Chris K

So this past weekend one of the wing fuel sight gages decided it no longer liked being affixed to the wing and just departed the aircraft. Upon inspection, it looks like nothing holds these in place other than plain silicone. Just ordered a new one to the tune of some 145 dollars. My question is has anyone figured out a better glue to use other than silicone in order to not lose again? If silicone is sufficient, how much to put in there to make it both stay and work properly? It appears that whomever siliconed previously did so while leaving an orifice in the center of the silicone - not sure if that was done for function of the magnetic gage or simply installer preference.

Tragic. I missed this story until just recently. This thread and discussion is interesting but wing spar failure might be jumping to conclusions until all the facts are in. This section of the initial report plus the location the pieces were found typical are indications of what failed first. Initial examination revealed the left horizontal stabilizer separated about 6 inches outboard of the vertical stabilizer. The three outboard hinge blocks of the left elevator remained attached to the left horizontal stabilizer, with the rivets pulled out and sheared off the elevator. I would be amazed as most of you are whether the main spar failure was the cause (instead seems to have occurred after the last sudden descending left turn likely due to the loss of the left stabilizer). The fact the rivets sheared off only one side of the elevator is something I find amazing As others mentioned regarding the relatively uniform main spar failures, the failure on the horizontal stabilizers/elevators would occur on both sides, especially if the suspected cause is overspeed followed by flutter. Instead seems some other load caused the overstress of only one side. Until both sides of the tail are analyzed, seemingly one side was weaker than the other. I wonder what sort of past repairs the investigators will find in the logbooks on the tail section or whether there may have been existing hangar rash/and or corrosion that went unnoticed. Hopefully we know the answers soon. In the meantime, safe flying to all.

I could see rotating this 90 degrees so the hitch receiver faces the plane, then weld a new handle on the opposite side. Result would still be 1/2 off anything else you pay double for simply because the word airplane is included.

OK, I was asking because the drag from A/C or TKS will slow you down in cruise more than weight/CG loading will. I believe the early O's had the large A/C scoop for the air interchange so it would not be a fair comparison. Actual comparisons with the Acclaim prop would be greatly appreciated - if and or when the time comes to replace my prop - if the cruise performance with the Acclaim prop is equal or better than what I have now, it would be an easy decision to spend money for a smoother ride as well.

The integrated lights and LED's do look incredible. Anyone have cost plus difficulty of install information for these? Before/After test flights if anyone else has this info would be interesting.

Does your bird have A/C or TKS? if no, what sort of cruise do you see in the 13-16 GPH FF range? I've actually seen Niko's plane just before he purchased and it is very similar to mine. If he is able to do 175 TAS with the 7693 (thick prop), seemingly the thin Acclaim / Ultra prop should be yielding several knots more?

Most of you may know that the recent Acclaim/Ultra renditions from Mooney had additional aerodynamic touches to fill more gaps in the airframe, a composite (cleaner) forward cabin and newer winglets. Out of curiosity I started looking into what sort of efficiency the newer winglets provide and could not find anything online - has anyone actually seen any sort of testing or information published? Separately, I did come across this winglet (link below) which look like the Ultra winglets on steriods as these seem to trail several inches further back than the ailerons. I also found a picture with these winglets on N252AD online. Not sure if the owner is on here or not, but wondering what his feedback on this product is or whether anyone else on here has tried these. Seemingly if these are efficient, you'd get both the LED light conversion along with a more efficient wing? https://www.aveoengineering.com/crystal-conforma-for-mooney/

The 7693 - thanks. For that price, makes sense to take it for what you got. Anyone else out there with the 7298 for comparison sakes?

Well that is interesting. What was the part number of the cirrus prop and why was it so cheap? So after cutting, is it the equivalent of the 7396 or the 7498 Mooney prop? Loss of 2 knots not so bad. 13 GPH, what power setting are you using? Full MP, 2550 and LOP?

Thanks Niko - so how much speed did you lose? What is your typical FF and TAS? Is your cost a typo at 1,900 or did you mean 19,000? Was that prop only or plus the STC? I still have useful time on my prop, just thinking in advance when the time comes whether makes sense to keep the 2 blade or whether the 7498 has any speed or efficiency advantage. I think you're one of the few people to come out and say the 2 blade is faster, wondering how much difference. Runway length and climb are non-issues for me and I routinely see better than book. Benefit for me would be some added smoothness. For 25k cost I'd expect that it better go fast as well.

