Jump to content


Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CoffeeCan last won the day on November 14 2021

CoffeeCan had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Far West Texas
  • Reg #
  • Model
    M20K (231)

Recent Profile Visitors

888 profile views

CoffeeCan's Achievements


Collaborator (7/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges



  1. Thanks for the heads-up on this book. I downloaded it last evening and I’m halfway through it. Excellent book, it should be in every GA pilot’s aviation library.
  2. A lot of theoretical discussion here, which is good… but I question the practical value of the debate. As every EngineOut checklist says, your first priority is to trim and fly for best glide speed, and your second is to look for a place you can safely land. GA fatality statistics suggest that far too many pilots try to extend their glide farther than the aerodynamics of their aircraft can achieve. When I had my emergency off-airport landing on 9/30/21–which I posted an account of here last year—I discovered that the ground comes up on you much quicker with no power than it does when you are at idle power. I thought I could extend my glide to reach a gravel road in my line of sight, but nope, I had to land in a pasture well short of that. (My prop wasn’t turning, so prop pitch wasn’t a factor.) But rather than focusing on where I wanted to land, I kept an eye on my airspeed and landed “by the numbers” and safely. Training for an engine-off landing at idle power, which I had done at my BFR only 3 months earlier, does NOT realistically approximate your speed of descent with NO power. I had extensive after-action discussions with the FAA investigator and my Savvy rep. They informed me that too many pilots try to extend their glide to reach an airport, etc, and in doing so fail to keep up their airspeed, and they stall on short final. The result of a stall at 100’ AGL is predictable, and generally fatal. Looking for ways to extend your glide in a power-off emergency may set you up for a dangerous mindset, one that increases the risk of failing to maintain airspeed and control all the way to a controlled off-airport landing. Instead of trying to reach a landing spot at the limit of your airplane’s glide capability (which I guarantee is less than you think it is!) I strongly suggest you look for the best place to land that is well within your best glide slope and land there. I doubt you will find many CFI’s, or many pilots who have survived such an emergency, who will argue otherwise.
  3. I realize it’s a lot of fun to debate how many EGT’s can dance on the head of a cylinder head pin (apologies to any medieval angel scholars present), but going back to the OP, it seems to me this debate isn’t helping our new Mooniac, who is only trying to figure out how to make sense of his engine settings in light of the POH tables, graphs, and figures. The plain truth is the POH’s for our M20J and K airplanes were written in the 1960’s and 70’s at best, and are (as others have pointed out) quite outdated if not actually useless. When I bought my first Mooney in 2018 and I was seeking advice on engine management here on Mooneyspace, I was in a similar place to the OP. I did my best to reconcile all the bits of advice gleaned from these pages, and to interpret the POH graphs and tables in light of this advice, but in the end was no wiser than I was when I started. My confusion was resolved when I became a SavvyMX subscriber and bought Mike Busch’s book on airplane engines and learned how to properly run my engine. I’ve attached a short article here by Mike that gives the Cliff’s Notes version. Basically, throw out the POH tables and run your engine at either 25-50 degrees LOP or best power (~100 ROP) while maintaining safe CHT’s (380-400F). It’s that simple. I always cruise LOP, which is cleaner and greener and considerably more economical. My CHT’s, TIT, and EGT’s remain safely in the green, and I burn 9-10 gph. Sure, I could run at best power at 100 ROP, and gain 10-15 KTAS, and burn 12-13 gph. But on a 6-hour XC flight that extra speed will get me there only 20-30 minutes sooner, and I’ll burn 20-24 more gallons of fuel, which means $300+ more of my hard-earned dollars being turned to water vapor and CO2. And unless I’m carefully monitoring my CHT’s and keeping them well down, I’ll be significantly shortening the life of my engine. But I ain’t an engineer, so don’t take my advice as if I was one. https://www.avweb.com/ownership/the-savvy-aviator-59-egt-cht-and-leaning/
