A64Pilot

There is a huge misunderstanding about peak and how it’s terrible to operate at peak etc. ‘If your some arbitrary number, let’s use 65% power or less, then peak is a perfectly logical place to operate, you just don’t do it at high power. Real high power you operate full rich, yes you can go LOP, but your losing quite a bit of power, it does take some attention to ensure you don’t do damage too, leaving it full rich doesn’t and the assumption is if your operating at high power, you need it to take off or climb etc. ‘Lycoming has a problem with what mix ratios etc they can recommend, first and foremost they have to warranty the engine, if you break the thing operating it as they recommend, they have to pay for it. Secondly and likely just as important the sales dept would go nuts if they recommended a procedure that resulted in a significant loss of power The only time you can operate a engine at full power or high power continuously and it not significantly shorten its life, is if it’s been de-rated. the TBM’s for example, their engine cores are 1700ish HP cores, derated to 800 or whatever so that at high altitude they still give good performance. So running one at 800 HP continuously down low isn’t going to hurt it, at least not the core, gearbox possibly. Its not common to derate smaller piston engines. People all the time complain about how their airplane engines are junk compared to cars, automobile engines do have several advantages, but the primarily reason they live so long is that only very rarely if ever are they operated at a aircraft power levels, and when they are, it’s usually only for a few seconds

I think I understand what your saying, it wastes compressor air as opposed to exhaust? Still an inch or two of boost ought to easily recover any HP lost, so just run 32” on takeoff ?

I’ve had an injector clog several times in the 210, it never happened on takeoff, but if it did, I’d abort the TO or reduce power to min and land. It happened in flight, first time I fought to keep it rich enough, full rich and high boost, made the other 5 slobbering rich, after that I’d reduce power and let the lean one go wherever it wanted, power was low enough it didn’t hurt anything, it woud just lean out and pretty much die. ‘I got so I carried a 7/16” deep well socket and shorty wrench and a can of carburetor cleaner. Then one day it stopped clogging injectors and never did again, only did it three or so times.

Why would performance be degraded? Charge air heating?

In theory 22 inches of manifold pressure is 22 inches, at seal level or at altitude. But in practice in my NA motor it’s not, I can’t run the same fuel flows even though the pressure and RPM are identical, and I’m not sure why. In theory a TN motor can hold sea level power all the way up to critical altitude, and I’m not sure they can. My reasoning is that pressure is irrelevant,it’s actually the mass of air that’s important. ‘So air at 59f at 30” has a lot more mass than air at 300F or so at 30”. Don’t know the temp of a non aftercooled turbo and am sure it will vary depending on how hard the turbo is working to maintain 30”, but 5th stage bleed air from a turbine and APU bleed air is about 400F on average, but it’s at a much higher pressure too, but there is some heat from the turbo and heat of course causes expansion, and expansion decreases density.

You lost me, don’t believe what?

That is very close to Lycoming gospel and I maintain that a engine can be safely operated that way and make TBO. Follow those directions and things are easier, your burning more fuel,but it’s harder to mess up. Guy I bought my airplane from when I asked him what egt he ran and he said between 725 and 750, Well that threw me, EGT’s will change from one day to the next. So when I asked him where those numbers came from, he said his CFI. I know the CFI well, he’s also an IA, so I asked him WTH? His answer was he didn’t want to overwhelm a novice pilot, this guy apparently shouldn’t really be in a Mooney yet, so he gave him some numbers that were on the rich side of safe, so he wouldn’t hurt anything.

J seems to have a good air box, or the air box and the ram air are both crap? Air box seems good enough to pretty much make the ram air not so useful, or at least on mine anyway it’s only about 1/2” difference. Still there is a whole lot more going on, some that I can’t adequately explain. ‘For instance I can run 22 squared at 2500 or so at 7 GPH happily, but at altitude I can’t. it takes more fuel. So a TN motor at 12,000 ft, is a seal level chart applicable? I don’t know

I don’t understand the huge disparity, can’t argue successfully with the factory charts though

By what chart? The attached is for a NA motor, and if you assume standard adibatic lapse rate a NA motor can only hold 27.5” MP to 2500 ft. His is of course a TN motor, are there charts available? ‘Your going to lose some significant power from a turbo heating the intake air charge, but you have to use something.

