Narrative:

Just 1 yr ago FBO installed a factory remanufactured engine (IO550), spdbrakes and a turbo-normalized system. When I was accepting delivery of the completed aircraft, I worked for several hours with mr X, chief pilot. I immediately had concern as to the overall performance of the aircraft because, when he picked me up at alb, I noticed that the takeoff roll was much longer, the initial climb was very lethargic and the rate of climb was about 300 FPM. I had been accustomed to 700-1200 FPM. It seemed to me that with an IO550 and a turbocharger that it should have been at least as good as what I once had. On the sell side, FBO quotes much higher climb rates. But I thought I would wait and see. In the training session, we took off and climbed up to 21000 ft and the aircraft still was very sluggish. It never, nor has it ever, exhibited the crisp performance to which I had become accustomed. A typical result of performance was 47 mins time to climb to 17500 ft at 25 inches of mercury and 2500 RPM, a power setting that was recommended by FBO. After using the aircraft for a short while, I started a telephone campaign, not to harass, but to inform and be informed. Over the phone, mr X suggested different fuel flows and power settings for takeoff and climb out, these helped some (28.6 inches of mercury and 2600 RPM for example). I thought that these power settings were a little excessive, but they assured me that these are in the performance range of this engine. I was still not satisfied because the takeoff roll had not improved, 3000 ft runways became very marginal. Nevertheless, I kept in dialogue with FBO reporting to them what was going on and what I had learned. I even spoke to another owner who had been experiencing the same problem. Then they got back to me and said that there was a weight and balance problem and that the system weighs 67 pounds, not 34 pounds, thereby making the aircraft a little more nose heavy. I was still not secure, I kept on talking with them. Subsequently to this they had an aeronautical engineer, mr Y, contact me after which he flewin and spent several hours with me and made the determination that the aircraft was not making full power and the RPM was a little low. He also stated the propeller should be repitched for the turbocharged engine. I had my mechanic go over the governor and reset it for the recommended RPM. Mr Y also gave me different fuel flows and power settings to use. They seemed to help. While that was going on, FBO recommended that I bring the aircraft back to them for inspection and to repitch the propeller. I flew in on monday after weathering the night in pueblo. They did the checking of the system and repitched the propeller. I preflted the aircraft and then their mechanic, mr Z, and myself boarded. The wind at that time was calm and the temperature was 65 degrees. I started the engine, did a run-up, checked everything and taxied to runway 1 for takeoff. I had at my estimation over 8000 ft of runway ahead of me. I then advanced the throttle to 25 inches of mercury, reset the mixture for takeoff while holding the brakes. I then let the aircraft begin to accelerate and then I added full power. The aircraft accelerated and I was careful to stay on the centerline of the runway. As the aircraft accelerated past 80 mph, it began to fly and accelerate. I have been using 6 degrees of nose up trim to compensate for the additional weight of the turbo system. The aircraft lifted off normally and was still accelerating. All the while my right hand was on the throttle and only the throttle. The aircraft began to climb maybe 15 or 20 ft and then it began, for no apparent reason, to sink. I quickly looked at the asi and noted that I was past 95 mph but I was still sinking. At that time I said to mr Z 'I am going to abort this takeoff.' I had already made the determination that I had more than enough runway left to reland the aircraft, probably 6000 ft. All the while I was still manipulating only the throttle. At that moment mr Z had jumped forward in the cockpit. I had no idea of what he was doing and then I heard this awful noise. I am absolutely confident that no time did my right hand ever leave the throttle. My primeconcern was to control the aircraft. I think it became apparent that mr Z had retracted the landing gear and not extended it as he stated. He may full well believe this. He should not have touched anything!! He was not the PIC!!! He was there only to check the performance of the engine. This action, however well intended, caused this balked takeoff to become a gear up incident. In all of my training, much of my knowledge and habits have been gleaned from friends and mentors who are airline pilots and other high-time pilots. The rule for use in a bonanza is 'no hand to the right of the yoke until a positive rate of climb and no runway left on takeoff or until at a full stop and off the runway upon landing' and that is the rule that I use. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that this report was advised by his attorney. He is however not one to sue and has allowed the insurance company to handle the incident. He has had long conversations with the FAA colorado and there seems to be no action at this time. Aircraft has been repaired and reporter will pick it up in a few days.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA ON TEST FLT, ABORTING TKOF, LANDS GEAR UP.

