1980Mooney

In 2023 DeltaHawk was "targeting" $110,000 (Excluding Installation Labor Cost) for a Cessna 172 conversion to a DHK-180. I suspect that ship sailed long ago and prices will be higher. CessnaPilotsMagazine-DeltaHawk-Nov2023.pdf "Webb promised me that we can expect STCs for the Cessna 172 and other Cessna models at some point. They are working with all of the OEM manufacturers with the goal of having DeltaHawk engines installed in new aircraft" I have seen no STC's approved for conversions of any type and no examples of any plane flying with a DHK engine. DH signaled that they wanted to work with aircraft manufacturers initially for installation in new aircraft and will begin to address GA conversions later. Co-Developing STC for PA-44 Seminole - DeltaHawk Engines Also they intend to design, manufacture and sell a complete conversion - no sales of engines alone. With limited engineering that will be a slow process and naturally will focus on the largest fleets first. The latest engine redesign obviously is slowing it down too. "But we don’t supply just an engine, DeltaHawk will provide complete Engine Propulsion Packages, which includes much more than just an engine. We are developing model-specific packages for popular Certified aircraft, complete with required Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). All packages will be engineered, manufactured, and tested to the highest standards. Flight testing by DeltaHawk’s Professional Test Pilots assures the highest level of performance and safety. These packages will include the engine and mount, plus heat exchangers, pumps, filters, cowl, and necessary hardware, all factory tested as a complete package and ready for installation plus, of course, the required certification paperwork and approvals. If we don’t have a package announced for your aircraft, make sure you vote."

That is a photo above is of the original SR20 test mule which was a couple versions ago. Before the latest engine revision, the test mule looked like this:

The STC is clear - it says that any R or S with the STC must be operated in accordance with the AFMS. The AFMS clearly states that MGW is 3,368 Lbs.

Inching is right. Although they got the DKH180 certified in May, 2023, as I understand, they redesigned again to reduce external hoses and reduce weight. In November someone from DeltaHawk posted the test results on Facebook and LinkedIn (LinkedIn?...nothing to the aviation community or press.. crazy..) The presentation is odd. If the "Fuel Burn" is the average of the flight - then the numbers might not be so bad. But if the 'Fuel Burn" is for 12,000 ft. cruise then the following applies: The 180 HP engine performance at 12,000 ft. (Standard day) in an SR20 looks a few knots faster than an M20C at the same altitude, but burning WAY MORE fuel M20C - 2,700 RPM 140-143 KTAS 8.6 GHP = 51.6 LBS/hour DeltaHawk 146 KTAS 10.6 GPH = 70 LBS/hour That is 36% MORE consumption by weight by DeltaHawk The 200 HP engine performance at 12,000 ft. (Standard day) an SR20 looks about the same as an Ovation pulled back to 50% power (140 hp) M20R - 2,400 RPM 162 KTAS 9.1 GPH LOP = 54.6 LBS/hour 10.7 GPH ROP = 64.2 LBS/hour DeltaHawk 12.1 GPH = 80 LBS/hour That is 25 - 46 % MORE consumption by weight by DeltaHawk DeltaHawk Engines, Inc.DeltaHawk Engines, Inc. • Edited • 2 months ago On November 7 DeltaHawk tested the performance of our Cirrus SR20 with the 200 HP DeltaHawk engine. While this was only the first flight with the 200 HP engine, the performance was very impressive. The data below includes comparisons to the same aircraft with our 180 HP engine. Both tests were completed in very similar weather conditions near max gross weight of the SR20 180 hp: Cruise performance @ 12,000 ft MSL: 146 KTAS Climb Performance (average climb rate from 1,000 ft MSL-12,500 ft MSL): 565 ft/min Time to climb from 1,000 ft to 12,500 ft: 20.3 min Fuel burn: 10.6 GPH 200 hp Cruise Performance @ 12,000 ft MSL: 161 KTAS Climb Performance(average climb rate from 1,000 ft MSL-12,500 ft MSL): 860 ft/min Time to climb from 1,000 ft to 12,500 ft:13.3 min Fuel burn: 12.1 GPH

