Ragsf15e

^^^what he said. 50ROP is the worst place to be. 100 ROP or 20 Lop would both be cooler. Lean of peak is usually much cooler.

Just to add to my list of engine shops, or not, who did you get the cylinder from? Is it overhauled or new? Seems that our angle valve cylinders are tougher to come by and extra expensive. Was the engine shop ok?

Jeez, you’re having a rough trip back from Osh! Is the cylinder issue resolved? Hope your airplane is fixed soon!

I’m in the exact same situation here with an IO-360. Oil use went from 6 hrs/qt to 3.5 over a couple flights (chrome cylinders, so 6/qt was just fine before). No indication from the engine monitor. Egt and cht looks the same as before. Mag checks are good. Exhaust might be a bit oily or it’s just me. Performance seems normal too. I’m about to start down the trail of checking the plugs and borescope to figure out which one it is. 2 newish cylinders, 2 x 900 hours cylinders due to the same exhaust valve issues as the OP. Heres to hoping not to pull another cylinder!

Did you notice any changes in oil consumption or oil analysis?

Sounds like you’re doing just fine learning about your airplane and keeping it safe. My cht is also warmest on #3, #2 is about the same. 1/4 are much cooler. The airflow is really weird in there. So speedwise, I’d say you’re fine. If I was you, I’d check out your baffles/doghouse and make sure it’s sealed really good. You should be able to takeoff & climb full rich, then lean just enough to keep the takeoff egt as you climb at 120mph without pulling power or cooking a cylinder. I applaud you for keeping it 380ish or below, but I would want to fix your cooling airflow so I didn’t have to pull power in the climb. Otherwise, sounds good!

Awesome, you’ve got everything you need to check against others. You can use a simple online calculator for density altitude too since you had your altitude and temp. In my opinion, your in the normal range for a stock airplane. It is interesting that your cylinder was that warm in cruise. Usually the higher airspeed in cruise cools it. What was it in the climb? Lean of peak at a lower altitudes will likely give you cooler cylinders and same speed.

I track mine vs Hobbs time. 10gph. I usually run 100 rich of peak but high altitudes, like 10-11, so fuel flow is about 10.5-11. Ground time brings that down to 10 gallons per hobbs hour, almost exactly. Yours seems pretty dang close.

Good for you! Great excuse to fly! So the guys are right, if you use the 3 way calculation online, that’s even more accurate as it uses a bunch of vector math to take out the winds and leave you with true airspeed. Many people just average the 4 way cardinal direction test and that will be very close. Like within 0.5 knots. Either way will give you a good idea, but mathematically, the 3 way is more precise. So you’re gonna find a lot of people tell you they hit 150+ knots with their E. My F has been as fast as 149 Rich of peak at about 7000’ density altitude and as slow as 134 Lean of peak at 13,500’ density altitude. So conditions and parameters matter a lot. The fuel flow matters a lot - do you have fuel flow and 4 egt indicators so you can lean very accurately? Also, the density altitude you run the test at is going to change your answer dramatically. You’ll find that our non-turbo airplanes do best between about 6000’-9000’ density altitude. At those altitudes you can generally run wide open (full) throttle, rich of peak about 100 degrees if you want speed. Same full throttle setting and 20 lean of peak gets me about 5-7 knots slower but much better economy. So, your 143 knots is probably slower than some Es, but it was real hot, so high density altitude. You’re probably within the normal range with no mods. Just as an aside, weight and cg will also affect your speed. Lighter is faster, aft cg is faster. Those are small factors compared to density altitude and power settings.

Yep, fair enough. I’m guessing if I did it, I’d be more cost conscious than the PO and would have the 900. However, Either I’m use to it there or I like it there. I really like just having my 6 pack in front of me and nothing else. In the G1000 airplane I fly at work, the PFD is directly in front and has all the 6 pack info. Engine instruments are on the mfd to the right. Maybe it’s just me, but it’s what I’m use to. Long winded way of saying that you’re not going to go wrong with a quality engine monitor. Get rid of the oem engine gages. Be happy.

Plenty of real estate for a 930, just depends on how much other stuff you want to keep. Large size is real nice. Data download is useful at times for troubleshooting. Leaning features are real nice. Overall, I’m very satisfied with previous owners purchase! 900 gives about the same info and would definitely be fine as well. Can’t go wrong with either. And yes, there’s not much fuel left in that picture. 12 gallons, burning 8.3/hr, 9 miles from destination. 11 gallons of fuel on one side to use for pattern/landing. I’m relatively comfortable with that. Anyone else not, Id like to know if I’m not being smart. Fuel Remaining estimate from the fuel flow was showing 13. Both are conservative when I top it off - they both show slightly less than actually in the tanks.