  4. Since my 231 was written off last December, I’ve been working with Jimmy at GMax to find a new turbo Mooney. So far we have had three M20K deals fall through due to engine problems in each prospect. NowI have an option to offer on a M20J with Lycoming IO-360 that has had an aftermarket turbo with inter cooler and Merlyn installed. I am very familiar with the Continental IO-360 in the 231 and 252 configs (more than 400 hours in them). I made the decision to stay with the 231/252 series because of my familiarity… better to dance with the devil you know than the devil you don’t, if you will. I am told that the Lycoming is less likely to have a catastrophic failure such as the one I had last September that forced me to land in a Colorado pasture. So. The M20J looks good on paper, but I have zero knowledge of the history of engine mods of this type. Any input from the folks here on Mooneyspace would be appreciated.
  5. Great! My wife doesn't spend my money nearly fast enough...
  6. LC, thanks for that response. I had not looked at Dynon at all until now... and the HDX system seems to be pretty capable! I do like the idea of having the engine monitor integrated into the unit. As for flying the bird as is for a while... I didn't mention that option as one I'm considering, but yes, I was wondering if that might be useful. I already have 450 hours in M20K aircraft (mostly my 231 but about 16 hours in a 252) so I'm pretty comfortable with the type, so it's not that I need to log more time in type. But waiting to see what else might be coming from the avionics manufacturers in the next year or so has some merit.
  7. As previously posted, my M20K (N5779R) was written off as a total loss by the insurance company after my engine-out forced landing 9/30/21. I received the check from the insurance company in December, and have been sitting on it while weighing my options. I won't go into a lot of detail on my deliberations, suffice to say that I considered other aircraft (primarily Bonanza, but I also looked hard at transitioning to a twin). But when I discussed my primary and secondary missions, it really came down to getting another M20K, either a 231 or a 252. I have been back and forth with Jimmy Garrison since shortly after Christmas but realistically I was just in window-shopping mode until recently. I have decided to enter into a contract with Jimmy on a 1984 231, and I'm pretty comfortable with that. My only hesitation is with respect to this aircraft's avionics. It has 1984 instruments, of course, with a GPS upgrade to a Garmin GTN-750. I haven't used one of these before, but everything I read and hear about them is very positive. It also has a Garmin GTX-330ES ADS-B, and Garmin GDL-88 ADS-B datalink. The autopilot is a King KFC-150 /Flight Director/Glideslope-Glidepath coupling feature. It does not have a decent engine monitor. My previous bird had an Aspen Evolution 1000 PFD, and after I became familiar with its features and capabilities I really liked it. I also became very familiar with the JPI 800 series monitor, and quite frankly I do not want to fly a turbo Continental that doesn't have at least an 800 series monitor. Finally, I'm wondering if the KFC-150 is functional enough to keep, or if I should be looking at replacing that with an autopilot of more recent vintage. So as I see it today, I'm going to be installing a glass PFD and a JPI engine monitor, +/- a new autopilot. I'm trying to figure out whether the GTN-750 can be coupled with an Aspen PFD, or whether I need to install a Garmin G1000 (or other Garmin) for optimal compatibility and utility. The question comes down to 1) compatibility, 2) capability, and 3) cost. I have a comfortable but not extravagant budget for the avionics upgrades. I There is a bewildering plethora of opinions and data on these issues on the www, and since opinions are as ubiquitous as buttholes, my searches have been frustrating. Let's just say the signal-to-noise ration on this topic is pretty bad. I did go back on MS to see if there was any good discussion on this issue, and found the thread from 2019, but since then both Aspen and Garmin have introduced new products. So, MSers, what opinions do you have on this question? Looking forward to your answers, and thanks in advance.
  8. Hmm. I have not started a specific thread on engine-out ops, but I did post a detailed account of my incident here on this forum... titled "09/30 N5779R Engine Failure at 12,500'." But it may be a good topic for general discussion elsewhere I
  9. I'm intrigued to hear that the factory IS actually making parts, now... but I have been listening to folks who are not in touch with the Mooney community a lot lately, and not a few Bonanza owners, so my sources may be biased. Does anyone here know what's going on at the factory in Kerrville?
