Niko182

Youre not hacking it. All G3Xs are the "experimental". On boot up you hit menu and hold it and you can adjust every aspect of the g3x.

I can see 65% power at 11,000 if I want to go full RPM. definitely not a way I'd ever want to continuously fly 190KTAS in an ovation is realistic if you decide to fly WOT, MAX RPM, 50* ROP with the 310HP conversion or if you have the 2 blade McCauley that had pretty poor takeoff and climb performance. You can probably see that burning 15 to 16GPH which most people aren't willing to do. I happily fly mine at around 175 knots at 12GPH LOP. I can get another 180 knots at 13GPH, but as I've flown more and with the currently gas prices, I see myself flying at lower power settings or higher more and more.

You're wrong on one part. The Overhaul will be cheaper by a couple grand on the Bo because the 550B is cheaper to overhaul than the 550N and G series. I never understood why people say the bonanzas are so much more expensive than the Mooneys. There is really only 1 thing that the Mooney can have that the bonanza cant. A V35 or F33 cannot have FIKI and long range tanks. A Mooney can.

Yes. We have an identicle wing except i have a tab thats slightly lower than yours, however with the O3 conversion I can legally fill up past the tabs now.

FWIW at my first annual, when they emptied the tanks to calibrate them, the shop said they found a large sum of water in both tanks. I always sump my tanks and have rarely seen water within the cup, so I was quite surprised. I came to the conclusion that the tanks, or at least mine hide a bit of water. I rarely get a mis or a stumble, but when i do, I figure a couple drops of water just got through the the fuel line, as its too short for the EGTs or CHTs to pick up. I guess I should also start adding alc to the tanks. What does the 100% IA do to the water in the tanks?

On the TCM engine you really want to look at the valves. That tends to be where the issues lie on the engines. As others have stated, the compressions tend to drop off pretty quick as the engines gain time, at least compared to a lycoming. FWIW, I've had a cylinder come back with a 0/80 compression. I have no idea how long I was flying it like that, and there was no indication that one of the cylinders was bad. EGTs and CHTs were normal in flight and I had no issue flying LOP. If anything falls under 50 I'd look into it, but I wouldn't veto an airplane because of it. I bought my eagle with compressions as low as 42. That engine went from 1350 hours to 2050 hours and was new in 99. After flying it consistently, they all came back above 60. I will say on the acclaim you are significantly more likely to have to do a top on it mid way, so i'd keep that in mind.

Did they ever make the kit for an S. I'd love to be able to legally remove the tabs if i could.

You can just keep on adding fuel past the fillers.

Fwiw ive had to bring 2 dead batteeies back up in truckee when it was -5 f outside and it ended up being fine. I have a 150 amp alternator if that makes a difference. I just idled a low rpm for a while to keep the amps from going too high.

I wouldn't make the change unless you want an ovation. since you've mentioned fuel usage a couple times I can answer that one for you. My parents used to fly a 231 and made the switch to screaming eagle. The M20R and S share the same parts catalog and are the same airplane So it will have the same performance as the ovation 3. The 231 for them was a strictly ROP airplane. They burned around 12 gallons per hour to do 160 to 165 knots. In the Eagle, I burn 12 to 12.5 gallons to do 176 to 178 knots at around 10,000ft. I really dont think you'll be able to notice a difference in fuel usage. You might even come out slightly ahead fuel wise on the ovation.

I make sure in every passenger briefing that if there is any sort of emergency, to open the door inflight before touching down so I dont need to worry about not being able to open it.

I was using this one. Also top blade doesn't look bend, and the 2 bottom ones are bent opposite directions. Seems like the prop was not spinning.

I think rocket. Prop is feathered.

Because the Rocket and the Bravo burn around 18 to 19gph in flight and usually aren't flown LOP. Therefor I don't think the fuel burn differences are that apparent between the rocket and Bravo.

I believe the bravo doesn't usually have the benefit of running LOP, therefor the fuel flow tends to be quite a bit higher than the rest of the Mooney fleet with the exception of the rocket. I believe the fuel flow will be considerable higher than the 8 to 8.5gph hes seeing in his F. I'd guess maybe 14gph give or take to get 150 knots at 10k but that's just a guess.

Mooneys build time great but just understand you need to go a decent jump further than a pa28 or a 172 to get the same time

I thought this issue only applied to the experimentals and LSAs

no

How hard was it dealing with the special issuance for a fib, and where did you end up going when you did your precious special issuance?

bless the FAA medical system

Have you thought about going the basic med route.

Screaming Eagles and the stock 252 upgraded to an Encore are probably going to be the hardest to load too gross. Both these models were stock models that got an upgraded gross weight. My empty weight is 2151 and my gross weight is 3368 so it tend to be pretty hard to be over gross. The only time ive been limited by gross weight was when I had my entire family (4 people plus bags. Total of 740 lbs) on board, and I could only take 80 gallons instead of the total 104 I can usually fit. Even with that load still took off fine out of centennial and climbed up to 16000ft to cross the rockies.

I was also thinking owner produced part but since its on the spinner and weight plays a big roll i figured it be quite hard.

Could you switch out the spinner and bulkhead to one thats supported a bit better?

I dont know the answer, but i can narrow it down. It was pre 1999.