Nice, you learned faster than me too! My first time in that scenario I almost burned up my starter. Got mad, climbed out of the airplane with 2 passengers, went inside, did 10 minutes of research on Mooney space, went back out and started it with my newly learned flooded technique. My guiding principle since then has been cold start only if it’s sat overnight. Otherwise hot start first. If it catches on a hot start but you don’t get it started, you can try to prime it like a normal start, but you’re probably gonna end up flooded which is just fine if you have that technique. Always learning and reading on Mooney Space!

Yes, it will start normally on Wednesday. If I was in your original scenario, I would have done my hot start technique which is to leave the mixture in cutoff and not prime it. Just crank. In my opinion, there’s still fuel in the lines and engine from it just running and it will fire. Maybe it’s warm, not hot like Anthony said, but don’t add more fuel. Now, if that didn’t work, then nothing has changed and you could try a little prime. If that doesn’t work, you can still do a flooded start. If I’m ever unsure, even a tiny hesitant, I will try hot start, then normal, then flood it. Always in that order because you can’t go back.

You’re gonna need one of the AP guys here to help you out with specifics, but there are lots of drain tubes in that location, picture might help. There is a drain for both fuel pumps, the intake manifold, and the oil vent line are all in that area.

I agree that the governor should cover some engine issues by keeping rpm constant, but 50 is a tiny change to think you noticed. I have a JPI930 and I’d be hesitant to say I notice a 50 change without looking back at the data. So, I had 2 cylinders with exhaust valves that were just starting to stick/wobble. I’m not saying that’s what you had, but it gave me a faint vibration, I thought I should get my prop balanced. Looking at the data afterward, it was more clear as the egt went up on both (above “peak”) a couple minutes after I leaned as the valve stuck open a little. The real indicator of power issues in cruise is airspeed. Did it slow down when you noticed the perceived problem? With the above valve issue, I immediately noticed about 5-7 knots loss and had to retrim for my autopilot. If you maintain speed, power is still good, probably not something real significant... that being said, I’m not the one who has to fly it over the Rockies. Where in Minnesota... there’s an MSC up there if you’re more confident flying it there?

Thanks! Pictures looking better than the real thing, but they aren’t bad. Not sure though, previous guy did a nice job with interior, autopilot, HSI, new panel, led lights, engine monitor, and interior. I just paid him pennies on the dollar for the effort.

It’s a good thing to try a few times and see for sure because it’s one more tool in your toolbox.

The article posted earlier in the thread spells it out pretty well from a Mooney test pilot. It’s a good read for us all.

I definitely agree with Shadrach on this, just be careful the first few times... you really get a high descent rate and it takes some power to stop it because you don’t have any extra speed to trade. Maybe not trying this too low first time... Also, I fly my final at 80mph and don’t see extra float, although I definitely adjust my timing on when to pull to idle based on weight and winds. Early if I’m light, maintain power heavy. Early with no wind, wait a tick with strong headwind.

Ram ball mount works really well for me, but I have a nice spot for it next to the JPI and the mount is built into the panel. I use a Mini.

1.5” extra clearance is definitely nice if you’re operating off dirt or bumpy grass/old pavement. And lighter than a 2 blade, huh? Nice. Thats one thing to consider, my 3 blade added ~30 lbs? Maybe I need to look that up again, seems high...

Make sure the MT 3 blade is truly smaller diameter if that’s what you’re buying it for... although 3 blade props are smaller in some applications, the Mooney 3 blades I know of are same diameter as the 2 blade props they replaced.

Maybe ask @Cody Stallings what he thinks too since he’s a prop pro. Not sure if there’s a significant cost difference in purchase or overhaul price either?

I have an IO360 with 3 blade McCauley. It’s fine, no vibration, looks good. I have no data to support this, but I think I’d be a couple knots faster on 2 blades. Not sure if I takeoff or climb better with 3 blades but that’s the claim. Get it balanced and try out different cruise settings to see what works. 2500 rpm is nice on mine. If I bought a new prop, I’d get a 2 blade Top Prop and hope for 2 extra knots.

How about cost/difficulty? Was power from the battery difficult to work through the interior?