Mooney ditching off Clearwater FL

Ed Haywood said:
Just a few yards offshore. Nobody hurt.

View attachment 153349
Click to expand...

David Attenborough: Here, we see the classic raised tailfin of a Mooney hunting for prey. While its traditional sustenance is a SeaRey or Icon A5, the increasing scarcity of these creatures in Florida waters means that it must make do with the occasional jet-ski or small fishing boat. Local Florida residents, many of whom can tell individual Mooneys apart by nicks in their tail or specific speed modifications, will sometimes attract these beasts by backing a full-sized pickup down a boat ramp into the water. In these cases, as many as four or five short-body Mooneys may converge on the prize, to the delight of all who are watching. As the temperature rises and summer arrives in Florida, the traditional Mooney migration back to northern states will begin, eventually reaching the breeding grounds found in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, where a rich supply of accessories and avionics are found.
 
Some people on FB saw them eating at The Hangar at Albert Witted before departing north.
 
Looks like he did a good job, based on the fact that it's upright.

Hate to see that happen to any plane....even a Mooney....
 
Track shows he flew north along the beaches from the mouth of Tampa Bay past Clearwater.
What doesn't make sense to me is the he was well north of Honeymoon- past Caladesi, and about due west of Three Rooker, before making a left turn and looping back south to Honeymoon. He could've easily made Three Rooker or the north end of Caladesi and landed on the beach. Both of these are less crowded than Honeymoon, especially the north end of Caladesi.

Pure speculation on my part. Could well be these areas were too crowded to risk it and he ran out of vertical at Honeymoon and put her in the water.
 
tobnpr said:
Track shows he flew north along the beaches from the mouth of Tampa Bay past Clearwater.
What doesn't make sense to me is the he was well north of Honeymoon- past Caladesi, and about due west of Three Rooker, before making a left turn and looping back south to Honeymoon. He could've easily made Three Rooker or the north end of Caladesi and landed on the beach. Both of these are less crowded than Honeymoon, especially the north end of Caladesi.

Pure speculation on my part. Could well be these areas were too crowded to risk it and he ran out of vertical at Honeymoon and put her in the water.
Click to expand...

Having been in a full loss of power situation, there is a period of uncertainty where you know something is wrong, but you are not quite ready to accept that you are going down. Engines sputter and surge for a while before they give it up, often giving you false hope that it's just a bug in the line or some water getting burned off. Most likely the pilot felt some roughness and turned back to set up for a precautionary landing at CLW, then realized they were going in the drink then and there. I would assume a dead stick Mooney glides like a brick with an anvil on it.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Having been in a full loss of power situation, there is a period of uncertainty where you know something is wrong, but you are not quite ready to accept that you are going down. Engines sputter and surge for a while before they give it up, often giving you false hope that it's just a bug in the line or some water getting burned off. Most likely the pilot felt some roughness and turned back to set up for a precautionary landing at CLW, then realized they were going in the drink then and there. I would assume a dead stick Mooney glides like a brick with an anvil on it.
Click to expand...
Actually a Mooney has an excellent glide ratio.
Laminar Flow Wing perhaps.
 
bonefishpete said:
Pilots say that but to some pilots who ditched you want it down. I say down. Don’t want to cartwheel or porpoise.
Click to expand...

Ahh no ... in a Mooney gear up.

Ed Haywood said:
I would assume a dead stick Mooney glides like a brick with an anvil on it.
Click to expand...

Ahh no again.
There's a reason Mooneys have speed brakes.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
Having been in a full loss of power situation, there is a period of uncertainty where you know something is wrong, but you are not quite ready to accept that you are going down. Engines sputter and surge for a while before they give it up, often giving you false hope that it's just a bug in the line or some water getting burned off. Most likely the pilot felt some roughness and turned back to set up for a precautionary landing at CLW, then realized they were going in the drink then and there. I would assume a dead stick Mooney glides like a brick with an anvil on it.
Click to expand...
Yes on the disbelief factor.

Not so much on the Mooney glide...those things are slicker than Slick Willy and Teflon Don's illegitimate lovechild. Can't descend and slow down at the same time unless the gear is out, and the gear speed is pretty low (at least on the older ones, dunno about the "modern" models), so planning ahead is an issue. That's why they're so efficient. They quite literally have double the glide ratio of my Lance, and well above most SEP planes.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I would assume a dead stick Mooney glides like a brick with an anvil on it.
Click to expand...

Actually it’s pretty slick. 11:1 with the prop spinning, if you can get the prop stopped it’s 12:1 or better. This is also why you have to be on your numbers to land. High or fast on short final and you’re gliding into the next county.
 
