A64Pilot

The sad thing is a Bonanza is a very easy airplane to fly, especially to land, reduce power and they come down right away, no float. They have short wings and pretty big flaps I think that has a lot to do with their popularity, the ease of flying, especially landing. If I could get past the nauseating tail wagging in light turbulence I might have bought one, a few years ago when I was looking you could get a V tail for about the same money as a J, because I think the average V tail is twenty years older.

I think GA accident rates follow the hours flown, so unless the rate is factored against hour flown as in x number of accidents per xxxx hours flown I don’t think it’s necessarily accurate. I’ve seen rates that factor in hours flown, but usually it’s just a number per year.

Yes, that’s what I’m thinking too, 94UL is of course a “fit for purpose” Aviation fuel, refined etc under I think an ASTM spec etc. should I think not have any vapor loc issues etc that car gas does, 94UL won’t “eat” composites or nitrile, fuel tank sealer, paint etc. It would let you burn car gas too, but car gas has its own problems with different formulations existing and changing seasonally etc. So it might be difficult, not saying you couldn’t make it work, just it may require even more airframe mods and tomorrows car gas likely won’t be what we test and Certify today. Without being any kind of expert from what little I know is ADI would allow unleaded fuel tomorrow without any problems and my bet is the engine and airframe manufacturers would test and sign off on 94UL if they haven’t already. In my opinion it’s very important for the manufacturers to approve any alternate, to require a product they don’t test and approve is at a min irresponsible. Only the high compression and turbo motors would need ADI, the majority of GA would be fine just switching over to 94UL. There is a solution for those that think we need one, we don’t need a Magic fuel mixed from Lord only knows what with unknown health consequences etc.

I doubt it, but assume if they said they were going to it was both possible and Lycoming was OK with it. My SWAG is liability from saying you can burn Mogas, mostly including me think that means Auto pump gas, but does it really? Does Mogas even exist anymore? By that I meant the fuel that was Certified to burn in the Peterson and EAA STC’s in the 80’s isn’t what is at the pumps nowdays. Plus I think the target market fir the airplane is Part 121. Would that matter for Auto fuel? I don’t know not having personal experience with Part 121, but finally Auto fuel just isn’t available at airports I don't think Lycoming is the stick in the mud most seem to think as they allow and of course Certified a 540 for Embraer to burn pure Ethanol for Brazil. So I think Lycoming will allow ADI, by allow I mean not deny Warranty etc. Its astonishing when you think about it that the FAA allows a fuel that no manufacturer tested, or none that I know of, both airframe and engine. It would seem to me that puts the FAA into a liability problem, Cirrus says don’t use it, FAA says it’s fine, your million dollar aircraft becomes unairworthy, who is paying?

Our Grandfathers would dribble it into the carburetor of a running engine at high idle and gunning it every so often. This was back in the day when pulling the head and de-carburizing an engine was recommended. If there is sufficient water it will clean, but I don’t know if ADI is of sufficient quantity. From this Avweb article Tecnam is going to build an aircraft with ADI. Will they? I don’t know but think there is a market, but maybe mostly in Europe? Haven’t seen many Tecnam’s around here. I believe the T means turbo, never seen one but seems to be the engine we have been crying for? IE electronic controlled, variable timing etc. https://www.avweb.com/features/the-return-of-anti-detonation-water-injection-adi/ “Air Plains isn't the only company exploring ADI. At least one European manufacturer, Tecnam, will reportedly use ADI in a new twin called the P2012. Powered by Lycoming's new TEO-540-A1A, Tecnam says the airplane will be operable on mogas. Another Lycoming-powered aircraft, Grumman's pilot-optional Firebird drone, will also have ADI, presumably to operate in theaters where 100LL isn't available but mogas is.”

There is 109 Octane unleaded race gas https://racefuel.boostane.com/products/109-octane-fuel Oxygenated is good for power production, back in around 1980 when I was drag racing turbo bikes when we set a record, on the way back to the starting line they would take a turkey baster sample of fuel to make sure the fuel was legal, must not have been a difficult test. I think it may have just been specific gravity like you test antifreeze maybe? Has anyone actually tested the Gami fuel for octane? Does it claim to be 100 Octane? Is the requirement to be 100 Octane or just pass detonation testing?