  10. Yes, indeed. As I suggested in the OP, I'm reluctant to move away from the Mooney marque for a number of reasons, not least of which is I have more time in Mooneys than anything else, and nothing else I've flown flies quite like a Mooney! As for going pressurized, or six-passenger capacity, that's not a big deal for me... the vast majority of my flights are solo, with perhaps 25% of hours being me and my wife. I have had 3 people in the airplane exactly once, and never 4. So I do NOT need 6 seats. However, I DO want to have a bit more useful load, if I can get it. On our last fishing trip to WY, we were very close to max gross weight, and that made for a sluggish takeoff from Sheridan on the homebound leg... not enough to be worrisome, but it makes a fella slightly nervous as the runway behind him becomes greater than the runway ahead... Anyways, that's part of the "why" I'm looking at the Bravo and Ovation.
  11. LC, thanks for the reply. Yes, I have to say I am really pleased with the flight characteristics of the turbo Mooneys I've sampled so far (231, 252) and I do love flying in the teens. It's good to hear from another turbo junkie here! FWIW, one of the aviation writers I respect most, Mike Busch, is also a dedicated turbocharger fan.
  12. After 400+ hours of enjoyable flying in a Mooney 231 (and 10 minutes of not-so-enjoyable gliding) I am about to go airplane shopping. I've been in touch with Jimmy Garrison at GMax, which has been encouraging. I am looking at moving up to a used Bravo or Ovation, in part due to my experience with the foibles of the TSIO-360, but also for some of the other advantages of the newer models. Any Bravo or Ovation owners care to comment on that? I'm particularly wondering about how well these models deal with higher altitudes and long cruise flights. Most of my flying is 2.5+ hour flights, with about 30% of my flights being over 3.5 hours. My experience in the turbocharged 231 has led me to really, really like flying in the teens, altitude-wise, on these longer trips. On the other hand, I may take a giant leap and move over to a Beechcraft F33... but that feels a little bit like treason, deep down... I've been debating the direction I want to go... I have no qualms about the airworthiness of Mooney aircraft, but I am more than a little concerned about the fact that the factory is not manufacturing Mooney parts any longer. This has already proven to be a problem for me (during my 2020 Annual From Hell) and I am concerned that future parts availability is going to become a serious problem. So, before I take a step I'll regret and go shopping for a Bonanza, I'd like to hear from my fellow Mooniacs... what do y'all think/know about the future of Mooney parts, and the effect this is going to have on the fleet in general?
  13. 4 months ago I would have been thumping the table and crying, "Hear, hear!" to your post. Today, after having a Sept. 30 engine-out forced landing in my 231 with only 450 hours SMOH on my engine, I'm not so sure I can endorse your position at all. I am much less trusting of single-engine aircraft flight now than I was previously. Yes, I know, it's a matter of personal minimums. Let's just say mine have changed substantially since then. I had 6500' of clear air below me when my engine died. Even though that gave me close to 10 miles of glide range to choose a landing spot, at the end of the rollout I realized I had been damn lucky to have as good a spot to land as I did, even in the flatlands of eastern Colorado. If you have only 500' of air under you when you can finally see your spot, and rough ground to choose from; or if landing spots are 15 miles apart between mountain ridges; or if you can't see the ground at all until the last few seconds due to it being nighttime, or dense IMC, the time and flexibility I enjoyed in my forced landing may not be available to you, and the difference could be mortal. I have been flying routinely at night over the Texas hill country 2-3 times per month for the past couple of years. This is not something I will be doing in the future. But when it comes to terrain that can kill you, the peaks don't have to be 14,000 feet high... a 10' deep gully or a 60' maple tree on your landing rollout will kill you just as dead a Pike's Peak. Likewise, flying over IMC with low IFR landing conditions under it isn't something I care to do again. Basically, I've revised my personal minimums for single-engine operation to situations where I will have a minimum of 1000' of clear air above all potential landing spots on my route of flight. That doesn't rule out mountain flying for me, but it certainly tightens the parameters. Again, it's a matter of personal minimums, and everyone has to set their own.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.