Seanhoya

Bill - the problem is that the distance is about 680 NM - which is right outside of my comfort level. I cruise at around 134 kts at 22" and 2400 RPM. 500-550 NM is fine (Which would take about 3.5-4 hours), but 680 NM is a bit out of my comfort zone over water with few diverts. -a- - I have thought about a fuel flow indicator - any recommendations? Mooneyjet Dude - How would the Monroy extended range tanks improve my performance? The reason that I haven't gotten extended range tanks is that I still have wet wings that are sealed well. I attribute my success to the fact that I always shut down with full fuel. But taking off with full fuel reduces my already low climb rate with a normally aspirated O-360 - this is why the G model wasn't so popular. So if I get extended range tanks, I am going to have to keep them full, which is more weight that I really don't need on a regular basis. N201MKTurbo Guy - You the man. But I don't have fuel injection or a turbo... If I fly at altitude with WOT, I can lean until engine roughness - this probably will be at peak EGT, but at low power levels, it won't matter (If I am at 8000', I probably am only producing about 21" MP). But a carburetor is just not as precise as fuel injection, and especially not as good as Gami injectors. It is my sense that most people don't stretch fuel by flying at reduced power - but this was the norm when the airplane was originally produced - wasn't it? We now have the luxury of fuel flow indicators and engine monitors to ensure peak performance. But then again, I think that we are losing far fewer aircraft.... Thanks for your input. Sean

Sorry, WOT? Does that have to do with power setting? And yes - I plan to do some tests (over land in a known area!)

Ladies and Gents, Has anyone ever tried to follow the endurance tables in the back of the POH with a normally aspirated Mooney? I am just wondering if the aircraft really can remain aloft for eight hours on reduced power. I am interested in flying from Miami to Port-au-Prince nonstop, but would have to follow the endurance charts to do so (about 680 nm). I normally fly at 22" MP and 2400 RPM, but I thought there might be some people out there who have stretched their range by using the tables and flying at 18" MP and 2400 RPM, or some other economy setting. I have only 52 gallons of gas and fly with a normally aspirated O-360 in my 1968 Mooney M20G. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Sean

David - Is your checklist a Mooney product? According the the FARs, we are required to follow the POH - not aftermarket checklists, unless we make a conscious decision to deviate, and then must be prepared to justify it. Unfortunately, my POH (from 1968) is really lacking - the only emergency procedure that it lists is emergency gear extension - which is a moot point in my 1968 M20G with manually retractable gear. But as a matter of good practice, I am loathe to deviate from my POH. Frankly, I don't remember whether my POH says to use carb heat (It's not in front of me - my sense is that it does), but I always do. As a CFI, I am required to teach its proper use, and don't ignore my own training as a matter of habit. As a matter of technique, I apply carb heat during approach, and then push it in on short final (technique only, if conditions allow). Htwjr Easy answer - if the POH says use carb heat - THEN USE IT! If you experience slight engine roughness - ADJUST MIXTURE! If it gets real rough, SEE A MECHANIC! Be careful as a new Mooney owner - your aircraft, its engine, and the weather in your local area should all dictate whether you use carb heat, to include your POH. Just because a bunch of other Mooney pilots don't use carb heat means nothing when it comes to you and your airplane - their conditions will necessarily be different from yours. I have had carb icing in clear air at full power (In California in the Winter). I fly a normally aspirated Mooney with O-360, but I fly all over the US and abroad - such varying conditions greatly affect the performance of the aircraft, and render "rules of thumb" less universal. And any deviation from the POH needs to be justifiable - a little engine roughness, in my opinion, is not sufficient reason to justify deviating from the POH - I just tell everyone in the aircraft that the engine is going to get rough for the next thirty seconds, and not to worry. If it is too rough, see a mechanic - it sounds like your mixture might be too rich. And keep following your training and POH - it will keep you alive.

