N242RE Mooney Acclaim 3 fatalities Sparta, TN 4/26/2025

Nick Geber

Nick Geber

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 10, 2022
Messages
220
Display Name
NIckG
Home Airfield
KHND
Saw that. Not far from me. Curious what happened. Ceilings were MVFR through the morning, but nothing major. Sad news :(
 
RyanB said:
Saw that. Not far from me. Curious what happened. Ceilings were MVFR through the morning, but nothing major. Sad news :(
Click to expand...
Someone on the Mooney group on Facebook said they heard it fly over their house just before the crash and the engine was in and out - Speculated fuel exhaustion. They did apparently make a round trip without stopping at the other end, but that was about 2.5 hours of flying so if that's the case they must not have started full to begin with.
 
Looking at the previous flights, looks like they never fly above 10k, for that kind of flying an Ovation would be a better choice. I wonder what the fuel burn is at the lower altitudes to get the 240mph speeds they were going?
 
david.h said:
The main drawback on Mooneys, especially the newer ones, is useful load. You can't fill the seats and the gas, comes down to landing gear design. We designed a new gear to increase capacity in 2019, but never got to test it. We were going to put the M22 flaps on it also.
Click to expand...
How many High performance GA aircraft can you fill the seats AND the gas. I have an ovation 3 - with an #1100 UL. I can take my wife, dogs baggage and full fuel. Add another human and I’m trading fuel. Or ask the wife to pack lighter - and that’s not happening!.

Despite the less than optimal flight profiles of their previous flights, everything here looked completely normal right to the end. Sad.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Someone on the Mooney group on Facebook said they heard it fly over their house just before the crash and the engine was in and out - Speculated fuel exhaustion. They did apparently make a round trip without stopping at the other end, but that was about 2.5 hours of flying so if that's the case they must not have started full to begin with.
Click to expand...
The debris field appears to be quite compact, so if an off airport landing was attempted it ended with a vertical flight profile.
 
Nick Geber said:
How many High performance GA aircraft can you fill the seats AND the gas. I have an ovation 3 - with an #1100 UL. I can take my wife, dogs baggage and full fuel. Add another human and I’m trading fuel. Or ask the wife to pack lighter - and that’s not happening!.

Despite the less than optimal flight profiles of their previous flights, everything here looked completely normal right to the end. Sad.
Click to expand...
I have a 1981 T210N. I can put full fuel, 522lbs useable, and still have a 1078lb payload available. It’ll true in the upper 180’s at 10K and 198kts at 15K ft. Somewhat of a unicorn.
 
Nick Geber said:
How many High performance GA aircraft can you fill the seats AND the gas. I have an ovation 3 - with an #1100 UL. I can take my wife, dogs baggage and full fuel. Add another human and I’m trading fuel. Or ask the wife to pack lighter - and that’s not happening!.

Despite the less than optimal flight profiles of their previous flights, everything here looked completely normal right to the end. Sad.
Click to expand...
Not many, if any. I was just stating that when I was working at Mooney we really wanted to improve the plane. China spent all the $$ on the failed carbon M10, so we never got to test improved M20 design beyond the 2 doors.
 
My WAG. The fuel tank selected for the approach unported and caused the engine to sputter, then die on the last section of the final approach. The pilot either didn't have more fuel in the other tank, or neglected to change tanks. The pilot wasn't prepared for this and stalled it in.

In Mooneys and other light aircraft when low on fuel in the selected tank and the nose lowered for the descent, the remaining fuel shifts forward and the engine stumbles, or quits outright. Don't ask how I know this to be true...

In a Mooney, the fuel pickup tubes are located in the rear inboard corners of the wings (a climb will keep it flying longer in a low fuel emergency situation).

When planning on reaching a destination with less than an abundance of fuel remaining, I run one side way down in level cruise to the point of almost empty, watching the fuel pressure gauge for fluctuation as the time to switch tanks before any passengers (and myself) become alarmed by the engine stumbling.

Keeping plenty of fuel available in the landing tank prepares for a nose down encounter with turbulence, eliminating the potential for unporting during the descent and landing phase.
 
