Sorry to hear. I had my nose gear collapse on my first aircraft, but thankfully it was on tarmac.
NCYankee wrote:
When I flew a mooney with a Johnson bar, part of the extension procedure was called the thumb check to put your thumb in the space to verify the handle had extended into the catch/
Exactly.
That sucks – big time! Hope you get it sorted quickly, although going on recent experience in our club, 6 months isn’t unrealistic
Peter wrote:
Nearly all shock load inspections find no damage, so the cost is largely independent of any damage. Well, unless something serious is found e.g. corrosion.
It depends on the engine, though. Our C210 had a hard landing and a very minor prop strike, but once opened, certain items had to be replaced irrespective of damage. Of course, some other issues were found and the whole episode lead to a total rebuild. This was a Conti IO520.
This sucks badly, was there any RPM drop? was it on idle touchdown?
A low RPM prop strike may come clean on the engine but usually there is more things to fix once the dress is removed, finger crossed it will go ok…
Ibra wrote:
A low RPM prop strike may come clean on the engine but usually there is more things to fix once the dress is removed, finger crossed it will go ok…
Somehow I doubt it was that low RPM, as the aircraft went around from that situation, that it was throttled up. Airport authority found damage to the runway surface.
We will have to see. Right now, I have more questions than answers.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
What we will have to find out is what prop to put on, now that options are open. Personally I’d like to get something which gets the plane to a better noise class, but I understood the MT Props don’t work with the O360-powered Mooneys. Will try to find out, last time I checked was in 2015 so something might have changed.
It’s probably a matter of approval versus function. My plane has an FAA field approved 3-blade MT prop installation, similarly installed after a nose gear collapse damaged the McCauley. The MT has the advantages of being inexpensive and more readily repaired if it happens again. It is actually relatively loud on takeoff due to a very fine low pitch stop setting, but regulation/certification and reality may well be two different things.
A shock load inspection takes about 1 man-week in a decent engine shop – assuming nothing nasty is found (corrosion, spalling, etc).
All the cases where people are grounded for months are in the “usual GA maintenance” situation where the company is totally disorganised and works for the customer who screams the loudest down the phone. The phone rings, the boss walks into the workshop, half the jobs are dropped and it’s “battle stations” for the one who just made the threatening phone call. But that’s how most European shops work – both engines and avionics. The “battle stations” phrase came from an ex employee of one of UK’s biggest 
Unfortunately shops might be busy right now because it’s summer and a lot of people are flying, and having accidents.
Silvaire wrote:
The MT has the advantages of being inexpensive and more readily repaired if it happens again. It is actually relatively loud on takeoff due to a very fine low pitch stop setting, but regulation/compliance and reality may well be two different things.
Thanks for the feedback. It also has the advantage, or so I am told, that in a similar occurrence it breaks off more easily which in some cases made a sudden stoppage inspection unnecessary. I checked approvals in 2014 (or rather MT did for me) and they came back saying that their 3-blade prop only was installable on the E,F and J series (i.e. the 200 hp injected engine) but not on the O360-A1D that I have.
My main goal if it can be achieved is to find a combination which allows noise certification to be reduced from currently “Swiss B” to “D”, which cancels out most noise taxes which have to be paid in some airfields. Some are relatively benign (ZRH CHF 8.-) but others brutal (Samedan 80.- CHF).
Right now we are not thinking of a total replacement of the engine, but in the case of cases that the engine were totally bust, it may well be an idea to look at the “E-STC” which allows the installation of a IO360 in the place of the O360. In which case, the prop obviously would be a strong contender.
Well, it seems you have clear ideas to eventually get your ducks in a row. I am sure you will make the best of a bad situation. Hopefully most of the cost will be borne by insurance.
On a more personal side: we all make mistakes. Obviously you make sure every pilot that flies the aircraft knows the “thumb” trick. Unless the pilot is someone who is systematically troublesome, I sure wish you and him can work out a prompt emotional recovery. We can’t afford to lose pilots to GA!
OTOH it is not the first but the third time I am personally aware of a go around post a prop strike (plus a few videos online, famous one with an Aerostar). It is not a rare occurrence. However the conclusion after past discussions personally and online is that it is risky business to go around after a prop strike. I guess pilot instinct is to pull up into the air if something does not feel right at landing. After all that is engrained in our training. In this case all these cases it probably saved the airplane.
Sorry to hear that MD. Best of luck on the road to recovery…
Peter wrote:
All the cases where people are grounded for months are in the “usual GA maintenance” situation where the company is totally disorganised and works for the customer who screams the loudest down the phone. The phone rings, the boss walks into the workshop, half the jobs are dropped and it’s “battle stations” for the one who just made the threatening phone call.
Now I know what I’ve been doing wrong. I’m too nice…