The important point is that the M20C at 10,000 ft will cruise at 140 KTAS using 70% power requiring 9 GPH. 70% of the 180 HP Lycoming is only 126 HP and well within any max continuous concern. And doing it with nearly 1,000 lbs UL. The Tecnam requires 155 HP to do the same thing at that altitude while hauling about 150 lbs less UL. The GPH of both planes is within spitting distance of each other BUT since Diesel/JP weighs 10% more than AVGAS, the Tecnam needs 57 lbs/hour fuel vs the M20C that only needs 54 lbs/hour. Avionics? It doesn't make the plane go faster. Some C's have great upgrades. Even with a basic autopilot, an old Garmin 430W and an iPad functionality is only marginally different. Granted a flat panel looks great and creates a lot of "physic appeal". Don't get me wrong, I would love the look feel of a new plane too. But a $400,000 premium for 2 extra doors? Besides, at that UL it is really mainly a 2-person plane. This is the struggle for General Aviation today. Modern aircraft manufactures are trying to make something "better" - in this case a carbon fiber fuselage on a metal wing with a diesel engine. Agreed that you get a wider cabin and maybe an extra door or 2. But performance is no better than a 60 year old Mooney. There is a new Tecnam P2010 TDI "0" hours on Controller for sale for $683,000. The new GA market is for millionaires - others need not apply.

A lot of people say that the M20J was the best plane that Mooney ever built, but in reality, maybe it really was the M20C.

Max Continuous power per the POH is 91% or only 155 HP.

There are 2 used P2010 TDI 170 HP for sale on Controller, You can buy them for $530,000 to $605,000. I looked at the P2010 TDI POH. Max continuous power is 91% or 155 HP. At 10,000 ft. and 91% power it will do 140 KTAS burning 8.7 GPH. It is a 4 seater with 838 lbs. UL. zero fuel. I can think of a lot of other used planes to buy for that kind of money. And I think that most M20C running lean and low RPM can do 140 KTAS at 9 GHP and do it with way higher UL. Don't worry - I think that your secret is safe......

@mikey757 The standard oil/fuel hoses, if aged and stiff, could add a another $thousand or so. Don’t know what Teflon ones above cost. Some replace the throttle cable depending on age. Also once the engine and engine mount frame is off, it is not uncommon to discover some corrosion on the engine frame. The tubulars are thin and tolerances are extremely small. You may want it powder coated if repaired. Shipping and repair can add up to another couple $thousand. In an earlier discussion someone said that they don’t like to total it all up because it is too depressing ….

“the rest” can be significant. A Mooney owner at Fullerton posted these costs in addition to the cost of the engine overhaul early last year: Freight to/from $ 2,580 Prop Overhaul $ 3,873 Governor Overhaul $ 880 Oil Cooler Overhaul $ 554 Misc Parts $ 1,683 Labor $ 7,345 If they find issues with your exhaust (likely) then add about another $2,500 -3,000 for repair and freight. That adds about another $20,000 on top of just the bare engine overhaul cost. So maybe $60,000 all in….give or take a few thousands. If you go with a Factory OH or Rebuild add the appropriate delta on top.

The wire number codes are clearly labeled and easily identifiable in the wiring diagram that you posted on Wednesday (800330 E1).

I find it interesting that you are considering insuring the hull for about $100K+ more than any other C on the market (about 2.5 times more than the average and up to $125K more than your current value). That must be one heck of an avionics upgrade that you are considering… I hope that you won’t need to spend any money on an overhaul or prop and don’t want new paint or interior You might get a whole lot more for your money by upgrading to someone else’s plane.