Really, this should be a question about stall speeds, not flaps or no-flaps. In general, I prefer not to climb at 80 MPH if I don't have to - it's not good from a cooling perspective for my M20G. But in the runway environment, when angle of climb is important, I choose to climb at 80 MPH with flaps because flaps decrease stall speed, thus giving me an added margin of safety if I need to maneuver, which is also a real possibility in the runway environment. 80 MPH without flaps feels mushy, and the stall speed is higher - meaning that you are closer to a stall. 80 MPH with flaps is more solid and the stall speed is lower - meaning that you have an added margin of safety. Which regime do you want to hang-out in when close to the ground? Just a thought...loose the cannons! BTW - Yes, in pure aerodynamic terms, flaps may lower angle of climb, but as a second-order effect, they allow one to climb at a lower airspeed - this INCREASES angle of climb, for a net increase in angle of climb, but decrease in rate of climb. From what I understand, also, the type of flaps greatly influences the net results in terms of rate and angle of climb.

I agree with N9201A above - think about it before taking the runway....

José, How do you manage that? Do you have extended range fuel tanks (Beyond 52 Gallons?) Are you running lean of peak? Do you have an engine analyser? Most people don't like to sit in a small plane more than three hours. Relief bags, like you said, are a must. I fly in Haiti, and afternoon flying gets sporting with the thermals - what time do you make your overwater portions of flight? If you stop, do you stop at Grand Inagua? I am thinking about taking my Mooney down sometime - I fly Cessnas here, but I asume that I would stop for fuel in Grand Inagua.... Sean

Gents - I am no aerospace engineer, but my understanding was that flaps increase the angle of climb, but don't necessarily increase the rate of climb. In fact, they increase drag, thereby decreasing performance. Am I off-base with this comment? My perspective is that if you leave the flaps extended longer, you will be higher, closer to the field, should you have a problem. On a cold day in Monterey, I am 1000' AGL by the end of the runway. On a hot day, it might only by 500-600' AGL. Leaving flaps extended longer improves one's chances to make the fabled 180 degree turn and plant it on the runway (in the vicinity of the runway). Or not? To me, with only one engine, altitude is life. That is why at home, I leave flaps extended until 800' MSL - because I think I can make the turn back to the field at this point. But my M20G isn't exactly a rocket in the climb - I think it is just slightly underpowered, which is why the F model was and is more popular....

David, Sorry - it's a Mooney Service Bulletin I complied with once when I replaced the insulation in my aircraft. Mooney SB M20-208B - Inspection of tubular structure. You can find it at http://www.mooney.com/servicepdf/index.php. Sean

Gents, So, are you saying that installing LED lights doesn't require an STC or 337? I have been holding off until one of the companies takes the time to get their led landing-light/wingtip lighting/strobe STC'd for a Mooney. Just wondering how you deal with the STC/337 issue, and what lights are consired best for an old Mooney. Given the drain of a landing light on the electrical system, I was thinking that going to LEDs would be beneficial for all electronics. Just a thought.... Sean

Uniballer, Take a look at this report: http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20G%20Evaluation/M20G_Eval.htm I fly a 1968 M20G. Look - I love my plane. My friend calls it "The Green Hornet." I have done a good amount of work on it, including installing a GNS 430W, a new audio panel, compatible CDI, cowl modification, etc. It is about as capable of a machine as it can be now without some serious money. I burn 9.5 gallons an hour and cruise at 136 knots. Originally, I looked for a normally aspirated engine because I thought I would save money over a fuel-injected model. Now, however, I kind of regreat not getting a M20F - I would have been able to install Gami injectors and operate lean of peak. Instead, I have a carbuerator and CHT problems that I am still dealing with. Also, finding a mechanic comfortable with carbuerators is becoming a bit more difficult. Mooneys are awesome, efficient airplanes. For me, airframe is really important - make sure that the mechanic checks extensively for rust. You might pay the money to have him pull the wing-bolts and check within the wings - this is an AD from a few years ago. Also, beware of guys who have "friends" who are A & Ps doing their maintenance - this can be a recipe for disaster, because it can be an indication that they are gun-decking the maintenance. Look for only professional maintenance. Look under the belly for signs of a gear-up - this is remarkably common. Any dent should have a history. Look for tight wiring and whether the engine actually looks maintained. Realize that upgrades are expensive - buy the plane you want now - don't necessarily expect that you will be able to improve an aircraft within your budget. Plan to spend $10,000 on the first annual after a purchase, and twice as much as you think you are going to spend thereafter. Finally, check the autopilot - aftermarket autopilot work is really a pain. Mooneys of this era came with Positive Control (PC) - a sort of old-school wing-leveler. If the PC has been disconected, in my book, it has to have a functional autopilot to be considered airworthy (I know! There will be somoe differing opinions on this one....). Check all instruments thoroughly. Do an approach on each CDI. Do a NDB approach if there is a ADF. Do not accept "Good Enough." Turn on the speaker. Check the ELT. Turn every knob, turn on every light. Fly the airplane with a CFI who actually knows Mooneys. Fly the plane home in day VMC. Do not fly IFR until you have checked out each instrument in CAVU weather. Sean

