Jump to content


Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About N56394

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Kent, WA, USA S36
  • Interests
    Aerospace Engineer, Instrument Pilot first, FAA Cabin Safety for Transports
    Lifelong pursuit of speed and efficiency.
  • Reg #
  • Model
    M20J Missile

Recent Profile Visitors

144 profile views
  1. Perhaps try to swap in a loaner KG 258? Talk with Mid Continent or other Instrument shop? Could be simple calibration if off both on ground and in air but I think shop would need to make the adjustment.
  2. N56394


    Plane and views in flight and ground.
  3. Yes, I reduced power to a cruise climb of 115 kts, 25 MAP and 2550 RPM so fuel flow is reduced. I only use max power for initial take off to about 1000 AGL from sea level. As I climb, I add back in throttle to keep 25 MAP until WOT, then monitor temps until cruise alt. Heading out this afternoon to do a climb and will report FF vs alt at full rich.
  4. I have the Electronics International FF and I set the K factor long ago (once I messed it up by changing to imperial gallons, ugh). I am confident that my flow numbers are good. filled my tanks several times and came out within a gallon between the pump and the FF. Yesterday's flight data. 466 MSL take-off, 29.5 GPH full rich, WOT, 2700 RPM. climb to 1500 MSL climb, 22.8 GPH full rich, 25 MAP, 2550 RPM, 115 kts. EGTs approximately 1300, CHTs approximately 380. could not do a full climb to get fuel pump leaning numbers will do when not so many clouds, lol I ordered the
  5. My Missile @SL I do lean at idle for smoother running. Takeoff is full rich. Flying again later today and will report current flow full power takeoff full rich. Do you know if you have the altitude compensating fuel pump? I do have it. I have read a few Bonanza articles to remove it and put on the standard pump.
  6. Populated profile. Kent, WA USA, not somewhere in the EU, cheers!

  7. I'm convinced that the 71 arm is correct for the aux tank for the missile if the tank cap is just aft of the spar. I went out to the airplane and taped the main and from the diagram in my link from emapa I taped the aux tank. I estimated where the 48 arm would be for the main tank and then put a 2 foot level to see about where the 71 arm would be - yes it turns out to be at where I would guess the CG of the aux tank would be. I would double check your records to be certain. It is possible you all have different tanks, but can't hurt to double check.
  8. I agree totally. Do you have the POH for the aux tank? It should show any loading changes... the 71 came from my Missile loading table from Rocket - since I don't have the aux tank it shows up as zero. If you have those charts from Rocket, it should clear up the issue... You have the aux I don't - but this photo of a Missile shows the cap aft of the wing spar.
  9. Did you find your loading sheet from Rocket Engineering? Mine is in the 3 ring binder - there are about 4 loading examples - if the aux tanks were there before the Missile STC it should be there for the station 71...see this wing fuel tank layout for the LR tank - its aft of the spar... https://www.emapa.aero/Monroy-Mooney-Fuel-Increase-Upgrade-p/mooney-fuel-increase-upgrade.htm
  10. Great info and yes the 19 lbs. in the tail would probably be of huge benefit. Truth be told, I have an old battery (no acid, just water) loaded into the original Mooney battery box - at 27.5 lbs and an arm of 110 that helps set me back a bit - I can remove if needed.
  11. FYI - When I did my training flight with Rocket Engineering back in 2001 the test pilot had me set my trim a bit nose up from take-off. This has worked well - the bottom of the black indicator is aligned with the top of the take off trim window. After I lug the beast at rotation, and gear goes up the yoke forces are light and flaps up and a final trim tweak to 115 kts and I'm off.
  12. Thank you for that, so you are using the same arm for the aux tank as the main tank? I thought the aux was aft of the spar and the main was forward of the spar? My basic empty weight is 2206 lbs and arm is 42.2 so with that loading I would be over gross of 62 lbs and forward of the envelope corner at 45. Man, I need to lighten my plane, lol. I just looked at my records and found the ARM for the AUX fuel - look at the attached W&B from Rocket engineering - the AUX fuel is at ARM 71. Recomputing your loading with 64 gal mains and 26 gal aux would put me at an arm of 46 which would be within
  13. I have a Missile 1983/2001 with speed brakes and am also interested in this discussion. As any Missile owner knows we are constantly flirting with the forward edge of the envelope. I have been trying to determine how adding these tanks affects the CG arm during the fuel burn. only data I can find so far is the 10-12 lbs @ 71 inches for the install weight and 15 gal per wing if speed brakes installed. If anyone can reveal the fuel arm for the Monroy aux tank it would be great. I have had the Missile for almost 20 years without the tanks, but am seriously considering the mod now as my flight mis
  • 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.