Narrative: JUST 1 YR AGO FBO INSTALLED A FACTORY REMANUFACTURED ENG (IO550), SPDBRAKES AND A TURBO-NORMALIZED SYS. WHEN I WAS ACCEPTING DELIVERY OF THE COMPLETED ACFT, I WORKED FOR SEVERAL HRS WITH MR X, CHIEF PLT. I IMMEDIATELY HAD CONCERN AS TO THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF THE ACFT BECAUSE, WHEN HE PICKED ME UP AT ALB, I NOTICED THAT THE TKOF ROLL WAS MUCH LONGER, THE INITIAL CLB WAS VERY LETHARGIC AND THE RATE OF CLB WAS ABOUT 300 FPM. I HAD BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO 700-1200 FPM. IT SEEMED TO ME THAT WITH AN IO550 AND A TURBOCHARGER THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT LEAST AS GOOD AS WHAT I ONCE HAD. ON THE SELL SIDE, FBO QUOTES MUCH HIGHER CLB RATES. BUT I THOUGHT I WOULD WAIT AND SEE. IN THE TRAINING SESSION, WE TOOK OFF AND CLBED UP TO 21000 FT AND THE ACFT STILL WAS VERY SLUGGISH. IT NEVER, NOR HAS IT EVER, EXHIBITED THE CRISP PERFORMANCE TO WHICH I HAD BECOME ACCUSTOMED. A TYPICAL RESULT OF PERFORMANCE WAS 47 MINS TIME TO CLB TO 17500 FT AT 25 INCHES OF MERCURY AND 2500 RPM, A PWR SETTING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY FBO. AFTER USING THE ACFT FOR A SHORT WHILE, I STARTED A TELEPHONE CAMPAIGN, NOT TO HARASS, BUT TO INFORM AND BE INFORMED. OVER THE PHONE, MR X SUGGESTED DIFFERENT FUEL FLOWS AND PWR SETTINGS FOR TKOF AND CLBOUT, THESE HELPED SOME (28.6 INCHES OF MERCURY AND 2600 RPM FOR EXAMPLE). I THOUGHT THAT THESE PWR SETTINGS WERE A LITTLE EXCESSIVE, BUT THEY ASSURED ME THAT THESE ARE IN THE PERFORMANCE RANGE OF THIS ENG. I WAS STILL NOT SATISFIED BECAUSE THE TKOF ROLL HAD NOT IMPROVED, 3000 FT RWYS BECAME VERY MARGINAL. NEVERTHELESS, I KEPT IN DIALOGUE WITH FBO RPTING TO THEM WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WHAT I HAD LEARNED. I EVEN SPOKE TO ANOTHER OWNER WHO HAD BEEN EXPERIENCING THE SAME PROB. THEN THEY GOT BACK TO ME AND SAID THAT THERE WAS A WT AND BAL PROB AND THAT THE SYS WEIGHS 67 LBS, NOT 34 LBS, THEREBY MAKING THE ACFT A LITTLE MORE NOSE HVY. I WAS STILL NOT SECURE, I KEPT ON TALKING WITH THEM. SUBSEQUENTLY TO THIS THEY HAD AN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER, MR Y, CONTACT ME AFTER WHICH HE FLEWIN AND SPENT SEVERAL HRS WITH ME AND MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE ACFT WAS NOT MAKING FULL PWR AND THE RPM WAS A LITTLE LOW. HE ALSO STATED THE PROP SHOULD BE REPITCHED FOR THE TURBOCHARGED ENG. I HAD MY MECH GO OVER THE GOVERNOR AND RESET IT FOR THE RECOMMENDED RPM. MR Y ALSO GAVE ME DIFFERENT FUEL FLOWS AND PWR SETTINGS TO USE. THEY SEEMED TO HELP. WHILE THAT WAS GOING ON, FBO RECOMMENDED THAT I BRING THE ACFT BACK TO THEM FOR INSPECTION AND TO REPITCH THE PROP. I FLEW IN ON MONDAY AFTER WEATHERING THE NIGHT IN PUEBLO. THEY DID THE CHKING OF THE SYS AND REPITCHED