Fly Tester, I fly in the Monterey area - a bit South of you - and also experienced engine roughness at 75% power (below the freezing level, but in clear air at 8000' MSL). I added full carb heat, and it went away. I fly a normally aspirated 1968 Mooney M20G with Lycoming O-360. I attributed the engine roughness to carb icing, as well. Every time I have brought this up with others, they were confused - "You can't get carb icing at full power." I appreciate your comments - my experience and the experience of a friend who lost his engine due to carb icing coming into San Francisco prompted me to add an after-market Whelen Carb Temp sensor to my panel. Don't know how much it helps, but at least I have an idea now when I am in potential carb-icing conditions. Andrew - You the man! Like you, I pride myself on some successes, but I have also scared the heck out of myself a number of times - while this may keep me a bit conservative, it also keeps me alive! For me, it is important always to strive to expand your box as a pilot, while keeping one foot firmly planted within it. Clear skies! Sean

I accidentally left mine in when I got the plane painted. Looks like they are never coming out now! I tie-down the aircraft all the time, so I just leave them in anyhow - didn't even realize that somewhere it says to take them out.... Is this in the POH? Of simply on a website?

Any idea which AC talks about using non-TSO'd parts in aging aircraft? I'd love to read that!

Gents, All great advice. A couple of years ago, I planned to fly from San Luis Obispo, Ca, back to Monterey overland at night, and then maybe take a vector or two out over the bay and land to the East. Instead, control vectored me for a let-down over the mountains and then overwater on a pitch-black night. Now, I am an navy helicopter pilot, so I thought this would be nothing new, but in a gen-av aircraft without all of the extremely reliable and redundant gear we have in the helicopter, and no co-pilot, it was. I scared the heck out of myself. I had to keep telling myself aloud, "Get your nose down, continue descent, start turn, stop turn." When I finally started the approach at 2500' on final, I was high, and entered the goo at 2000.' Strangely, the glow of the instrument panel had a calming effect - absolute IMC was easier to deal with than the distant lights overwater. As I approached 200' AGL on the approach, I had the realization that I might not break-out. I mentally prepared for the go-around, and then the rabbit-lights came into view a little to the right. I literally kissed the ground when I landed, and vowed not to do that again. The hardest part about being an instrument rated pilot is knowing what conditions are acceptable to fly in, and what are not. Nothing takes the place of experience, but paradoxically, you must fly in instrument conditions to gain that experience. A few recommendations: 1. Start with daytime IFR flights. Look for high ceilings and morning-only flights. Do not fly if there is a chance of convective weather - this means no afternoon flying in most regions. 2. Start with nightime IFR flights in VMC only. 3. Nightime over mountainous terrain may be okay if it is VMC. Nightime IMC over mountainous terrain is a no-go. 4. No nightime overwater unless absolutely necessary (on an approach). Be aware that some consider this the most challenging IFR flying - hands down. 5. Do not fly IFR if your flight will take you into clouds where the temperature is below the freezing level. This takes an enormous amount of skill and experience to do, and still, you will be playing with fire. It is hard to know what is going on within a cloud without being in the cloud. Beware of forecasts. This seriously limits winter IFR flying. This all being said, I do not have a schedule which permits me to be a day early or late on a trip. But flying gen-av, you almost have to count on it to remove the " get-there-itis." I love flying, but I won't do it for work for this reason. Many do successfully, and have offered some great advice above. Sean