Just to take your WAG one step further, some landing checklists or procedures call for fuel ‘selector on fullest tank’, or similar. I’m not one to change tanks while low or in the pattern, prefer to set the tank 25+ miles out.

I’d rather run one tank kinda low in cruise, then select the tank(25+ out) for landing. There being no doubt the selected tank has plenty of fuel while landing.

Not saying it was anything to do with this accident, just expanding the theory. I remember one accident where the pilot switched tanks in the pattern, ended up between positions, starving the engine of fuel.
 
What the actual.... (adds fuel tank unporting to the list of **** to think about)
Rick A said:
In Mooneys and other light aircraft when low on fuel in the selected tank and the nose lowered for the descent, the remaining fuel shifts forward and the engine stumbles, or quits outright. Don't ask how I know this to be true...

In a Mooney, the fuel pickup tubes are located in the rear inboard corners of the wings (a climb will keep it flying longer in a low fuel emergency situation).
Click to expand...
 
Rick A said:
My WAG. The fuel tank selected for the approach unported and caused the engine to sputter, then die on the last section of the final approach. The pilot either didn't have more fuel in the other tank, or neglected to change tanks. The pilot wasn't prepared for this and stalled it in.
Click to expand...
Same thing can happen if you fly uncoordinated. In theory it would help to get the airplane relatively slow and at a high(er) AOA and coordinated to get the last quart (or whatever) of fuel out of the tank. But I assume you'd have to know you're *really* low on fuel to worry about this.
 
Hengelo said:
What the actual.... (adds fuel tank unporting to the list of **** to think about)
Click to expand...

Calm down; put it in the category of fuel exhaustion. Unporting is just one failure mode when you ain’t got enough gas to get from a to b.
 
If it's just "exhaustion" why call it something else? It's like saying an empty cookie jar has "maximized free space"
 
Like saying I ran out of usable fuel But I still had fuel in my tanks.
 
Nick Geber said:
How many High performance GA aircraft can you fill the seats AND the gas. I have an ovation 3 - with an #1100 UL. I can take my wife, dogs baggage and full fuel. Add another human and I’m trading fuel. Or ask the wife to pack lighter - and that’s not happening!.

Despite the less than optimal flight profiles of their previous flights, everything here looked completely normal right to the end. Sad.
Click to expand...
With full fuel, I can still put another 800lbs of bodies and bags in the plane. Comanche with tip tanks.
 
kyleb said:
But I assume you'd have to know you're *really* low on fuel to worry about this.
Click to expand...
That's the point. On a long legged flight, running it down to nothing on the cruising tank, then leaving abundant fuel in another tank permits the flight to continue to destination (or alternate), with legal reserves. Doing that precludes any worry about unporting under any flight condition, including the pilot forgetting to switch to the fullest tank for landing. You don't dare stretch out the fuel in the selected landing tank.
 
Rick A said:
That's the point. On a long legged flight, running it down to nothing on the cruising tank, then leaving abundant fuel in another tank permits the flight to continue to destination (or alternate), with legal reserves. Doing that precludes any worry about unporting under any flight condition, including the pilot forgetting to switch to the fullest tank for landing. You don't dare stretch out the fuel in the selected landing tank.
Click to expand...
That's what I did when I was younger and had longer bladder legs. Climb out and cruise on one main wing tank for 1 hour. Tip tanks for the next 2~2.5 hours. Burn the other main wing tank until empty. Have 1 hour left and you know where it is all at. If that other main tank dry-tanked before I hit my spot on the chart, it was time to put down approximately...now.
 
robin ardoin said:
I didn't realize the Comanche had that type of UL. Darn shame Piper dropped the line.
Click to expand...
It really is. They're excellent airplanes. It's like a Mooney (except roomier), a Bonanza (except much less expensive), or a 182 (except faster). One of the best all-around airplanes ever built IMO.

Maybe someone will buy up Ravin and get that version certified, it's probably easier to build than the Comanches but it's pretty much a composite Comanche 260C.
 
For those who run tanks 1-2 hours or longer prior to switching check your autopilot amendments.

Garmin doesn’t allow use of autopilot if fuel imbalance is more than around 15 gallons. I keep mine within 10g at all times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top