Per your question on wiring diagrams: All Electrical Components and Wiring are shown in the Service Manual All the Electrical components are listed at the end of Volume 1 of the Service Manual. The wiring schematics are in Volume 2 of the Service Manual. Below is a link with 2 downloads. Since you have a 1978 model, then you need to look at Schematic 800330 (E1) which is for S/N 24-0378 thru 24-0757 I also have a J converted to a Missile. There are a few things that your A&P has done that make no sense to me. "After the fourth flight with an amorous gear warning horn activation, my A&P installed a manual tachometer and engine manifold pressure gauge that I had had removed during an avionics upgrade two years ago" "A&P and I inspected area around the engine tachometer and manifold pressure (installed just to the left of the CB panel)" The Tach and Engine Manifold Pressure have nothing to do with the Gear Warning System. It is only throttle position. However, the complicated thing is that the throttle micro switch works in conjunction with the main gear lever/switch, and up/down gear limit/position sensing microswitches (in the belly). The micro switch on the throttle is the primary switch. It simply senses a cut out in the throttle shaft. When raising the gear, any intermittent problems with the airspeed switch and gear over-ride switch can also make diagnosis more complicated. Because of the interconnected design of switches and limit switches it can be hard to diagnose. It sounds like by trial & error wiggling, your A&P determined that the throttle micro switch had intermittent problems. Clearly you have multiple intermittent problems. He needs to be checking the continuity of the wiring per the Schematic. Did he check the connections and continuity of the Up/Down limit microswitches in the belly? Also did he adjust the microswitch on the throttle per the Service Manual? Here is a general article on the gear control system by KNR: 201901 Electric gear safety system

No - But I do have a copy of the Overhaul Manual for the TSIO-360 Series which includes the SB. It has all the performance curves for the SB. I just posted it to "Downloads" in case it might be useful.

This has been discussed on Beechtalk for the Bonanza with much disagreement. Considering that the Bonanza was commercially introduced shortly after WWII you would think that there would be no question, Some Bo's only have 2 detents on the flap selector - Up and Full 30 deg. Down. Some have an Approach 15 deg. detent in the middle. Many argue that full flap Vfe is 123 KIAS and Approach (Half - 15 deg) is 153 - 157 KIAS. Here is was the American Bonanza Society wrote a few years ago. "Vfe is found in the Limitations section of the POH. Some POHs and Beech Owner’s Manuals state specifically that this is a maximum full flap extension speed. There is no guidance on the use of partial flaps in handbooks that make this distinction. Most Beech POHs and Owner’s Manuals define Vfe as applicable to any flap extension at all. Bonanzas with APPROACH flap preselect switches (12°-15° extension, depending on model and year) have a higher APPROACH flap extension speed, the same as the gear extension and operating speed (Vle/Vlo; see item 17 below). Full flaps are limited to the published Vfe speed in these airplanes. Vfe is reduced in turbocharged airplanes above 20,000 feet. This speed is also listed in the Limitations section."

This pilot gave an interview on tv after his embarrassing mistakes. Read the Final. His statements during the TV interview are either delusional or outright lies. The Final notes that he was advised that the plane before him went missed because ceilings were down to 200 ft. The Final noted that he could not fly to the fix which he was assigned. Then he could not follow ATC instructions for headings. He claimed that he misprogrammed his GNS430 (probably the only thing he said that was accurate). However, during FAA/NTSB interview he could not explain how to program or use the 430 - especially the Vertical guidance or glide slope. He said that he used a hand held VFR GPS only “to avoid complex keystrokes “. He had previously crashed a plane in 1992 (with his family who survived) in which the NTSB cited his poor inflight decisions. https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/106368/pdf https://www.dcnewsnow.com/news/local-news/maryland/exclusive-pilot-in-montgomery-county-crash-talks-about-flight-prior-crash-30-years-earlier/amp/ https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/301805

@Marc B here is a Mooney currently on the TMHCC site that you can bid on. It’s that knucklehead J that crash landed that high voltage transmission tower in Maryland. https://www.tmhcc.com/-/media/project/tokio-marine/shared/aircraft-salvage/n201rf-salvage.pdf https://www.tmhcc.com/en-us/contact-us/underwriting-teams/aviation-group/avemco/aircraft-salvage#!/list https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/280966/