Pinerunner, Everyone has their own method and numbers that they remember. My only advice to you is to maintain positive control of the aircraft. The go-around can be one of the more disorienting evolutions of flight, and especially so if in the goo. I use a pneumonic to remember what to do: Power - Apply full power, mixture full rich (depending on DA), carb heat off Attitude - Establish a climb attitude. Somewhat ironically, this probably will mean holding and trimming the nose DOWN while applying full power. Whatever attitude which gives you a climb airspeed above Vx is fine. 80 MPH is a good comprimise between Vx and Vy. I don't have my POH in front of me, but somewhere between 80 and 100 also should work out fine - it depends on how quickly you want to climb. Also keep in mind that all pitch changes can be somewhat disorienting, so avoiding 12 degrees nose up to climb at Vx might be a good idea. This is why some may prefer to climb out at 90-100 mph. Performance - Once a positive, stabilized raight of climb has been observed (I check altimeter, airspeed indicator, and VSI), reconfigure the aircraft. This will mean raising the gear and flaps. Gear will markedly increase your rate of climb. Flaps less so - it is up to you which you do first - I am sure there are lots of opinions out there. I once took off into a windy pitch-black night and flew around for five minutes before realizing the gear was still down - there is nothing catastophic about keeping the gear down for a few more seconds while you stabilize the aircraft. The aircraft will climb with the gear down - if not - you would never be able to take off! Again - maintaining positive control of the aircraft is by far the most important thing - once you establish the climb, then clean up the aircraft. Hope this helps. Sean

Mark, A comment on an earlier recommendation: Mariposa Yosemite (MPI) Yosemite park - car rental available - I did this with my wife, and had a great time. Recognize that you are in a little bit of a valley, so departure to the West is a little-bit of a white-knuckler as you are watching the hills get closer and closer to you. But it is totally doable. Yosemite is a full hour drive, so recommend renting a car and staying in the park. South lake Tahoe (TVL) bicycle or short taxi ride to the lake - Being from Alaska, I am sure that you are experienced with high-altitude ops. This field is nestled in a high valley (bowl), and on the edge of the lake. Plan on using the lake to circle to get enough elevation to get over the pass. Consider calling a local FBO to get recommendations for pattern-entry and landing. Me - I will chose to land to the South, and depart to the North over the water, almost independent of winds. Departing into rising terrain ahead of me always makes me uncomfortable. San Luis Obispo is actually a lovely little town, close to wine country, and has a great airport (KSBP). I am based out of Monterey. Let me know if you need any info about KMRY. V/R, Sean

Mark, KSTS - Charles M Schultz (aka Santa Rosa) is a great option for the wine country. They have a great approach, and a couple of great FBOs to choose from. Flying into San Fran is a bit of a conundrum - I have shot a GPS approach into Santa Carlos (KSQL), and was not impressed with what I was looking at when I landed (tiny strip at the edge of a swamp that I had to really look to find). Also, VFR departure procedures from KSQL rival a SID because of its proximity to KFSO. I have flown a number of times into Half-Moon Bay, which is really lovely (the restaurant is worth the trip), but the winds can be wicked, it is prone to fog, and it is really removed from the city. Oh, and if you shoot an approach into there, you likely will be descending in the goo over mountains - not my #1 choice. Look - I have never flown Gen Av into Oakland or Hayward. I have been to Livermore. What I can say is that Reid Hillview is Gen-Av friendly, and is less than an hour drive from the city. Any way you look at it, you are going to be at least a half-hour, if not a full hour outside the city. I recommend Reid Hillview, then rent a car. V/R, Sean

Jim, Thanks so much for your comments. My problem is that my mechanic thinks that the mixture is good - I actually can see a 25 RPM rise when I shut down the engine with mixture control (I hold 1000 RPM, then pull out the mixture control, and see a rise of 25 RPM - this is supposedly a good indication of proper mixture). But full-rich EGTs generally run around 1380 on climb, and peak EGT is usually around 1480-1500 degrees. I don't have an engine analyser, I just have a four-probe 100-series Aerospace Logic EGT sensor, and a 4-probe 200-series CHT sensor. So I have good info about temperatures, but I can't download it. I don't have a fuel flow sensor, but I think that full-rich fuel flow is more like 12 gallons (anecdotal evidence only - I generally cruise at 22"and 2400 RPM and lean). But even when I cruise at 24"/2400 and don't lean, I don't think I have ever experienced more than about 12 GPH fuel burn. Yes - my plugs do foul if I don't lean. And my plugs also have a bad tendency to go bad - I think I replaced two at my last annual, and two just a few months before that. I have heard that the fine-wire-type plugs are better for Lycomings. I am not familiar with target EGT - what does this mean exactly? V/R, Sean

