philiplane

23 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Are continental cylinders still crummy even new ones even still now?

Yes, but their nickel bore versions are better. I have a set on one IO-550N and they're at 1200 since new, with compressions like a Lycoming (all upper 70's).

Of course, they are hard to get. 

yes, Continental guides are really that bad. And the rotocoils stop rotating the valves around 600-800 hours. And the bores rust easily. Add that all up, and that's why the cylinders are worn out at half life, where Lycomings will go 2000-2500 hours before an exhaust valve finally gives up due to guide wear. 

Part of the problem is that Continental guides don't get cooled as well as Lycomings. Remember how Continental fans rave about the cam being on the bottom, so it's always oiled? Well, the downside of that, is that the pushrods are also on the bottom, so the oil that comes through them, doesn't splash upward onto the valve springs and guides. You need anti-gravity oil to fix that...oh, wait, then the oil pump pick up would starve...never mind.

In Mexico, local airport handlers keep your plane from getting "damaged accidentally", keep the Policia from finding contraband in your plane or on your person, and keep you from being a target of the locals. Fuel theft, robbery, and worse are more common than ever, everywhere in Mexico now. My last trip south of Monterrey was probably the last for awhile, until the cartels settle down.

No turbocharged plane comes into its' own until above 8000 feet, and then, at a rate of about 2 knots more per thousand feet higher you climb. Bravos do best above 15,000 feet. FL180 to FL240 is the optimum altitude range for top speed or maximum range.

Check with Johnny Stinson at F45, https://www.amspalmbeach.com/, maybe he can help you find shared hangar space. Tee hangars are extremely hard to come by. 

And the limitation they have on oil consumption isn't because consuming oil alone is bad. It's because they want a safe amount of oil left in the sump, at the same time the gas tank goes dry. 

I check compressions cold first, borescope, then do them again when hot. Hot means hot too, not just run for 5 minutes. CHT's must be 300+ in order for a hot test to mean anything. A lukewarm engine will generally test worse than hot or cold.

The borescope inspection will reveal the condition of the cylinder walls. Pitting or scuffing will cause low compression that won't improve. Light rust on the walls will polish off and compressions will improve. Leaky valves may stop leaking if there is only lead contamination from idling & ROP operations. LOP flight will cure that. A good borescope inspection is the only way to know if the cylinders will get better or if they're on the way out. 

Why spend what little spare time you might have, washing, drying, and re-oiling an air filter? Especially when it costs you performance? Oiled gauze (K&N, Challenger) air filters are second best in airflow. Brackett (oiled foam) filters are the worst. 

Paper (cellulose media to be correct) are the best performing filter, and require no maintenance. They generally last up to 500 hours or 5 years. This type of filter is used in the worst possible conditions in the mining industry. And NO gauze or oiled foam filters are used there, meaning their claims of superior filtering are, well, incorrect at best.

It is common for analog pressure gauges to read lower at higher altitudes. I've noticed this in many different planes, especially about low fuel pressure in climb, or low oil pressure at cruise. No one noticed it as much, until digital gauges came about. A good explanation was posted by someone a few years ago, I don't recall from where:

 many pressure transducers will indicate lower as you climb, the reason is that the "back" side of the transducer is often not vented to atmosphere, and as you climb the error trends towards the lower side because this captured air pushes back on the transducer as you climb, reducing its reading. This problem has been noted before in fuel pressure readings, which are affected much more as a percent owing to their small nominal of a few psi (carbs). 

Well, the newest Mite would be 67 years old, and the oldest is 74. They were an exercise in wood and fabric construction frugality, so longevity was not a design feature.

You'd expect that some would be crashed, some would scrapped, and most of the rest would be parked by now due to rot, or due to having Ter Mites.  

There are plenty of other options for newer or brand new planes that exceed the Mite's capabilities. For about the same cost as rebuilding a 74 year old plane.

Don't wait. Hartzell just put a massive price increase into effect last month. Since they now own most of the alternator & starter market, in conjunction with raw materials price increases, the price of an average starter went from $600 to $835 in one month. Expect alternators to do the same.

Depending on the temperature variation, that 118 gallons could weight as little as 670 pounds, or as much as 726 pounds. If they checked the specific gravity of the batch you should have an accurate number. We have the problem of light weight fuel in Florida, because it's almost always warmer than the standard day. 

If you weight the plane with full fuel, and calculate it back out, you will have an inaccurate empty weight. There is no way to know exactly how many gallons of fuel is on board, or what the specific gravity is that day. You can have errors of plus or minus 60 pounds in a 120 gallon system. 40 pounds of that is from density changes alone. Leveling the plane is also critical to get the CG to be accurate. 

The only accurate way to get a correct empty weight, and CG, is to drain the fuel completely.

In my experience doing well over 300 weighings, many for Part 135 compliance, not one that was previously weighed with fuel, then calculated out, was accurate. Not one. And of course, the bigger the tanks, the bigger the error.

On 7/13/2021 at 9:19 AM, Shadrach said:

It is not rare for vintage mid bodies to be well over 1000ul. It’s more the norm.

The Encores (perfect airplane?) also do quite well. I think some approach 1200lbs UL.

I can put 900 pounds in the cabin of my early Aztec, and take full fuel (864 pounds), at 4800 GW.

I can put 1200 pounds in the cabin of my friend's C model Aztec, and still take 800 pounds of fuel at 5200 GW.

It's very hard to beat the versatility of these planes. They can do 1800 foot strips easily, and safely, yet still cruise at 165 to 180 knots. 

Caveat-they will not do it on 10 GPH like an M20F...everything in aviation is a compromise

A factory reman comes with a new exhaust system, (except the tailpipe) since those are Lycoming parts, not Mooney parts. That is a significant and often overlooked benefit to the factory engine, whether rebuilt or overhauled.

