Falcon Man

What components do you have? Asking price(s)? Is this a functioning system?

Thanks

What is the situation regarding "removal of all Charlie weights"?

Mooney Aircraft should be building aircraft the way you did. Cheers!

Have you run a GAMI lean test? This information will help you determine much about how your engine is running. The GAMI spread information will tell you if your engine is producing balanced power in all 6 cylinders, based on the fuel flow spread. I have performed this test on all 5 of my K models (231, 262, 252's and Encore). Surprisingly only one of the aircraft had a fuel flow spread that was intolerable and GAMI fuel injectors were helpful in reducing the spread to less than 0.5 gph. Also, several engines were set up with too little of fuel flow at max power. Having similar fuel flow to cylinders and adjusted baffling went a long way in helping to level out the CHT's in climb to and cruise in the teens.

I frequently climbed in my 231 LB to the high teens as my field elevation is 5,300 ft and I flew over the Sierras on most of my flights. To keep the CHT's close to 350F I had to open the cowl flaps all the way and set FF to ~ <1500 TIT and keep the climb rate ~ 500 fpm. Cylinder # 3 was always the hottest until we modified the cylinder baffles. On occasion I would fly out of Palm Springs and the climb rate was pretty low to keep CHT's good until I got into the cooler air.

If anyone wants more info on the 262 conversion of a 231 by Coy Jacobs feel free to pm me and include a phone number and I can provide answers to most of your questions.

The factory said nothing particular as to why the factory starter was advised. Probably because the failure was specifically with lightweight starters, and no known failures with the factory one. Maybe because the MB engine was never designed to be in a 12/14 volt aircraft?? I asked why a service bulletin wasn't issued and the person I spoke with didn't know. Maybe it was because no one was injured physically and they did not authorize the STC. I would be very skeptical of any stock 231/252 has a useful load of 950 #, unless it was actually weighed per the POH. Many review authors of 231/252 wrote that all left the factory over 2000#. If you remove the vacuum system in stock 231/252 you will have to replace the speed brake system as it is vacuum operated. My old 262 current owner did this and the airplane has long range tanks and he said it was a nightmare and double the regular cost over standard tanks. And they had to get a field approval due to the wing structure modification.

My 262 experience, No problem according to my AI regarding the STC. One glaring issue is with the starter. There have been at least 5 inflight starter problems with the lightweight starters. They have activated and destroyed gears in the accessory case, causing simultaneous vacuum pump and a # 2 alternator failure. I had this happen, but I had a backup electric vacuum and a second #1 unaffected alternator. There was metal that got into the oil and destroyed the bottom end. I talked with TCM and they were aware and advised only using the original TSIO360MB big old heavy duty starter. This is a problem with the MB engine in a 12/14 v aircraft, as it has never been a reported problem in 252's, which art 24/28 volt. I did not experience any other unique problems with my 1984 231 converted to a 262, which I flew for a little more than 1000 hrs.

Other engine overhaul options: Send a core to a A & P school for overhaul and save the labor costs. Unfortunately some engine shops have as much as a year waiting for parts.

Kerrville, don't know who you are. You have access to the alternator belt?

The alternator belt on my 1986 K model is cracking. That part number is not available any more. Alternatives?

After flying a B, G, E, J and K models I stuck with the K because it fit my mission the best. West of the Rockies is where most of my flying occurs @ 16,500-17,500 altitudes which are a great place to be for cross country flights out here. I usually fly with just me and baggage so useful load is not a large concern. The turbocharged engine allows me the ability to maintain decent speeds, puts me above the turbulence in the warmer months, gives great clearance over the mountain ranges, allows continuous radio communications, provides significant glide time in the case of engine troubles, has the same cabin seat space as the long bodies without the added expenses in maintenance and insurance. Logically speaking the FF argument loses importance when compared to the maintenance, insurance, hangar and upgrade costs. As others have said repeatedly, pick the airplane that fits your mission.

Regarding range in K models w/ standard fuel tanks, at 65% hp up to 1000 miles, endurance ~ 6 hrs.