I just had a realization - I think that my engine is running way too lean. Apparently, Mike Busch recommends that your full-throttle EGT should be 200-250 degrees rich of peak. Mine is somewhere around 100 - I think this may be why I am occasionally seeing above 400 degrees CHT on takeoff. It seems remarkably simple, but I need to try this out. Does anyone know what Lycoming recommends with regard to tuning an engine? Is it similar to Mike Bush's recommendation? I just need something to reference with my mechanic. V/R, Sean

Dave, I am providing this only as a conversation piece - check the Airplane Flying Handbook or equivalent for an official position before flying. Also, I highly recommend to take an instructor pilot who has experience in your make and model and in the mountains, before trying this on your own - I actually take instructors with me all of the time. About a year ago, I took an instructor to Truckee Tahoe, and was a bit dismayed to find out that he knew less than I did about mountain flying. So choose wisely. That being said, I have some experience flying underpowered aircraft out of high airports (Big Bear in a Piper Cherokee, and recently Truckee Tahoe in my M20G). Before we even talk about leaning - let me start with a little low-tech advice. Do not take off after 8 am. Period. Do all of you flying to have landed by 10 am, and do not launch there-after. DO NOT TAKE OFF IN THE AFTERNOON FROM A MOUNTAIN AIRPORT. High DAs are likely, and downdrafts are often more of an issue in the afternoons. If your plane can only climb at 200 FPM, and there is a 400 FPM downdraft, you will be in an uncommanded descent at Vx. Next, make sure that you have only the fuel you need, plus FAA minimums (In my aircraft, I add a little padding to the minimums - one additional hour of fuel - 10 gallons). 20 extra gallons of fuel is 120 unnecessary extra pounds, which will decrease your climb-rate. Finally, get rid of any additional junk in your plane to reduce weight. Call the field, and ask about local patterns and no-wind runways. It is very difficult to really understand what it will look like to launch toward a huge mountain like in Truckee Tahoe. Listen to locals advice on how to operate at the field. Okay - on to the question at hand. Have you ever considered trying to lean while flying in pattern altitude, or at an equivalent altitude of the field elevation while airborne? I lean for peak EGT, and the enrichen between 25 and 50 degrees. Given the low manifold pressures that you are dealing with, you could probably lean simply for peak (which equates to max RPM), but I always enrichen just a smidge for a little protection from detonation. Now remember the position of your mixture control, and use that on the ground. Also, when you lean for peak EGT or max RPM, note your climb rate. That is what you will climb at when you take off from the field, given similar temperature and wind conditions. If nothing else, it is a good reference point. Others have told me to use 2000 RPM, and then lean to peak EGT - this is a method, but I prefer to lean at field elevation while flying to my destination, and then use that position of the mixture control, again, with 25-50 degrees EGT rich. Yet others recommend to lean in the roll to avoid overheating the engine. I don't recommend this technique unless you have some experience with it. Needless to say, you probably will adjust the mixture a bit even after you have taken off to ensure max power. In the end, the whole idea behind leaning is that with the prop full forward, maximum manifold pressure and maximum RPM equate to maximum power. With the prop at 2000 RPM (on the ground), you will adjust mixture until you see a max increase in RPM. In flight, I use peak EGT to equate to max power. If you think you aren't getting maximum power, by all means, adjust the mixture a bit. But I have found that as important as this is simply avoiding bad situations by only operating in the mornings, by only taking the weight that I need, by talking to locals, and by making no-go decisions more often than I care to own-up to. Hope this helps. Sean