Just now, aviatoreb said:

Not systematic and doing that anecdotal study would have no relevance to me.

How many twins are there vs how many singles?  How many of those twins are flown by non professional operations pilots?  I imagine the number is much smaller, but I am only imagining.  I presume that is already all baked into whatever the actuaries did in making rates.

There is no systematic way to do it, because there are no reports on how many twins suffer engine failures and land safely. But every single that loses an engine will end up in a report because in virtually all cases, it results in an accident with some injuries, or fatalities. And rates for insurance are based on claims, not on a feeling of what is or is not the safer plane. 

I've personally dealt with dozens of aircraft recoveries and rebuilds over the last 25+ years. At least a dozen fatalities. I've only witnessed two twins with injuries or fatalities in that group, and those two were take-offs with possible or known mechanical defects after unsatisfactory run-ups where the pilots took off anyway. One was a Cheyenne, the other a Cessna 335.

My personal experience includes 5000+ hours of multi engine time in about 30 different twins, from a Piper Apache, to Barons, 310's, Navajos, King Airs, and Cheyennes including the 400LS, And several Citation series jets. A loaded King Air 90 does not climb much better than a loaded Seneca on one engine, although you can do it in air conditioned comfort.

Everyone focuses on the engine out on takeoff, which is actually the least likely situation. Most engines fail enroute, due to lack of fuel, or oil, or a cylinder giving up. Those situations are easily handled, whereas in a single, they nearly always result in an accident. 

There are about ten to twelve singles for every twin. But, most twins fly much more than comparable singles, and fly in worse weather, so it is hard to compare apples to apples. 

If all the hyperventilating about how dangerous twins are were true, we would see a fatal twin accident every week. I think I've seen three so far this year. I've also seen dozens of fatals in singles this year though. 

My experience with insurance is that a twin does not cost much more than a comparable single to insure. Certainly not double, and not because it's likely to roll over and crash on every take off. It costs more because a pilot is nearly as likely to gear it up, as to gear up a single. 

I suggest everyone read the FAA daily accident reports each day for the next year. 

You will find lots of singles have off airport landings, with injuries, and fatalities, due to engine failures. Sometimes several per day.

You will also find that is is very rare for a twin to show up in these reports, with injuries and fatalities, due to an engine failure.

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

Those seem nice - very fuel efficient.

how is climb performance at sea level with one engine?

Much better than a single with an engine out....

On 7/10/2021 at 7:58 PM, PMcClure said:

I think the math has already been done. Check the cost to insure a similar valued twin to the mooney.

A twin costs about 50 percent more to insure, but only because the most common claim is a gear up landing. In which case, a twin has two props and engines to repair.

You'd think insurance should cost double, or more, but it does not.

So far no one has mentioned slowing down first by pulling up. Reduce power substantially, and add back pressure to hold altitude and then climb slowly, less than 100 feet so you don't bust your altitude. Fighting gravity is the best speed brake. You will shed 20 knots quickly. Then gear out, put back normal descent power, and descend.

In general, remember that "cooling" with excess fuel flow means reduced efficiency, which is why the CHT's will be lower. It's not really cooling at all, it's just operating with less power and less heat as a result. There are a lot of engine baffle tweaks that can maximize the cooling airflow through the cylinder heads. Those will help more than excess fuel. I also wouldn't worry about a climb with CHT's in the 390-420 range for ten to fifteen minutes. So long as you can operate below 380 in cruise, your cylinders will be fine. The heat cycle fatigue you might worry about is a product of intensity and duration together. Short excursions don't do any harm, provided they don't exceed 450 dF.

Full power EGT should be 1125 to 1250 dF. As you approach 1100 dF, power drops off significantly. I target 1200 dF in most turbocharged engines. you'll find that will occur near the top of the factory spec fuel flow setting of 25.7 GPH for the -SB engine. The 22.3 GPH lower spec will produce 1350 dF EGT.

16 hours ago, smwash02 said:

I climb at 39" / 2600 RPM and have my FF adjusted to 25.5-26GPH.

At gross it will usually give me 700-800FPM at 100KIAS and things will tend to stay under 380-390 even on a hot day. I tend to have to tinker as I climb to keep the airspeed up enough to keep things below 400.

Would love to hear others with Encore's climb rates at or near gross. I've never been able to hold 1,000FPM the whole way without bleeding under 85KIAS and things getting hot.

That's a lot of fuel for that engine. You may be over-rich, costing HP, which will slow your climb rate.

What version of the engine do you have? TSIO-360-MB1? Or -LB1B? What are your full power EGT's?  

Mooney had looked into this combination back in 2006-2008, before the market collapsed, and they stopped building planes. The main problem was having enough fuel for the engine.

https://www.avweb.com/air-shows-events/mooney-rolls-royce-look-at-turbine-single/

those are rare. I put a set of 5 blade MT's on a friend's Cheyenne 400 in 2012. It was only the third set in existence at that time. There were only 44 400's built and I think there are 38 left flying. The MT props cost less than the overhaul of the Dowty 4 blades, and the performance was much better, with a reduced noise signature. 

In the nine years in service, the MT 5 blades on this Cheyenne 400 have been trouble free. I wish I could say that about all other MT props, which have a reputation for leaks.

I've applied several minor fixes to Bravo engines to even out the CHT's. You have to pay special attention to the baffle seals to the cowl, and to the forward seals around the alternator area. There are some large openings that need attention. I was able to run 80 to 85% power, with CHT's in the 340-375 degree range. I've done the same clean ups on Turbo Aztecs which share a similar engine, and similar heat issues.