irishpilot

In rereading the OP, I think a long body is the only way.  Need the extra baggage room for the dog carrier.  Could be done in a pinch in a mid body but it's not the right tool for the job.

Welcome[mention=19939]golfmogul[/mention]! You've come to the right forum. You'll get a lot of good advice. Here's mine. It is free so take it as such. First, I grew up flying in CO with mountains and I've flown quite a bit out of Ogden and Hill AFB. With the weight that you plan to take, I think you should look at any turbo models so you can climb over the Wasatch range or over the mountains towards Nevada. Can you do it in a NA plane, sure.

Second, you are a student pilot who will soon have a PPC which is an awesome feeling.

Your Instrument ticket will make you that much better and you will be proficient to fly IMC. However, Mooney's are a lot less forgiving than a 140, so build lots of dual time before planning on flying long XC with family members. They put lots of trust in you, so make sure your skills match the capability of the plane.

As far as Mooney's go, a short body NA C/E/F will have a nice IFR panel and be easy on gas. They are also the most forgiving. Next are the J/Ks which will be in your price range. Bravos and Ovations may be just outside the top of your range, but they are bigger and are built for long distance XC. Acclaims will be outside your budget. I don't recommend Bravo's, Ovations, or Acclaims for new pilots, and any Mooney would be a lot to handle for a 40-50 hr pilot.

Whatever you choose, please be careful and don't skimp on the instruction.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

See if we can go from theory to practice....
Any one have a part number for the OilP sensor?
I can try to work the internet research magic...
If it has a vented body, we’re onto something....
Best regards,
-a-

Another head scratcher theory! Thanks  

turn the TKS on inflight. Follow the checklist to prime and make sure it is working. Beware, it will drip post flight.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

35 minutes ago, N231BN said:

1 hour ago, irishpilot said:

It's working as it should. Your home approach does not have multiple IAFs. If you load the RNAV as depicted, it includes the procedure turn which is why it is bold.

As stated by others, you can either delete the hold or select vectors when loading the app.

For clearance, if the controller clears you to the IAF for the RNAV 32, you are expected to do the procedure turn.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

Left side of the chart, it states "NoPT" when approaching KACGE from the south.

That's what I get for trying to read that approach on a phone screen. That, and the runway is 35, not 32. Thanks for the point out. 

It's working as it should. Your home approach does not have multiple IAFs. If you load the RNAV as depicted, it includes the procedure turn which is why it is bold.

As stated by others, you can either delete the hold or select vectors when loading the app.

For clearance, if the controller clears you to the IAF for the RNAV 32, you are expected to do the procedure turn.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

My first Mooney was low time and because it Sat so much, the cylinders had pitting which I ended up having to do a top end overhaul during the first 100 hrs of flying. A pre-buy should include a borescope. Have the A&P check out known areas.

Planes don't do well sitting so expect possible leaking tanks, seals, etc. and be pleasantly surprised if it's not that bad.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Update: The surge issue was fixed by detuning the max MAP via the density controller. Also found a bad spark plug. I'm using 35-35.5" per @donkaye recommendation. 

The low oil px issue persists. I'm getting lots of time doing test flights with an A&P. The folks at Lycoming are scratching their heads, but we're chasing the top three causes per their recommendation, in order. A shout out to Paul Kortopates at Savvy for helping with the engine data. 

1. Prop (just replaced the prop governor a few months ago, but double checking)

2. Oil cooler px tested/cleaned. It was inspected, but not tested during the annual.

3. Vernatherm

Hopefully we're getting close to finding the cause. More to follow.

5 hours ago, Marauder said:

Have you quantified this with the number of aircraft built? And also by the number of registered (and maybe flying) planes of each type? Be curious what the denominators are.

That's really the only way to compare the rates per aircraft type. Another way is to divide the accidents per total flying hours and then show it as a rate. That being said, those are a lot of gear incidents. Thanks for posting this data.

Turbo is highly recommended. Normally aspirated will work, but the Monterrey mountains are no joke. Best of luck. 

Thanks for chiming in, everyone. Our back seats look beautiful considering the interior is 25-30 years old. The seat backs up front are okay, but the front seat bottoms are showing their age. So is the foam. 
I'm headed to Spruce in the morning (Atlanta has its drawbacks but driving to Aircraft Spruce ain't one of them) to buy some Confor foam to rebuild the seat bottoms. If I can get that to where I'm happy, I'll combine the experiences here to come up with a plan.. 
A year into ownership, I'm still chipping away at bigger issues but if I can get the seats a little more comfortable and better looking for a couple hundred bucks, I can afford that detour. 
Thanks again, y'all. Love the brain trust we have going here. 

