DS1980

Model year 1968 was when the step became fixed.

I like these threads that go on and on for 5 pages, and the answer is one sentence in the POH. Just remember folks, there is more than one way to correctly fly an airplane in every phase of flight. If there wasn't, the second we made a minor mistake we would fall out of the sky in a blazing fireball. Stay within the Operating Limitations, personal limitations and comfort zone and we will all live to see our deathbed. Well, that was a depressing last sentence.

Will the factory be able to repair damaged airplanes?

These are the numbers that drove them out of business. They didn't go TU because the airplanes are garbage, they went TU because they were too expensive and only offered 2 airframes. Like I said, just hope they keep flexible.

I hope the business model remains flexible. The Ovation and Type S are great, but they aren't the best Mooneys ever made, and are the airframes that priced Mooney out of existence. Why not bring the J or 231 back? These have the same interior room and speed as the competition, but are more efficient. Either way, awesome job on, first, bringing back a brand, and having the correct priorities.

The manual says no and the experts say yes. A good thing to keep in mind is that engine manufactures know how to produce a good engine from a mechanical standpoint. They never really learned how to run them. A good example of this is Lycoming, who states to run their engines at 50 degrees ROP. They could try to be more incorrect, but they would not succeed. Oh, and congrats on a wise purchase. Well, not wise from a money point of view........you know what I mean.

Of course. LOP is how we should have been running engines from the beginning. If you're able to run LOP, along with a healthy blend of flying and Camguard, you'll sail through TBO.

Results will vary dramatically between pilots. Some will claim they can get most carb engines to run LOP while others say they have about a 30% sucess rate. I believe most carb engine has that sweet spot, but it's not a very wide spread so finding it can be diffucult. Plus, it can change depending on density and temperature so it won't be as consistant as an injected engine with balanced injectors. But the answer is yes, a carb engine can run LOP smoothly.

Don't know. The POH will be in Chinese.

Most (all?) of the charts I've seen are for Continentals. Not sure if they're specific to the big bores. But I believe the physics is the same for all Jurassic engines. It would be nice to know where the red line is.

Not if you do it on an iPad on a wireless network using Google Glasses.

Hi Shad, But doesn't the power curve for LOP just look "too pretty"? It seems that the math has been done for ROP operations because that's where the engine manufactures tested their engines. It isn't a nice neat line rather it has dips and bumps as if those were actual tested numbers. Then after peak EGT, it falls off at a nice neat proportional line, and other graphs are like this too. What if the power curve drops off at a much steeper rate and "it's about the best we can get" because it IS the best? Or closer to best economy than originally thought. Just a theory. I would like to see someone with electronic ignition give this some real testing. I think there lies the truth. You're exactly right with the fixed timing, and I really haven't thought about it from a PPP standpoint, just a fuel flow and CHT standpoint. That earlier spark from the electronic ignition just might be what is missing to get the whole picture. And to think there's still pilots arguing over high wing vs low wing.

The "standard" best economy setting at the moment is thought to be around 75 LOP. After reading some posts on here, it seems their results have shown between 20-25 LOP yields best economy. While LOP isn't new, there hasn't been an all-out comprehensive test of actual figures by engine manufacturers. Rather it's just real pilots operating in real environments that have done the testing for their own accord. I've been out of flying for a while, but am eager to start back up to do some testing of my own. I expect to have the same results. It is entirely possible that the power curve on the lean side of peak is much steeper than what we are lead to believe, and 80 LOP may be getting to the point where it is too lean to burn. If stoichiometric (peak EGT) is somewhere around 14.7/1, then I could see how 80-90 LOP would be getting too lean to burn, which is 18/1.

Aaron, Does your engine have the enrichment circuit?

We are trying to validate something that doesn't exist. IF shock cooling existed, it would exist in a cold rain and when we pull power and greatly increase airflow. It doesn't, which is why nobody can agree under what circumstances it will happen. There's just too much heat and pressure in the engine, even under idle, to cool an engine quickly enough to cause concern. A more revevant topic is the sloppy airmanship that this accompanies.

I live in Centennial and have heard nothing but good things about Arapahoe Aero. Never used them but they seem to know a way around a Mooney better than most non MSCs. With that being said, go to Don Maxwell. Located at KGGG. Make it a condition of the prebuy. If the seller says no, walk.

Jim, In the meantime, a trick I learned was to simply unscrew the oil filler cap right after shutdown and lean it to one side. It's surprising how much smoke and moisture rise out. Oh yea, gotta stay on topic. TBO is a # that is the result of many hours of study and..........................oh I got laughing too hard to finish.

You my friend, need to be the first to comment on every post. Whats your thought on LOP operations. I'm kidding! Please don't respond to that.

Yea, I was trying to have a hint of sarcasm. Should have just stayed out of it. I'll drop the cold front argument, I was being silly. But the rain argument is valid. Inducing a liquid into an accelerated stream of air is exactly how A/C units work (and how carb ice is formed). This is exactly what comes into the air inlet when flying in the rain. If shock cooling existed, there would be a lot of airplanes falling out of the sky in Washington. (The state of Washington, not the one that is taking a vacation at the moment because they dont know how to balance a check book. 800,000 non essential employees............)

Martin, If shock cooling existed, then we couldn't fly in the rain. Or cruise into a cold front. Those that mention shock heating are dead on. Think about the immediate heat and pressure that occurs inside an engine when it is first started. This is much more dramatic than pulling the throttle to descend, which is the most popular scenario for this argument. Do not take Lycoming as the final answer to the operation of your engine. They know how to mechanically make a great running, reliable engine. They have no idea how to run them. When does aluminum alloy loose it's strength? At high temps.

Need a "Don't forget because it would cost too much money" category. If I ever land gear up I will stop flying. That is a major thing to forget, and it would make me wonder what else am I missing.

How many degrees ROP and LOP were the target and LOP airplanes? My thinking is that the fuel flow is only close if one is running JUST rich enough and the other is running JUST lean enough.

Wow. I've never read or even heard about this level of complacency. But I guess you live if you have others doing your dirty work. Just seems it wouldn't be your own flesh and blood. Thanks for the heads-up Bob.

Who is this guy?

I was looking in the downloads section of this website. A member named Cruiser has a chart showing altitude vs. speed for the models except for the short bodies.