par

Got it. That is the explanation I needed.

Just to clarify, you are saying that we should shut down the engine completely as we would on the ground before selecting both and attempting a restart with the mixture full in? How would the engine start with the mixture pulled all the way back? This may just be a stupid question but it's a good idea to clarify these things in a 1-g environment on the ground.

This was my thought. The engine runs absolutely perfect and there is nothing obvious that stands out. I'll going to have my IA check if everything is secure and possibly check the timing. If all looks good, I'm not touching anything else.

I have a question for you guys regarding the mag check. It used to be that my left mag would show about a 60-80rpm drop while the right mag usually showed around 90-100. However, I have noticed that they are both showing about a 90-100 rpm drop over the last couple of flights. Is this something I need to be concerned about?

Flew to Bay Bridge (W29) today and what an awesome day it was for the trip. If you guys are on the east coast, this trip is a must. The food was amazing as well at Hemingway's seafood restaurant. Park on the ramp in the north east part of the airport and it's a short walk for food. Below is a picture of the view from our table as we had lunch.

A part of my soul died when I came to the realization that I can't afford a 310...I would truly love to have one to keep for a lifetime. I guess I'll have to wait for the kids to grow up and move out before I can realize this dream. Hell, by then I'll probably be able to afford a sweet Turbo 310R. After reading all the posts here, I think I need to re-evaluate the "need" for 200kts. I think the kids and wife could take advantage of a single with club seating and the speed I lose by doing so will not be noticed due to the comfort factor this arrangement will bring. A Beach 36 or a Saratoga could work well and they are significantly cheaper than any Velocity I am interested in. What thoughts do you all have on these birds?

200kts is the goal but I'd be happy even at 190kts while burning less than 20gph, which Appears to be very feasible in a velocity. What will a 252 do o a good day at 12k'? My favorite twin, if I could afford it, is the Cessna 310. On a good day it may do 190 running ROP at around 30gph, which just doesn't make sense on my budget. On another note, what do you guys think of express aircraft? They seem to promise a lot on paper but you don't see many of them around or for sale.

That would be great.

The cost of acquisition may be similar but the cost of ownership between the two is significantly in favor of the velocity. Also, the Velocity XL-RG is certainly roomier than a 252 with a little more payload to boot. Add to this the ability of using non certified avionics, the velocity is a winner. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the 252 doesn't really com close to 200kts at my sub 12k' planned altitude since the kids won't want anything to do with O2. The velocity is able to hit 200kts at less than 10k'. This isn't too bad for a non-turbo 4 seater.

With an upcoming move to Texas, I am looking to step into a faster plane to accommodate future trips to NY and CA (family visits) because my C just won't cut it. I considered everything from twin's to an M20k but for the cost (especially with twins), the speed factor still isn't there. I need something that can do at least close to 200kts TAS for this adventure to appeal to the wife. At that speed, I'd be looking at around a 7-8hr one way trip with a fuel stop to either coast. I have always been interested in Velocity aircraft and being experimental, the money saving factor/upgrade ease is certainly appealing. On top of that, these are fast airplanes and I would be buying one with a 300hp conti. They are also very roomy and should be able to accommodate my small family for at least 5 more years. Unfortunately, there is no "velocityspace" on the internet and that is why I am here to see if any of you have experience with these aircraft. I am at least 1 year away from purchasing one so there is no rush. I am here to learn so please enlighten me.

Like others, I was in Jacksonville just last week and kept the plane on the ramp at Albert Ellis airport. I'll be back in early may if things don't work out with someone else.

Some light reading on this subject also indicates that the LS3 is limited to 350ish HP for aircraft use. I believe it is rated for over 450 for auto use. I don't think these engines will have any trouble making it to 500 hours. The biggest downfall of these auto conversions seems to be the reduction unit. Without some serious R&D, it's difficult to make a reliable product for this task. I certainly think something could be developed. Let ok at turbo prop gear boxes that can handle and reduce much higher levels of torque and HP.

What do you think about titanium gears? Is there a reason why this doesn't already exist?

At this point, it's just a dream. I haven't through about exactly which model I will go with but I know it will be a lancair. I also agree with you re the engine choice. I have read a lot of negative stuff about car to plane transitions and I def don't want to pick from the two choices you listed. I'm hopeful that we will have a good turbine solution by that point as that would make for the ultimate fast plane.

Don't tempt me with a good time! I've always to build a fast experimental using an LS motor. Of course, it would be one hell of a project to undertake and the results could be less than ideal. I don't know if I would ever build something like this using a piston engine but I may take you up on that offer for a Lancair someday.

So if I understand you correctly, I have to wait a little longer to give up all my money?

I don't know what else to say but to offer every cent I have. You guys decide for yourselves.

I think they should have spent the money for this"study" on their current immigration problems instead. What a waste of time and energy.

Where can we pick up these parts? I would certainly buy a case and crankshaft and put it aside.

The highest temp I've ever seen is around 195 in the summer and that's usually during the climb on the second flight of the day.

I took a picture yesterday at 4500' on a relatively cool day. Keep in mind this picture shows the power pulled back to maintain 75% or less to lean out the engine. I find the ROT to lean once above 3000' without reducing throttle to be highly inaccurate. This is especially true in the winter on a nice cool day.

So, should I replace the solenoid?

I learned a very good piece of information today relating to our starting system. This knowledge came from my friend who went flying with me today. I'm not sure how similar the staring system is across the variety of mooney's but mine is a 63C. We pulled the plane out of the hangar this morning and all was well until I turned The ignition key. Rather than a turning prop, all I got was an odd electrical noise from an unknown source. There was no clicking or anything that I was used to seeing and hearing. The battery was fully charged, engine had been kept warm overnight, and there was no obvious issue. I gave up and just backed the plane into the hangar. Thankfully, my friend is a little more knowledgeable on this issue than me. He also noted that the starter solenoid did not seem to be working as needed. His recommendation was to tap on it since it was easily accessible to shake it loose. So, that's what we did and sure enough, the prop started to turn. All was normal after that. His guess was that the cold night must have just done a number on the solenoid and it simply needed some help to start working again. If it weren't for him, not only would I have missed out on a great day to fly but would also have spent money to have someone look at it for absolutely no reason. So, if anyone ever experiences a similar problem, give this simple and easy solution a try.

Having looked into the 310 as I would like to purchase one at some point, it is a very capable platform even on single engine. Based on the article, there were some kids in the plane so I find it hard to imagine that it so so heavily loaded that it could not manage a lesser rate of descent. Also, being a mile from the airport and still being below blue line speed seems unlikely unless they started experiencing issues right after TO and let the airspeed fall out of their scan. We will wait and see what happened but hopefully we can all learn from this tragedy.

For those who haven't seen or heard about the story, here is a link to what happened yesterday: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/three-killed-in-fiery-california-plane-crash/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab4i Those of you who own or have owned a twin, in curious to know what you guys make of this incident. Watching the grainy video of the plane right before the crash, I can see an extremely high rate of descent but it does not look like a spin. By the accounts of this video, it appears the pilot was flying the plane all the way down but in a neighborhood, options are less than limited. I don't know what could have caused a dual engine failure but if I had to guess, I'd say it's fuel related. Anyways, it was a tough situation for the pilot to say the least. Curious as to what you guys think.