either killed instantly or rendered unconscious.

The bad thing is that if a structural failure does occur in a Mooney, you are probably going to have, as your last experience, one hell of a ride down to the ground.

The answer; avoid thunderstorms.

Which brings me to a final point on this post.  In 1989, I owned a Twin Bonanza.  I had owned it for several years but had not installed a Stormscope or on-board radar.  One night, on an IFR flight with my wife and a friend of hers in the back seat, a controller vectored me directly into a thunderstorm.  I flew in at 6,000'.  When I realized what had happened, I did indeed make a 180 degree turn because I had no idea of what lay ahead and knew there was clear air behind.  I had to disengage the autopilot as it could not handle the gusts.  In the process of the turn, the ATC controller called to tell me that I was 4,000' above my assigend altitude.  To which I replied, "yea, and there ain't shit I can do about it."  That is an exact quote.  He didn't bother me further.

We got out safely.  A T-bone is truly a tank as it was built to military standards, Thank God.

The next week I had a Stormscope installed.

Trust me.  That is an experience you don't ever want to have.

Jgreen