Leaderboard

I have about 400 hr in a C and it was modified. Had everything a j had but the big emp, longer tail cone electric gear and fuel injection, and really thought about trading for a J at one point. Seemed like the longer I kept it the less advantage I saw of trading for a E, J, or even a K. I went on a trip to KHSE following a K and I made the round trip with no fuel stops. When we arrived at Hatteras I was entering the pattern when 234JP was taxiing to tie down. I was 164kt gs on eastbound run and less than 5 minutes between the 231 and me. On the way home he bought fuel I did not and I beat him to the hangar. So I just really found it hard to part with my antique C model Mooney. I finally broke down and moved up but I went to the big TCM and to tell you the truth unless it's in hard IFR it not really anymore fun to fly than 880, and I won't be visiting any short unimproved strips with the long body. So I guess it's all in what you want. I see nothing wrong with upgrading but be sure it's a step up and not sideways.

The annual inspection itself usually is not that much. The new interior, avionics, and other "while we are at it"s are whole different story.

I have about 10 hours in a C. IMO there is significant difference in climb performance and realistic cruising altitude, compared to the E (never flown an E, I have a J). My earlier "caution to the wind" advice aside, I'd go with the Powerflow exhaust over the new engine purchase. Its the best advice on this thread. Chances are, you could be nearing some exhaust work, making it a better value. You would be adding a mod to your C that could net you returns when you sell. Major OH is a great time to do it and may save you a few dollars. If indeed, the performance between the C and E is more negligible, the Powerflow would close a big chunk of the gap. A fresh OH and a Powerflow together? You would notice it the second you turn the key.

If you want a figure for an extensive annual ask what is the cost to fix all the items found on a pre-buy inspection performed on a typical Mooney if done by a careful MSC. I suspect that figure is a whole lot more than $1500. Its probably ten times higher.

I can respect a thoughtfully made decision, and it seems you are thoughtful about this one. But I don't understand it in your particular situation. Going from two planes to zero, just for expenses? Maybe you don't need to own a fire-breathing time machine like the Acclaim anymore, which I'm sure carries a hefty maintenance and insurance bill. But there's a lot of "middle ground" between feeding a TN and a RV8 and not feeding any planes at all. I can tell from your prior posts you love to fly. Why not pick up a cheaper Mooney (C, E, or F)? Or just keep the RV8? I bet that would cut your monthly costs by 2/3, or even more considering opportunity cost of capital or interest on a loan for the TN, and you can still leave the earth behind whenever you want. I understand hanging up the keys for medical issues, or if you've already got a "cheap" plane (hah) and just can't pay for it anymore. But if that's not you, why give it up completely? You may look back on that decision someday with regret, when the medical issues do finally come and you no longer have the option. Just food for thought. I've thought about giving it up, and decided it's a part of my life I don't want to let go.

I'm going to have to agree with Hank since his argument works in my favor.

Yeah.. I really wanted to see the plane and visit with you fellows....yes, in that order. JP

I'm not really worried about it once I'm flying unless I run or of room or weight capacity. Usually run out of room before weight.

We agree re; performance differences. The C's sweet spot is 6500. wasn't comparing a J to a C. I think the Powerflow would really help a C.

I will disagree with John on this one. The difference in climb is noticeable, in the neighborhood of 10%. The J is a more luxurious albeit fatter airplane which may account for the similar climb rates . An E model verses a C model with all other things being equal is noticeably better in climb and T/O performance. I also believe that an IO will make a higher percentage of power at a altitude due to intake and C/R. Per the POH @ 10,000ft, the injected engine at max available will make 77% of 200 while the carbed is good for 72% of 180. In an apples to apples 100 ROP comparison of POHs, both engines will make 130HP (72% for the carbed vs 64.5% for the injected) at 10,000ft, but the carbed engine will burn a gallon more an hour (10.6gph vs 9.6gph) to do it. The same FF in the injected engine will give you ~146hp or 16 more HP. It may not seem like much, but in the thin air, it is very noticeable...at 10,000ft it boils down to 130hp vs 154hp. Certainly enough to consider! The IO makes ~11% more HP at sea level but the gap opens to ~13.5% at 10K. So the angle valve will make the same power on significantly less fuel. It will make significantly more power on the same fuel and it will also make both more total power and a higher percentage of its sea level power for a given attitude. It is a superior design for operating at altitude efficiently... http://www.deltaaviationllc.com/Nav%20Page/POH/M20F%201968%20Executive%2021.pdf http://www.deltaaviationllc.com/Nav%20Page/POH/M20C%201966%20Mark%2021.pdf