I did another test flight today and used@donkaye 35.5" and no surge. Still have the oil px issue but I'm flying it to Kestrel Monday to get it looked at. I plan to have the MP max set according to Red Book and ensure the air density controller is also set correctly. Apparently it takes specialized equipment.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

On 7/18/2020 at 11:40 PM, JohnB said:

Good call! I think that explains your surges. Since redline is 38.5, I had mine turned to a max of 37" (or It may have been 37.5"), so on some days it can go as high as 37.7 but no more surges at that setting and plenty of power. When I did have it turned up to 38+, yes it did seem to get a little more power but it was not very efficient as it would quickly get my CHT's up over 400 if I didn't turn it down almost just after liftoff.

 

Sounds like your plane is working just fine, particularly if your surges go away once you turn your Max MP down. Hope this saves you some $$$!

Confirm you had your A&P set max of 37"? This seems to line up with Figure 3-75 of the Lycoming Operator's Handbook. I've attached it here in case anyone else is looking for it. Does anyone know what is driving the range of 35-37"? I am sure it's in the book, I just can't find it. 

TIO-540 Series Engine Data.pdf

5 hours ago, donkaye said:

As an aside, I took the Advanced Pilot training Course many years ago.  It was one of the best courses on engine operation I've experienced.  LOP was discussed extensively.  I figured for a few knots penalty, I could save enough money flying LOP that I could get an engine for free over 2000 hours, as a result;t pf fun; savings.  Although no one could give a good reason, the TLS/Bravo does not like flying LOP in most of them.

I have a student who has flown his that way for many hours.  Although maybe not for that reason, he has had many engine issue.  I, myself, needed to do extensive exhaust work a couple of engines ago.  You would think that because the engine ran cooler there would be less issue.  There weren't.  After a 6 or 7 thousand exhaust repair (I don't remember which), I've flown ROP ever since with no similar issues.

It should be mentioned that DVA did an excellent writeup on his experiences with LOP.  I didn't go that far.

 

I've heard very good things about the APTC. Because of this site and the great knowledge on here, I've decided trying to get my Bravo to fly LOP isn't a job I'm willing to tackle right now. I've owned the plane one year this month and am still chasing down previous owner deferred mx issues. 

9 hours ago, donkaye said:

Good luck with operating yours at the higher levels.  Some people are just going to have learn the hard way.  Keep your pocketbook handy.

To be honest, @donkaye, I find comments like these to be a tad insensitive. If I wanted to learn "the hard way" I wouldn't even post my issues to MS. I also wouldn't run the safety section of MS on my spare time to try and bring about a more safety focused culture for Mooney pilots.

 When you post that you fly max T/O MAP of 35 - 35.5" and it is found nowhere in the POH or the Red Book, I'm going to ask why. Despite your tone, you pointed me to the Red Book which states 35-37", so I thank you for that. 

@donkaye, that doesn't really answer my question about what you have your A&P set as your max MP pressure. I agree we can all choose to fly our planes the way we want. How are you calculating takeoff performance data if you aren't using book numbers? 

That's great regarding your engine total times. I also agree flying an engine under its cruise limits can increase the odds of making or exceeding TBO. I also subscribe to flying no more than 29"/2400 at cruise, and I never go above 400 CHTs in a Mooney Bravo because of the info I've learned from you and others on MS. You have a lot of experience and I'm not discounting that, but not using a 100% rated hp on takeoff is a safety of flight issue in my book. I fly professionally and TOLD is calculated every flight because it drives abort decisions. 

On 7/19/2020 at 1:27 AM, donkaye said:

Yikes!  38"MP is too high!!!  Even though that is red line, 100% power is usually around 34½" and varies somewhat with temperature down low.  If you're unhappy with that,  then you're going to be very unhappy when you have to spend $87,000 including R&R on a new reman before 2000 hours TBO because you're running over 100% power.  Have you looked at the Red Lycoming Book re MP vs Altitude?  Sorry to be so harsh, but you are asking for nothing but trouble if you continue with those high MP.  Your mechanic should be ashamed of themselves if they set the MP up that high at sea level.

What field length for takeoff are we talking about?  More importantly what is the landing field length?  The POH gives you the numbers to expect.  You shouldn't be flying into fields of less than 2300 feet at sea level.  If you're trying to get into shorter fields, then you probably are flying the wrong airplane into those fields.  I wouldn't take a student or be in a Bravo landing at a field less than that distance.

 

@donkaye, first thing's first. I'm not telling my A&P to set anything other than what's by the book. If they are doing something that's against the Red Book, then I need to get that fixed. Second, I very well understand that speedinging/overboosting an engine will lead to a rebuild. However, the POH clearly states 38" Max MP and even discusses overboosting above 38". 

On 7/19/2020 at 9:28 AM, donkaye said:

I'm comfortable with 35" MP on takeoff at sea level--maybe even 35½" when on the takeoff roll, but no higher.