Or just don’t trim full, personally my trim ends up where it is at takeoff, and you should plan on electric trim not working, because it’s some kind of rule, when you need anything the most is when it won’t be available, even when trimmed for takeoff, it takes quite a lot of pressure and trim when I raise flaps

I try to tell this whenever it comes up, but try going rapidly to full power on short final with the trim full up, if you have the strength and are comfortable with the excess pressure required to keep from stalling, fine. Maybe it should be done at altitude. If nothing else I think it should be done so pilots see just how much pressure is required, if you don’t expect it, it could catch you off guard. Ray Maule used to teach an approach in a Maule trimmed full nose up, I did a go around once and that was the last time I landed trimmed full up, it took both hands to hold the nose down, obviously I didn’t die, Mooney especially a 4 cyl one ought to be more forgiving

IF it were rebalanced when the servo was installed it should be a little nose heavy, which is conservative for flutter

Mine does anyway, always thought if it faced backwards that the icing mast wouldn’t be needed

Blocking a vent should not change level indication, unless and this would be an extreme event but unless it was blocked and over time the pump pumping fuel out pulled such a vacuum that it collapsed the bladders. I have seen a metal fuel tank crushed from a blocked vent though so it can happen.

Yeah all of our dealers kept trying to say that what they could sell was a 400 gl airplane, thinking of course 20% less capacity = 20% less cost. But that wasn’t the case the money saved in fiberglass in the hopper was trivial, money difference between a -15 (680 HP) Pratt and a -34 (750 HP) wasn’t much, a Hartzell three blade is a Hartzell 3 blade cost wise, batteries, Starter / Generator, airframe, wings, landing gear etc are the same, there just isn’t any real savings. But you could get a Factory overhauled Walter 750 HP for about half the cost of a Pratt, the Avia prop was less, the Starter / Generator came with the engine etc. Now the Walter wasn’t as powerful as a Pratt, but I was going to derate it to 680 HP as it could make that, leave the airconditioner off as well as lights etc and a 400 gl airplane became viable, then GE bought Walter and killed that plan, but GE was building a “New” Walter making much more power, no hot end insp, no fuel nozzles to clean and several other things and they were wanting to get this new engine in new aircraft of course so we became their launch customer. I think GE General Aviation died on the vine, nobody else jumped on the engine, they designed and built a new engine with 3D printed parts and 21st Century GE aero technology etc for the Cessna Denali. But where is the Denali? Pratt also began giving sweet heart deals to manufacturers to block GE too, but our current owner was too arrogant and stupid to listen. Point I’m making is I don’t see the price point changing. I believe the street price of a Pratt -34 is about $500,000, OEM was about $350,000 back then, but then you buy prop, prop governor, starter / generator, even engine mounts are thousands, so an OEM ends up with half a mil in the engine, so I’d guess you would need a million five to turn a profit for a non pressurized four place? You know I wouldn’t be surprised if a Turboprop isn’t as expensive as a Williams Turbofan, and who wouldn’t want a Jet over a Turboprop? Transition wise a Turboprop is much easier than a piston to manage, especially a Turbo, if FADEC there really isn’t anything to manage. You have to be stupid to hurt a Pratt, they start so easily you have to be stupid to hot start one. But yeah, money is the problem, and a 680 HP Pratt airplane just isn’t much cheaper than a larger higher HP one, Everything is the same, same Avionics etc, just bigger airframe. A TBM is likely about as small as a Turbine makes sense, and a Bonanza is about as big as a single engine piston makes sense. Now if a 500 SHP turbine cost half as much as a 1,000 SHP one did, then you could do it.