For a minute there I thought the story was from an unreliable source.

That's what happens when you disappear for so long. Welcome back!

The RV crowd likes to convert carbed parallel valve O360s to IO's so that they can run LOP. It does not have any affect on power, still a 180hp engine. The benefit to the angle valve IO360 is the tuned induction and the higher C/R (8.7:1 vs 8.5:1). Most of that extra 20 ponies comes from the C/R bump. It is a more efficient engine in a number of ways, intake and injection allows LOP efficiency ratios, Higher C/R pistons make it more thermally efficient. In theory, for a given HP the angle valve will do the same on less gas. The downside to the angle valve is that it is heavier by about 40lbs IIRC...

Swingen, You bring up a good point. The plug gasket probes do read higher all things being equal. Still, #3 is typically the hottest cylinder on the E and F models. So the first step for the OP to make is to ensure he's comparing apple to apples.

I was flying a Mooney 250 hours a year in the 70s & 80s. I think I remember that I could fly for what an airline ticket costs, even alone. Of course 100/130 was under $2.

You might not want to do that

MT prop is good for ~ 12 pounds IIRC vs. a 2-blade McCaulley. Much more vs. a 3-blade! Aspen vs. conventional HSI as N4352H mentioned is another good one. If you need an interior refresh, consider Ultraleather or even fabric vs. real leather. Skip covering the side panels and paint them instead. Skip the headrests. Don't put in thicker side windows. Lightweight starter and alternator as mentioned. Modern avionics are much lighter than older ones too. If you have electric trim, you might consider removing it if you're really serious! I don't have it and do fine without it, even though it is a bit of a nuisance. Other things you could remove include the fixed step, rotating beacon if you have one, any old avionics like an ADF, DME, Loran, etc. If you've had an avionics upgrade, you might check to see if all of the old/obsolete wiring was removed... I helped a friend pull about 6-7 pounds of wires and coax out of his E model when we changed his side windows. And finally, reducing body weight is probably the most helpful, healthy, and least expensive! My weight has crept up over the last 18 months and I'm currently trying to nudge it back down in advance of my wedding in 4.5 weeks...

I use 2 gallons for the first start/warm-up/taxi/run-up of the day, and then 1 gallon for subsequent legs. Rarely happens, but if it's more than one leg in the day, but seperated by several hours, then can consider 2 gallons for the subseqnt run up, but if 1 gallon is making the difference between a 'go' and 'no go' then it's time to get more fuel anyway.

Adjust your altimeter to 0 feet( no matter what your current elevation is). Next read your barometric pressure in the kollsman window. This is what your M.P. gauge should indicate without the engine running.

When headed downwind with a good breeze pushing me along, I often take a picture of the panel featuring the high ground speed. Heading into the wind, I never shoot an image.

A properly rigged and balanced aircraft should fly straight without the PC controlling the aircraft. Before I even thought about bending anything, I would take that aircraft to Don Maxwell at KGGG and get it checked out by someone that knows what they are doing and has the proper tools. Don't screw up your aircraft trying things that may be masking another problem. FWIW...

Quote: allsmiles ...I include myself in that group of ignorant pilots...

FWIW I tried this on my engine and it helped, perhaps 20 degrees.