EricJ

Correlated to model flown. So when somebody says, "You have to be this tall to fly a C," the data can be referenced.

MSL or pressure altitude or density altitude? So many things matter...

You may have had more than one problem, and it may be that whatever the problem was is what killed the Narco. Fingers crossed that replacing that heap fixes everything, but I'd keep an eye out for other contributors.

Regarding speed comparisons, I haven't been able to figure out how "fast" my J is, let alone compare it to something else. Different conditions, even cowl flap settings, trim, temperature, etc., etc., all seem to matter. I've had a few times where I managed 160ktas cruise, but the conditions weren't general and it certainly won't do it every day. A couple of times it was from making a fast descent from a higher altitude and when I leveled off it just never slowed down. It's pretty cool when it'll do it, but I've never been able to reliably predict when I can reproduce that. This makes me take many of the speed comparisons with small quantities of sodium chloride.

I'm also a fan of the electric gear and flaps. No regrets there at all. Service instruction only, not a requirement for typical GA. If we want to compare applicable SIs, ADs, etc., it's going to get pretty complicated and/or ugly pretty quickly.

There's usually a clause with a transport limit. I think mine is $14k or something like that.

You can usually find anything after the fact on liveatc.net, here: https://www.liveatc.net/archive.php

The SM says 181 actually, which has similar specs to 7781. The listed epoxy resin systems seem to mostly not exist any more, either.

There were a few tense exchanges with him here a while back. I wasn't all that surprised that he hasn't been around much since, but perhaps it's coincidence.

This is what some people say, but I've never seen any references or data to back it up. There's nothing in AC43.13 or any ACs that I can find. "Manufacturer's recommendations" seems to be the rule, referring to the manufacturer of the matrix/epoxy or glass.

I keep hearing references to something like "real aircraft fiberglass" but haven't been able to determine what that means. E-glass (like 7781) is used for things like radomes because it doesn't conduct electricity well, and S-glass (like 4533) is often recommended for "structural" aircraft applications because it has more tensile strength and some other properties that may make it preferable to E-glass where more strength is needed and conductivity doesn't matter. There are other types in-between and lots of different flavors. None are specific to aircraft or aviation as far as I can tell. AC43.13 and other ACs that I've been able to find regarding composite construction and repairs seem to provide little to no guidance on the matter. Material selection seems to be up to the user. I've heard "authoritative" advice in many contradictory directions, but nothing substantiated. The same sort of questions apply to the matrix or epoxies. There's not a lot of definitive guidance out there that I can find.

I went shopping for an E model and wound up buying an early (77) J. I'm really glad it went that way for me. There are just so many things that are a bit better sorted out on a J, but that's to be expected with any product evolution.

Lycoming SI-1094D is for all Textron Lycoming Opposed Series Engines. There are sections for Normally Aspirated, Turbocharged, and Supercharged engines. The only mention of peak EGT is in this paragraph: The exhaust gas temperature (EGT) offers little improvement in leaning the float-type carburetor over the procedures outlined above because of imperfect mixture distribution. However, if the EGT probe is installed, lean the mixture to 100°F. on the rich side of peak EGT for best power operation. For best economy cruise, operate at peak EGT. If roughness is encountered, enrich the mixture slightly for smooth engine operation.

Lycoming SI-1094D says peak EGT is best economy cruise for naturally aspirated carbureted engines equipped with EGT on the leanest cylinder. Otherwise, lean to roughness or loss of power then enrichen to smooth operation for best economy. https://www.lycoming.com/content/service-instruction-no-1094d

You're able to fly away with your prop and engine undamaged, so that's evidence of a good move on your part. I'm reminded of the Oshkosh incident with the DC-3 where a J-3 taxiing behind got blown away during the DC-3 runup. Marshals initially blamed the DC-3 pilot, who was up against the hold short line onto the runway...wasn't really any place else he could have done the runup.

If you're not expecting to have a lot of passengers in the back seats, then whether it's a short- or mid- or long-body won't make much difference. That additional space really mostly benefits the folks in the back. Having done something similar in the last few years (got current again and bought an airplane), I'd suggest just focus on getting current again in whatever is available for rent locally, get a complex endorsement if you haven't already (in whatever is available), and then once you're back in the saddle that way start looking around with the benefit of your getting-current experiences. There are usually plenty of Mooneys for sale out there, especially C and J models, so I don't think there's much need to be in a rush. Regardless, best of luck getting back in the game. I had a ton of fun doing it and wound up with what has turned into a very nice airplane.

Did it get better after you stripped the paint or did you just replace the antenna or...?

When I came back after being gone for a few decades I used the King Private Pilot ground school program as a review. I thought it was quite good.