Usually VNE is pretty easy to increase, especially if it’s flutter. The Thrush S2R was an R-1340 aircraft, it got a turbine conversion via an STC, when Fred Ayres bought the plant, he bought the STC and the the first factory built turbine Ag aircraft was born. It kept the same gross weight and speeds of course, but Ag pilots fill the hopper until they just barely make the trees at the end of the strip, they don’t care about weight so they sold like hot cakes. Overseas though they very often hold applicators to the POH and as there were a great many overseas sales, they needed higher limits Years later Fred thought he was going to get rich building a purpose built Cargo aircraft for Fed-ex, overextended himself and went broke, we bought the plant and after a couple of years I went about increasing gross weight and Airspeeds. It took a couple of years to establish ourselves, clean things up and get a good “book of business” etc. , until then we just didn’t have the funds for Certification projects On the S2R-H80 my first real “new” aircraft that was of course really just a modified S2R using the same airframe, landing gear etc I increased gross weight from 6,000 lbs to 10,500 and airspeed VNE from 160 mph to 196 and flap speed to higher than the original VNE. Other than testing and analysis to prove the margins were there there was not all that much actual structural redesign required, only thing needed to increase VNE other than testing of course was tightening up the balance limits some. Aircraft are very often Certified not to their actual limits, but to realistic and safe limits that the aircraft is capable of in its current form. For example I have no idea what the actual flight CG limits are on the S2R-H80, the forward limit we tested to about as nose heavy as we thought safe to prevent a nose over on a tail wheel aircraft and the aft was the amount of lead we could stuff into the weight box that was mounted as far aft as possible. Neither limit could possibly be approached under any loading condition possible in the aircraft as it is. So very often when you make big changes to an aircraft there is a lot of room in increasing limits and often it’s not much actual work required to do so, what the gotcha is being able to afford all the DER’s etc to jump through all the FAA hoops to get there, the aircraft mods are the cheap and easy part, they may take only 90 days, but Certification can take two years after you finish the aircraft. So what I’m saying is that I bet fuel, VNE and gross weight may be within the possibilities of increasing on a Mooney, all it takes is Money Maybe Although a Certified four pax turbine already exists, it was built and Certified over 50 years ago, just was never built. It would in my opinion be a better aircraft, but it is not an inexpensive aircraft to build. All it would take is Money https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/november/01/will-the-interceptor-400-only-live-twice

@PT20J I got you beat on the car story. It was a 1973 Ford F-250, during the first gas shortage My Father had saddle bag fuel tanks put on it because we were building a beach house in Fl and you could buy gas only on odd or even days based on your tag number and we couldn’t get home without the extra tanks, it had a fuel selector valve. Well he would run it out of course, switch tanks and grind the starter until it started, second starter I put on it I put a Holley electric fuel pump on it connected to the ignition, told him turn the key on and when the pump quit rattling, crank it, which worked fine, no more burning up the starter. A few years later the truck got older and became a Farm truck, it wasn’t maintained very well and I guess the oil bath air filter must have gotten dirty because one of the men had removed it who knows when. One day it backfired, carb caught fire, but I knew we were in trouble when I heard the pump start rattling and instantly we had a BIG fire, pump kept running until there wasn’t much left of the truck. I think it quit when the battery melted. Bad thing was it was parked real close to the house but I was able to drag it away with the tractor before it caught the house on fire.

I’ve had one and seen the results of another. ‘I set my C-85 on fire from overpriming, some C-85’s inject fuel into the cylinders, mine does into the throat of the carb. Anyway once I figured out I was on fire, full throttle and motor the starter in the idea of sucking the fire in. Line guy came and squirted it with dry chemical. There was some charring if the paint on the cowling but mostly smoked up, and of course the air filter was toast. Threw filter away after inspecting for damage, got in a cranked it up and flew it home. Second was was a Fuel injected Maule on floats at Jack Browns, as starting a float plane often has a greater sense of urgency because yiu could be being blown into trees or drifting down stream etc. They were showing the owner the flooded start procedure, intentionally flooding it. Well he burnt the Maule down to not much but a steel frame with floats. I think it depends on severity, if the airplane burns up and the engine gets so hot seals etc are melted then I believe they are considered toast, but are the renuildable or which if any parts can be re-used. ‘I’d call Lycomings help desk, but think unless they have criteria it’s going to be at the discretion of the A&P