THE PROP. I PREFLTED THE ACFT AND THEN THEIR MECH, MR Z, AND MYSELF BOARDED. THE WIND AT THAT TIME WAS CALM AND THE TEMP WAS 65 DEGS. I STARTED THE ENG, DID A RUN-UP, CHKED EVERYTHING AND TAXIED TO RWY 1 FOR TKOF. I HAD AT MY ESTIMATION OVER 8000 FT OF RWY AHEAD OF ME. I THEN ADVANCED THE THROTTLE TO 25 INCHES OF MERCURY, RESET THE MIXTURE FOR TKOF WHILE HOLDING THE BRAKES. I THEN LET THE ACFT BEGIN TO ACCELERATE AND THEN I ADDED FULL PWR. THE ACFT ACCELERATED AND I WAS CAREFUL TO STAY ON THE CTRLINE OF THE RWY. AS THE ACFT ACCELERATED PAST 80 MPH, IT BEGAN TO FLY AND ACCELERATE. I HAVE BEEN USING 6 DEGS OF NOSE UP TRIM TO COMPENSATE FOR THE ADDITIONAL WT OF THE TURBO SYS. THE ACFT LIFTED OFF NORMALLY AND WAS STILL ACCELERATING. ALL THE WHILE MY R HAND WAS ON THE THROTTLE AND ONLY THE THROTTLE. THE ACFT BEGAN TO CLB MAYBE 15 OR 20 FT AND THEN IT BEGAN, FOR NO APPARENT REASON, TO SINK. I QUICKLY LOOKED AT THE ASI AND NOTED THAT I WAS PAST 95 MPH BUT I WAS STILL SINKING. AT THAT TIME I SAID TO MR Z 'I AM GOING TO ABORT THIS TKOF.' I HAD ALREADY MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT I HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH RWY LEFT TO RELAND THE ACFT, PROBABLY 6000 FT. ALL THE WHILE I WAS STILL MANIPULATING ONLY THE THROTTLE. AT THAT MOMENT MR Z HAD JUMPED FORWARD IN THE COCKPIT. I HAD NO IDEA OF WHAT HE WAS DOING AND THEN I HEARD THIS AWFUL NOISE. I AM ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT THAT NO TIME DID MY R HAND EVER LEAVE THE THROTTLE. MY PRIMECONCERN WAS TO CTL THE ACFT. I THINK IT BECAME APPARENT THAT MR Z HAD RETRACTED THE LNDG GEAR AND NOT EXTENDED IT AS HE STATED. HE MAY FULL WELL BELIEVE THIS. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE TOUCHED ANYTHING!! HE WAS NOT THE PIC!!! HE WAS THERE ONLY TO CHK THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ENG. THIS ACTION, HOWEVER WELL INTENDED, CAUSED THIS BALKED TKOF TO BECOME A GEAR UP INCIDENT. IN ALL OF MY TRAINING, MUCH OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND HABITS HAVE BEEN GLEANED FROM FRIENDS AND MENTORS WHO ARE AIRLINE PLTS AND OTHER HIGH-TIME PLTS. THE RULE FOR USE IN A BONANZA IS 'NO HAND TO THE R OF THE YOKE UNTIL A POSITIVE RATE OF CLB AND NO RWY LEFT ON TKOF OR UNTIL AT A FULL STOP AND OFF THE RWY UPON LNDG' AND THAT IS THE RULE THAT I USE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT THIS RPT WAS ADVISED BY HIS ATTORNEY. HE IS HOWEVER NOT ONE TO SUE AND HAS ALLOWED THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO HANDLE THE INCIDENT. HE HAS HAD LONG CONVERSATIONS WITH THE FAA COLORADO AND THERE SEEMS TO BE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME. ACFT HAS BEEN REPAIRED AND RPTR WILL PICK IT UP IN A FEW DAYS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.