Yes, generally as the mixture is leaned from full rich power peaks first, then CHT, then EGT. So once you're leaning past peak EGT everything is getting cooler, and the curves generally steepen up so they're getting cooler faster with smaller adjustments towards increasingly lean. I think at lower altitude (higher MAPs) where the power output is higher the risks from detonation and increased head pressures are the biggest issues. If we had head pressure gauges we'd probably be tuning with those, but, alas, we have EGTs and much slower-responding CHT indications, so that's what we try to make do with. If we ever do get to switch to unleaded fuel we might get to use O2 sensors, and then we can argue about how to use those effectively and what AFR should be for what flight phase/altitude/etc., etc...

Does it not matter where you are when it does it? If it is location dependent, there may be something radiating energy near that freq at that location. If it is location independent and the shop has already checked the radio out, your airplane may be radiating something spurious near that frequency or there is something in the harness somewhere near that freq. If you have a ham or other radio-geek friend, ask if they have a spectrum analyzer (they're cheap these days so more people are likely to have them), make a little sniffer antenna or stick a VHF antenna on it and see what you can see. You may be looking for a pretty low-power signal, but the idea is if there is any consistent energy in that channel that isn't elsewhere it may be responsible for that behavior. Most spectrum analyzers have hold functions that make this sort of thing reasonably easy, because it's a really common thing to do. Set the resolution bandwidth to about the channel bandwidth or less (25kHz). Another, maybe simpler, thing to try is to start pulling breakers and see if it goes away. If it stops when you pull the breaker on something, that may be what's causing the interference.

An acquaintance took his King Air into Experimental category pretty much so he could work on it himself. He was a little quirky so I don't know whether what he did was entirely recommended or practical or not He perished in a UH-1 that he had in Experimental Exhibition and that he was also working on himself. Repeated mast bumping is apparently not a great idea in those. But, yeah, I think if taking a certified GA airplane into Experimental was practical most of the fleet would have converted by now.

I don't think there's a strict physical or chemical definition of the boundary between "lean" or "rich". There's "peak EGT" as one reference point, there's also "stoichiometric" (NOT necessarily the same as peak EGT), there are AFR references if you're using an O2 sensor (which is an attempt to find stoichiometric operation), there's asymptotic CHT, fuel flow, specific fuel consumption, propeller load, etc., etc. The CHT, EGT, and power output curves all peak at difference places. Which should one use to define "too rich" or "too lean"? It'll depend entirely on who you're talking to and what you're trying to optimize. Most engine manufacturer power charts just show a continuous region and what's happening where and sometimes point out the direction of the trend of richer or leaner. Most don't define a point and say "this side is lean" and "this side is rich", partly because it's not that simple and partly because those terms are relative depending on what you're trying to achieve. Stoichiometric operation might be "too lean" for some optimizations and "too rich" for others. Likewise peak EGT. Lycoming doesn't seem to universally define "lean" anywhere that I can find, and the only lean limitations that I can find, i.e., definitions of "too lean", are lean limits that are specified by fuel flow, not EGT. So I don't think you're correct in asserting that EGT is the supreme reference point in dividing between rich and lean operation. Personally I don't think there is one because it's always relative to what you're trying to optimize. This is also why using EGT strictly as a primary operating parameter is often discouraged, because it doesn't really tell the whole tale. I suspect this is also why Lycoming has avoided the whole ROP/LOP discussions, because it's a rabbit hole in many ways and not worth getting tangled up in. I appreciate that perspective. It does wind up being important for aviators that operate reciprocating engines because it is one of the finer calibrated engine instruments that we have available to us that can be useful in tuning operation settings. So, as an engineer I know the value of geeking out over details, and I also know the value of really understanding the limitations of the terms and the usefulness to the broader audience. Engine tuning is a pretty deep science that goes way past what we can do with an EGT gauge, but since it is the most reactive tuning instrument that many of us have available in the cockpit it often gets the most attention. I'll stand by my previous statements, and I'm not at all surprised that this is yet again subject of discussion. I think this particular point is pretty much semantic hair-splitting.

It's semantics, which was my point. You can damage the engine by running in the red box or red fin. It that region too rich or too lean? Neither answer describes the problem. It is TOO LEAN compared to the region rich of it and TOO RICH compared to the region lean of it. carusoam captured it properly in his statements, so I was just pointing out that "correcting" his characterization was a little misleading.

Was the FBO not able to help with it?

I think that's a bit deceptive, since it's a matter of perspective or reference. If you're on the rich side of the red box or red fin and start leaning, you can certainly hurt things by going leaner, which would be too lean compared to where it was. That's pretty much what carusoam said, if you stop in the box while leaning you're too lean compare to the richer side of the box. Can you fix it by going outside of the box on the lean side? Sure, and that point was made in carusoam's #2. So you're right, but #1 was correct as stated.