Dan, Thanks for the note. The reason that I mentioned that I fly a carbuerated aircraft is that normally-aspirated engines cool differently than fuel-injected engines. Fuel cools a cylinder, and a carbuerated engine is less precise in terms of how much fuel is added. My experience has been that the vast majority of Mooney pilots and mechanics are now working with fuel injected engines, which don't behave precisely the same way as the old O-360s. So we have to be careful when comparing anecdotal evidence, because what works in an F model may not apply to a G model, and vice-versa. My overall point is that there is some evidence that there was a design flaw with the older Mooneys that the folks at Mooney were well aware of - that they run hot. My 1968 POH actually recommends to taxi at full-rich in order to avoid overheating. If I did that, I would never get off the ground due to fouled plugs! In the original configuration with the 6-pack of gagues, the CHT gague is located on the right side of the dash, and consists of a simple analog indicator. It is somewhat difficult to see the gague, and certainly is difficult to determine is an engine is running 20 degrees over 400. Now that many of us are beginning to install modern CHT probes and gagues, we have a level of precision that was never available in the original aircraft. My broader point is that what has changed may not be overheating engines, but rather pilots who are now aware of them! Or not - it could be a problem with my engine. But I suspect not. Appreciate your advice and thoughts. What about putting in tuned exhaust - will that cool an engine? My sense is that as an engine progresses through its 2000 hour TBO, it will begin to run hotter - any thoughts? V/R, Sean

Hey Gary, I replaced the original CHT probe with a TSO/STC'd Aerospace Logic 200 series four-cylinder bayonette probe system. It's kind of funny, because I think my mechanic commented that the probe that he took off my engine was actually a Cessna CHT ring-probe attached to my Mooney gague - one of many issues I have discovered with my engine over the last four years. The gague actually went bad on the original Mooney 6-pack, and rather than search for a used gague, I elected to go with an aftemarket solution. Overall, I have been very happy with Aerospace logic's equipment, although getting the part through customs proved to be a hastle. So after I installed the CHT probe, I noticed the issue with temperature. One thing I haven't done is installed a newer air-filter system. I have the Bracket-style air filter, which once got so clogged when flying in Mexico that I couldn't even turn over the engine. I have toyed with installing one of those automotive-style air filters (another Lasar Mod), which could help with temperature theoretically. But I am somewhat loathe to do anything else, having already tried a number of tricks to lower CHT temperature. BTW - the engine runs at 340-350 degrees straight-and-level. One more thing - you probably know this, but the M20G has a normally aspirated IO-360. So in my mind, when it comes to temperature, its really an issue of fuel, oil, and air. I put in a remanuafactured carbuerator, put in a newly rebuilt oil cooler, and put a mod on the cowling to try to improve air pressure through the engine cowling. None of these changes really helped, though. V/R, Sean

Hey guys - I am new to this forum. I just wanted to chime in that I have experienced nearly the same issue - I put in a four-plug CHT probe, and immediately realized that my #3 cylinder peaks at around 420 on takeoff. With my old CHT sensor, its position never really alowed me to see it well enough to tell if it was above 400 (given the effects of paralax). Of course, lowering my pitch, shortening the time from engine start to takeoff both help. But when you fly out of an airport surrounded by small mountains, and in the goo at that, you have to pitch for Vy regularly. I fly out of Monterey. I replaced my oil cooler - that helped speed oil cooling once I level off. I had my mechanic check baffling - that may have helped with about 10 degrees. I changed my carbuerator - dont know if that helped at all. I put in Lasar's engine-cowl speed mod - that didn't help at all with temperature. Frankly, I think that older Mooneys simply run a bit hot, and when we put in these after-market CHT gagues, we realize that they are running hot! If anyone has any other advice, I would love to hear it. Of course, in the back of my mind, I wonder if my 500-hour engine is going to need an overhaul - I am getting slightly rising iron levels, but I had to let the plane sit for quite a while last year. I can't change my cowl flaps - they are fixed, from what I understand with a 1968 M20G. Someone mentioned moving the oil cooler - that strikes me as drastic. Any recommendations are apprecated - but I am not going to pul back on power, or forgo Vx climbs simpy because I get a hot cylinder temperature - I saw temps once as high as 450 degrees in Truckee Taho, but my option was to plow into the side of rising terrain, so I accepted the hot temp for a few minutes. Regular takeoff temps generally run around 410 or so for one cylinder - usually #3. It's frustrating, but I am not going to limit engine power to fix it. V/R, Sean