I followed all the usual threads both in this forum and elsewhere before I bought my Eagle and was convinced the prop would have been the first thing to be switched in favor of the 7498 Hartzell so I could have a "screaming Eagle". I'm glad I spent time flying the airplane before dumping the prop immediately because the airplane is much quicker than the POH and reviews suggest. Both the Eagle 1 and O2 props were newer designs specifically for the airframe/engine combination and both were efforts by Mooney and McCauley to maximize cruise speed. Due to the takeoff/climb performance complaints O2 pilots had, Mooney later switched to the Hartzell 7396 - a performance review of both the O2 two blade prop and Hartzell 7396 were published in MAPA and the conclusion is what we all know - the Hartzell climbed and accelerated better, but the O2 2 blade prop still bested the "newer" Hartzell prop by a fairly significant margin in cruise. We all know now not to buy the 7396. Now for the 7498 prop - I'm certain it will accelerate on the runway better than a 2 blade and will achieve better Vx and Vy numbers. Mooney's website seems to publish numbers for the M20U that do not seem realistic from a fuel flow perspective. Top cruise speed range published seems to indicate 15-16 gals/hr FF for 197 KTAS and max range indicates < 11 gals/hr FF for 170 KTAS. Avweb has a video of a review of the aircraft which they demo fly at 4k with a 174 KIAS for 18.4 FF and 164 KIAS for 13.7 FF. Pretty decent numbers if indeed they were straight and level (later views in the video shows them in a constant descent). They never did say what the speed at 8k or higher altitude was in that video (a chart later in the video seemed to suggest lower than 185KTAS??). Nevertheless, 164 KIAS for 13.7 FF is efficient. At that altitude and FF, I'm probably around 160 KIAS. Now the M20U does have additional aerodynamic add-ons (wingtips, cabin and added fillers), so that would not be an apples to apples comparison for prop change alone. If someone is near me with a 7498 prop Ovation or Eagle, it would be a nice comparison to fly the 2 planes back to back for comparison sake. Otherwise some actual data about FF and TAS comparison would help to separate fact from hype about the propeller differences.

I was recently instructing someone that purchased an Eagle 2 with the 3-blade McCauley (same prop as the O1) and back to back flights compared to my Eagle with the 2 blade McCauley left me with the impression the 3 blade is smoother. The 2 blade however is much more efficient and performs better than the McCauley 3 blade in pretty much every other respect. Thus, I'm Interested to see if there are any more Pireps to compare the 2 props the OP asked about along with FF numbers and TAS in cruise plus whether or not your bird carries TKS and/or A/C. Trying to compare apples to apples for cruise performance. My impressions to date of prop options: 3 blade McCauley (O1 & Eagle 2) - smooth but by far the least performance of any other option for the R & S model. I've been in both an O1 and Eagle 2 and neither were very speedy or overly impressive climbers. 2 blade McCauley (Eagle 1 only) - not quite as smooth, but efficient and speedy. My bird has GAMIs and a K&N filter (no AC and no TKS)- I can routinely count on 15-15.5 gals. FF +/- to turn in 184 KTAS at altitude. Pushing more FF yields a few more knots - to date when I pushed FF up have seen as high as about 188 KTAS but it seems to take almost an extra gallon of FF for each knot over 184, so that seems the happiest place to fly when I need to cover long distances quickly. I've never flown an O2, which uses the ever so slightly more efficient prop, but I flight plan using O2 book numbers for cruise speed / fuel burn and my numbers are routinely very close to O2 book numbers. 3 blade Hartzell - I did a demo flight a while back in an Ovation converted to one of the Hartzell 3 blade props, 2700 RPM limit but at the time did not realize there were 2 Hartzell versions, thus unsure which prop this bird had. Climb rate was impressive. This bird had A/C. PIC insisted on flying at high power setting and I seem to recall FF was somewhere in the 18.5-19 gals/hr range. My calculations from this flight are that this bird needed about 3-4 gals FF more per hour to match the cruise speed of my Eagle 1. Not sure if higher FF was solely due to the A/C or whether the prop was also less efficient since with AC it is not an apples to apples comparison. To summarize - wondering what TAS and FF R or S model owners of non-AC/TKS birds are seeing with either the Acclaim prop or the new MT scimitar composite. I'd be interested in gaining less vibration than my 2 blade but if either the Hartzell or MT turns out to be less efficient (more fuel flow to match speed), it may not be worth the significant investment.

Niko, wondering if you ever solved the issue and how? I'm starting to get a slightly high voltage reading and have a feeling my VR is on its way out so wondering about part selection and results? Thanks.

Can it be installed on an Eagle? I love the 2 blade McCauley efficiency I have now, the only other thing I could use is the legal weight limit increase.

I bought a Zizzo Urbano new but on sale - 24lbs. It fits into an old dufflebag type rolling suitcase and then neatly in the luggage of my Eagle. On same trip could also fit my 2 kids' 16 inch wheel bikes along with our luggage for the trip - well within w&b limits. Planning to eventually switch the rear wheel on the zizzo to an electric assist version to help get me to town when landing at remote airports.