My JPI showed the percent HP during these flights. Perhaps these three were not calibrated correctly? Seems unlikely. The performance numbers I recorded were referenced, for example: In my current 252 my numbers are referenced from the Mooney 252 POH Cruise Power Schedule for the 252, which shows 65% power at 136.5 BHP, 2200 RPM, MP 26 ", at STD temp of -21 C. @ 18K altitude, w/ FF of 10.5 gph, assuming leaned to peak TIT. However I was usually just ~ 25 degrees LOP. Interestingly all three airplanes FF was 0.5-1.0 gph higher than the performance charts in the POH's. Not sure where your 231 data comes from because the LB engine can't produce 78% power at 2200 rpm as the critical altitude is 14,000 ft, unlike the MB which is 24,000 ft. IMHO and experience.

Additional info on my K model comparisons 65% HP: For the 252/Encore and 262 = MP 26-28 inches, RPM 2200, FF ~ 11 gph. For the 231 = MP ~ 28-30 inches, RPM 2200, FF ~ 12 gph. When temps were higher than std the MP and FF would go up proportionally.

My AP & AI expert says most Mooneys he has come thru his shop when a "C" or "B" or "P" mechanic has been doing the annuals he finds they are not rigged properly and without the specific Moony calipers for doing so they are not as fast/efficient as they might be otherwise. For example my 97 Encore had an outer top wing panel changed (not in log books!) and it was tweaked and wrong rivets were in place. So we replaced the panel to make it correct. Six out of the seven Mooney's I have owned were not rigged properly, including often the gear and doors needed adjustment. Think about it - 252 to Encore - a 5% increase in HP, hardly makes a faster plane with a ~ 10% increase in max weight. Many encores have an empty weight of > 2100 #. Mooney did not advertise the Encore as faster than the 252. Jeff

Comparisons of K models in my experience: - My 79 231 LB 210 hp engine with intercooler and automatic waste gate - always had to crack open the cowl flaps at std temp or hotter OAT to keep CHT's below 380F, FF ~ 25 degrees LOP, 65% HP @ 17,500 was ~ 170+ knots TAS. - My 97 Encore 220 hp SB engine, cowl flap always closed, at std or hotter OAT, - CHT's ~ 350 F,~25 degrees LOP, 65% HP @ 17,500, ~ 185+ knots TAS. - My 1984 262 - 210 hp MB engine, had to crack the cowl flap at std temp or above to keep CHT's 350F or less, ~ 25 degrees LOP, 65% HP @ 17,500 ~ 170+ knots TAS. - My 1986 252 - 210 hp MB engine, cowl flap always closed , CHT's < 350F, ~25 degrees LOP, 65% HP @ 17,500, 190+ knots TAS. Summary: - The 231 didn't have tuned induction, it required a higher MP than the 252 to produce the same HP, the cowl cooling was inefficient, and the gear isn't fully enclosed by the doors. The 231 burned more fuel by 1-1.5 gph at same % HP. - The 262 was cooler than the 231 due to the tuned induction and better cooling cowl. The speed was similar. - The Encore wins the useful load competition, but the 10 hp increase didn't make it any faster than the stock 252.

Is the posted airspeed on FlightAware the true or ground airspeed?

I have used the Avidyne 540/440 in my 252, and a friend's Ovation and they are compatable with the Garmin products you have mentioned. Having flown both the Garmin and Avidyne navigators, I prefer the Avidyne equipment. I agree that your current panel is more than adequate.

Research shows that dogs start to desaturate at 8,000 ft. There is a company that makes an oxygen hood for animals - 4 Paws Aviation. Might be worth checking out. Another option is to do what we veterinarians do in a pinch: Fit an E-Collar which is longer that the muzzle of the animal, cover the open end with Saran Wrap and tape it around the outside edges, make a hole in the E-collar near the wide end, and put an O2 tube through it and tape in place. Close to the smaller end place some holes around the circumference for gases to escape. The flow rate is good at 1-2 liters/minute and will constantly flush the setup so the CO2 escapes along with the excess O2. Fussy dogs might have to have some practice training to get used to the E-collar. Jeff

Noted . Thanks

Is this a current parts for sale list? Jeff

What is your true airspeed at 15-16,000 ft on those fuel flows?

PM me - flyingfalconpllc@gmail.com - Jeff