That Mooney gear collapse was one with manual gear or “Johnson Bar” as that lever is called. The video as you can imagine is hugely wide spread in Mooney circles.
What I heard about it is, that the pilot noted during the take off run that the Johnson Bar came out of its lock (which means that it was not locked properly, otherwise it can´t) and he tried to hold it with his hand, but failed. This is not totally uncommon for this design, which is one reason people who fly airplans with this device employ a technique dubbed “yank that Johnson” prior landing. Once the gear is down and locked, green light, lock pin out, you grab that lever and try to pull it out of its socket by force without touching the lock pin. If you do not succeed, then you are sure the gear is locked.
Happened to me once, since then I know what to watch for.
It has nothing to do with grass. True, possibly the lever would not have shaken loose on concrete that easily, but grass is no reason for this but a malfunctioning or badly locked Johnson Bar. For those interested, the video below shows how that handle works.
I was wary of this design at first and still am very vigilant about it. Yet, it saves a lot of cost and maintenance as opposed to electrical gear of later airplanes. And it is immune to electrical or hydraulic failures. Having had 2 alternator failures in recent years, I came to appreciate that.
This guy flies his C model into all sorts of places I would not touch with a barge pole, yet he does not seem to have taken any damage. Bull Run OR seems to be one of the more exiting runways…
Here is this guys full collection.
https://www.youtube.com/user/piperpainter/videos
New thread maybe, about Mooney landing gear?
Was just an anwer to that video.
Dont know how to create a new thread so please let me know. or create a thread and post it.
Wanted to post on “SR71 Blackbird”
this is a great story: http://www.tickld.com/x/jaw/military-pilot-shares-the-most-amazing-story-ever
Hey, Cirrus_Man,
that story is really only 100 years younger than the bible ;-)
Dont know how to create a new thread so please let me know. or create a thread and post it.
Select the desired forum section and click here:
while nobody here has ever complained about Cirrus bashing.
They have… e.g. when someone posted the pic of the case where the chute that didn’t open, somebody wanted it removed. Plus several others, one rather unpleasant.
Yes maybe a bit old but a great one Flyer 59.
europaxs wrote:
What a mess
Really not up to German standards! Ja wol
The success of the Cirrus is due largely to their innovation, high quality and focused on safety/lowering pilot load. Cirrus is good to it’s customers, really good.
The Chinese did not ‘save’ the company…the company needed cash to complete their ambitious jet design. Notice Diamond and others broke their pick on their jets. Diamond did not get it’s financing help from the Canadian government when it became critical and shut the project down.
Cirrus has also broadened from the SR20 to the SR22 to the SR22T and now the SF50 jet – each filling an upward price/performance niche in the line. True they pioneered the BRS parachute as a safety feature and no doubt the presence of the parachute has smoothed the purchase for some but the parachute does not save the plane or justify the price tag alone.
Compare the Cirrus SR22T to the Cessna (Columbia) TTx. These two planes from the two survivors in GA manufacturing could not be closer in regard to price/performance/features. The SR22T has G1000/Perspective, the TTx the G2000 with touch controller. The SR22T is slightly slower but burns less fuel at max cruise. The TTx has a slightly narrower cockpit and no ‘jump’ seat in the back. The SR22T has the BRS chute, the TTx does not. Both planes are an all carbon fiber design with fixed gear and use the Continental TSIO-550. The SR22T has the spin resistant split wing, the TTx does not. Both have low wing loading, Fiki, air conditioning as an option and the same Garmin Autopilot, ADS-B and intercoms.
The TTx is about $50k more in price. The SR22T sells about 300 planes a year. The TTx about 10 planes a year.
USFlyer wrote:
The Chinese did not ‘save’ the company…the company needed cash to complete their ambitious jet design.
Ummm, that means they saved the company. Don’t be naive. Whatever the cash was for, they didn’t have it.