Where are you getting that data to set 35" or 35.5"? That's arbitrary without a source document or directive. Teaching pilots to set below 100% power on takeoff is dangerous and invalidates told as well as all the POH performance data. What is driving you to set 35"? What is your aircraft rigged for if you select full throttle? 

However, the good news is your post drove me to dig into the Red Book. I am confused as to why Textron numbers are different than the POH. The Textron window is between 35-37" MP. Any insight is appreciated. 

Lastly, there is a big difference between procedure and technique. If pilots are deviated against the POH (procedure), it better be for a good reason. For example, it's well documented that leaning to 1650 TIT eats up cylinders. However, I've not seen the same for going against the POH for takeoff and GA planes should use 100% rated hp at least until they have turn around engine out glide back to the field (technique).

8 hours ago, JohnB said:

Very similar issue I had. As to the first issue, I found that it’s common at high altitudes in the teens that oil pressure drops below 55 and incrementally lower as you climb higher and higher. This has been present on my Bravo ever sine I purchased it and noticed it recently when I purchased digital engine gauges that give me the yellow readings on climbing. I put lots of money overhauling and replacing things and no significant change. This does not seem to affect performance. Haven’t really been given a good explanation as to why this happens (I asked several experts including some from lycoming without good answers) but I stopped chasing that one and just realized that my oil pressure will be in the yellow arc at high teen altitudes. 

 

As far as your surge goes, mine occurred when the max MP setting was too high, and on certain atmospheric conditions, on WOT, it would come close to redline and the wastegate would open to prevent over boosting which would produce surging. You should have your wastegate checked to ensure its working correctly, but mine went away when I adjusted my maximum attainable MP downwards. 

Thanks @JohnB, I've been having Mx dial in the MP setting as it wasn't making full power, and now it goes slightly above 38" after rotation. I keep it below 38" and it surges. I'll have them dial it down, but I don't want it to be too off from 38". I go out of short fields and want full rated power. 

Calling any Bravo or engine smart MSers, my plane partner and I have thrown a bunch of mx time and $ chasing down an elusive problem. Mooney runs great, but has always given low oil px, in the teens and above (below 55 psi). Down low, it shows fine. However, recently the plane exhibits mild surging at WOT (38"/2575 rpm).

As soon as power is pulled back to cruise climb 34"/2400, the surge goes away. We've had the prop gov overhauled, oil cooler inspected, turbo inspected, turbo gaskets replaced, etc. I pulled the JPI data and using Savvy's free website (thanks to the MS pointout). From the graphs, the mild surge starts right when the oil psi drops from 90 to sub 70. Anyone run into this? I'm sending the plane to Ron Fisher at Kestrel on the 27th. I'd like to not spend another $5k chasing this problem. 

Thanks in advance for the help!

Out of curiosity, which company came back with a flat quote?

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

On 7/2/2020 at 9:47 AM, Bravoman said:

FWIW I think 425-430 is way too high, even if you think it is somewhat erroneous. Even factoring in a margin of error if your cruise setting is in the neighborhood of 29/24 and you keep your TITs in the 1550 range your hottest cylinders should be in the 380s with cowl flaps closed. For me this yields a fuel flow of 18-19 gph. I was not getting these numbers on my old engine before the factory reman that I have now on which I also have the Gee Bee baffling. 

I agree. I fly cowls full open until after I get leaned out, then shut. I climb full power until I have glide back to the field, then cruise climb 34"/2400 all the way til level off. If in the FLs and a hot day, I keep the cowls cracked. Cruise at 29"/2400 and see what @Bravoman sees. I also adhere to 1550 TIT. 

On 7/6/2020 at 6:07 AM, pkofman said:

AGREED !, 100 percent!

If you followed the Bravo POH, we'd be leaning to peak TIT and flying a max CHT of 500 degrees. That's too hot for me. There's lots of good threads about this. However, to each his/her own. Speed is all about $$...how fast do you wanna go?

I had one out and replaced at annual this year. Yep...$300.00.

I just renewed and it is the same for a Mooney Bravo. added 250 hrs, over 3,000 total. I guess that's a win if ya'll are seeing big increases?

Having accurate fuel gauges, I do this:  Switch tanks as needed to keep them within 5 gallons of each other on a quantity that is divisible by 5.  When one tank is at 15 gallons and I switch to the other, I run the other side down to 12 instead of 10.  At that point I switch back to the tank with 15 and stay on that tank until it is empty or until I'm about to enter the pattern for landing.  That way I know I have at least 12 gallons in the active tank for pattern work.  Similar to the K mentioned earlier, my J has a caution about extreme maneuvers with less than 8 gallons.

Takeoff in Both?
Not in a Mooney.
 
I prefer to limit the tank switching to 1 a little over half way there. Our planes fly fine with fuel tanks out of balance.