I think you mean that Mooney’s only have “fairly low FULL (33 degrees) flap speed”. Mooney has never published a max speed limit (extension or retraction) in any POH for half or take-off flaps (15 degrees). VFE (Full 33 degrees) for an Acclaim is 110 KIAS and 115 KIAS for an M20J. I wonder if anyone has seen notes for half/take off/15 degree flaps from test pilots. But I can attest from 25 years of use, that the upper limit for half flaps is much, much higher.

https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/469542

You should post this in Vintage. This is an ongoing saga with the Dukes actuator. Although the ITT actuator is a direct substitute for the Dukes, I assume the internal design and gear set is different - but could be wrong

Yup - first place to look for answers to obscure Mooney questions like “when he (Lowen) sold the biz”…..

@Mooney810 My J model has a nice dent in the flap right where the "No Step" is located. It was that way 25+ years ago when I bought it. It has been stepped on accidentally in the same place many times in the 25 following years - and yes once or twice by me when tired or entering/exiting in pitch darkness. And the flaps have always worked just fine.

Federal Parks and Monuments with “user fees” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fee_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System#List I think 92 are listed above. You don’t pay - then you don’t enter. Doesn’t matter that Federal funds paid for it. Airport landing fees and ramp fees are perfectly legal.

Hmmmm. "private enterprise both promoting and abbetting aggressive expansion of these fees" That sounds like the mantra of the incoming DOGE cabal. The Reason Foundation and Project 2025 have pushed expansion of user fees to completely user fund the FAA and to privatize ATC. "the Reason Foundation has written an open letter to the incoming leaders of the Department of Government Efficiency to make air traffic control a "user-funded utility." Think Tank Urges DOGE To Make ATC 'User-Funded' - AVweb Open letter on air traffic control to DOGE’s Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy Aviation International News Letters to President-elect Trump debate funding ATC with user fees The use of ADSB data outside flight safety or managing traffic is rather odd… It is probably "music to Musk's/Ramaswamy's ears". Perfectly automated. Easy Peasy.... And for those that think GA pilots pay their "fair" share of FAA and ATC costs through AVGAS fuel tax - it is laughable. The commercial operators have complained that they are subsidizing GA. That measly $38 million is supposed to cover all the thousands of small General Aviation airport FAA grants for capital improvements and ATC along with FAA overhead. Get ready for big increases in costs. And yes it is a slippery slope. The DOGE boys probably already have their fav Private Equity oligarchs lined up to buy the ATC.... @takair expressed a concern about PE buying up airports and screwing us. PE would much prefer to buy the technology at the top - fewer people, no liability. Owning an airport is a PITA fraught with liability. And PE owners would find ways to cut cost - like outsource ATC centers to somewhere like India. After all why do they need to be in the US?!! History of the User Fee Fight in the United States - AOPA

Not sure where you are coming from saying "for a FBO company to come in and then claim that part as theirs to charge a fee is wrong". The FBO is just doing it as an agent of the Owner of the airport (City, County or private) under contract. The contract may stipulate that the FBO gets a service fee. If you have an issue with the practice, take it up with the Airport Owner - they are making the decisions. And as far as charging to enter or use a publicly owned asset, how is this any different from a City charging to enter and park in a City owned parking garage? (and they probably hire a third party to collect the fees as an agent to the City). Same as the State charging a fee to enter a State Park. And charge more if you stay overnight. A perfect example is a City or County funded and owned sports stadium. Of course the City or County is going to charge you to park and enter. Toll fees on public bridges? - common and most going cashless with license plate reading technology. And the road in front of your property?...if the Owner (City or County and yes paid by taxes) wanted to turn that into a Toll Road, they could hire you to collect the fee as their Agent. Yes you will get a commission on the collections to cover your service costs. I think you will see more user fees on everything as Government entities struggle to cover the costs of operating, maintaining and replacing assets and infrastructure. Most Cities/Counties have balanced their Annual Budgets by deferring needed spending/maintenance on assets and infrastructure. It can't go on forever.