Salty said:
I was flying the Chang on the coast on Saturday. But on Sunday I was down in Arcadia where I noticed that my orchard is gone now. Big flat field now.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear. Was it a downed power line starting a brush fire?
 
Bill said:
Actually it’s pretty slick. 11:1 with the prop spinning, if you can get the prop stopped it’s 12:1 or better. This is also why you have to be on your numbers to land. High or fast on short final and you’re gliding into the next county.
Click to expand...
Yep, even an old '65 C model glides really well.

My neighbor / CFI did my flight review earlier this year. He'd never been in a Mooney and was shocked: "This thing glides a lot better than I expected." I ended up way high on a power-off 180. I knew better, but it had a been a while plus we had a long runway to let it play out.

At my home field we usually take off over the lake, and my plan if the fan stops below 1k AGL is to put it in the lake near one of the Marinas with the gear up.

Jim K said:
Hate to see that happen to any plane....even a Mooney....
Click to expand...
Literal LOL from me... :raspberry::lol:
 
Salty said:
I was flying the Chang on the coast on Saturday. But on Sunday I was down in Arcadia where I noticed that my orchard is gone now. Big flat field now.
Click to expand...

It’ll probably be a housing development soon, if it’s like every other piece of bare land around here.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
As it's upright, I'll venture gear up.
Click to expand...
Gear up/down doesn't make nearly the difference people think it does, especially in something like a Mooney where it already sits so close to the ground. There simply isn't enough of an arm to create a pitching moment strong enough to flip it over its nose.

If you're in a type with a really long landing gear and you really drop it in the water nose first, maybe. But there have been PLENTY of fixed-gear airplanes that stay upright upon ditching.

Ed Haywood said:
I would assume a dead stick Mooney glides like a brick with an anvil on it.
Click to expand...
Why would you assume that? Mooneys are super efficient because they're really slick. 11.2:1 glide ratio, so you can go nearly 2nm for every 1000 feet of altitude. There's a video out there of a Mooney successfully completing an "impossible turn" from well under 1000 feet and landing on the runway.

Jim K said:
Not so much on the Mooney glide...those things are slicker than Slick Willy and Teflon Don's illegitimate lovechild. Can't descend and slow down at the same time unless the gear is out, and the gear speed is pretty low (at least on the older ones, dunno about the "modern" models), so planning ahead is an issue. That's why they're so efficient. They quite literally have double the glide ratio of my Lance, and well above most SEP planes.
Click to expand...
Bingo. FWIW, my gear speed is 140 KIAS, but I still have to start pulling power 20 miles from the destination even in a gentle 500fpm descent to get it slowed down enough. Luckily, I do have speed brakes if ATC slam-dunks me, but I try not to use them because what's the point of an efficient airplane if you're gonna do that every time?
 
I talked to two pilots that ditched. A Cherokee Six in the Bahamas and a Warrior off the beach locally. Both fixed gear and neither flipped. Gear down for me.
 
Including results for cessna 210 glide ratio
Search only for cessna t210 glide ratio




AI Overview



The Cessna T210 (Turbo Centurion) has a maximum glide ratio of approximately 9:1 to 10:1 under ideal conditions (gear up, flaps up, and propeller feathered or set to minimum RPM). This means that in a no-wind situation, the aircraft will glide roughly 9 to 10 nautical miles for every 1,000 feet of altitude lost.
1784335560162.pngPilots of America +4

Be careful of what you read and assume correct with AI searches.

If these ratios were correct I wouldn’t need any fuel for cruise and decent on my 100 km flights once I got to 10K AGL of destination. Think I’ll try it on my next trip and see how it works out.
 
Last edited:
CENTURION said:
Including results for cessna 210 glide ratio
Search only for cessna t210 glide ratio




AI Overview



The Cessna T210 (Turbo Centurion) has a maximum glide ratio of approximately 9:1 to 10:1 under ideal conditions (gear up, flaps up, and propeller feathered or set to minimum RPM). This means that in a no-wind situation, the aircraft will glide roughly 9 to 10 nautical miles for every 1,000 feet of altitude lost.
View attachment 153520Pilots of America +4

Be careful of what you read and assume correct with AI searches.

If these ratios were correct I wouldn’t need any fuel for cruise and decent on my 100 km flights once I got to 10K AGL of destination. Think I’ll try it on my next trip and see how it works out.
Click to expand...
Yeah AI is really bad about getting a subtle but critical fact wrong. The reality is you’d get 9 or 10 miles out of every 6076 feet, not every 1000 feet. Huge difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top