I can buy this statement as being perfectly logical and good, assuming it gives a temp that is within the turbines limits, if not then of course you need to enrichen until below TIT limits. Issue is cruise power settings isn’t defined, I’d have to dig, but I believe in many engines Lycoming defines cruise as being at or less than 75% and then throws in a statement that if run at 65% or less, the engine will last longer, but it’s been a long time since I did that reading. ‘So if we are talking about 75% power or less, then I’d say 25c ROP is a acceptable mixture, there are other acceptable mixtures below 75% too of course ‘However as I don’t have any kind of chart for this TN STC, but as it’s a TN setup it’s should still be a 200 HP engine, and if so then 27.5 MP and 2440 RPM is well North of 75%, my SWAG is it’s above 85%, which puts us in the takeoff / climb regime, and when there I think you should operate way rich. Making that much power continuously you would expect to see high oil temps, and apparently he is, the thinner air at altitude doesn’t help, but that ought to be offset by airspeed, because oil cooler ought to be sized to allow a full power climb on a NA engine, 200 isn’t real high and if you call the oil company and ask they will laugh as 200 isn’t anywhere even close to the oils limit, when you hit 220 on a Lycoming the concern isn’t that your cooking the oil, it’s that your overheating the engine. I believe he needs to slow down and enjoy life, and if he wants speed, altitude is the way to get it with a blown motor, 75% power at 180 or 200 is I bet faster than WFO at 12,000

Who is Mr sandman? Who recommended peak at full power? Quick question for those that abdicate high power LOP. How lean are you on takeoff? If your going to run the thing at or above 75% power, turbo or not, your safer if you run it rich, it’s why I hope all of us take off with everything full forward. I am not against LOP, I can run deep LOP 22 squared and 130 kts on 7 GPH, To go 160 kts down low on my J doubles the fuel consumption and I can assure you reduces its life too, so I don’t, but some choose to. I’m just not in as big a hurry as I used to be, and I haven’t a schedule anymore. 130 kts to me isn’t bad, others couldn’t stand it, but speed is relative. I lived and cruised on a sailboat for three years, 7 kts was fast then. ‘LOP is another tool in the box, but it’s not the best for fangs out, hair on fire speed

Market is on fire, but the more desirable aircraft sell first. It’s not hype. ‘I’ll use campers so as to try to it offend, try to find one, there are very few good ones for sale and they are overpriced, even new ones are sold out. That pretty much leaves the ones that have sat in someone’s backyard under a tree for years, and now sensing a opportunity it’s listed for sale, but doesn’t. It doesn’t sell because it’s not worth buying, even in a sellers market, it’s just not enough left to make it worthwhile.

I have the Wife’s car under the wing or I could have gotten closer to take the photo, but yes the hangar is slowly becoming a storage place for things like rugs that the Wife says don’t go with the new house, but I know what I paid for them, so I’m not throwing them away, maybe one of the kids can use them.

It may make sense to buy an old airplane as a parts donor, isn’t someone trying to sell one without an engine and prop?

Even with a sump per bladder, any bladder can trap water. The C-210 we had, apparently had a wrinkle on the bottom of the bladder and a leaking left fuel tank cap. you could sump the fuel and get no water, rock the wings and get water. Having said that my Mooney has bladders and I like them, glad it does. ‘I’m not so sure grass is bad on a wet wing airplane, the reason is that there are two Ag plane manufacturers, both have wet wings, and Ag planes usually fly off of rough strips day in and day out and can land several times an hour over and over, and the wet wings don’t leak usually until they get old, so I believe it’s more of a age thing. Bladders have a life limit too and leak when they get old, but they are usually a lot easier to remove and have repaired, and the repairs have a very good track record. Bladders in Mooney’s I assume just aren’t old enough yet to start leaking, but they will, wait and see.

Airplanes hit beams, it happens. This is the wing tip of my C-140, can you tell that it was an orange beam? I was pushing the aircraft, but it happens. Been at least ten years ago.

Faster is not my experience, not with the having to drive to the Airport in Atl, park in the next county, go through all the Carp you need to security wise etc. Sure it may be a two hour flight but all the carp you have to go through on both ends means it takes all day, to say nothing about sitting next to huge people in tiny seats, crying babies and people who bring bags of Mcdonald’s on the airplane with them. I flew business Internationally, but most always State side I took the C-210, because I wasn’t flying into major cities, and I lived 3 hours drive away from Atl ‘Flying now is the Greyhound bus of the 70’s, small wonder that the Biz jet market is booming for the folks that can afford it. ‘The Interstate Highway system was likely more of a killer of GA than the airlines, it was conceived in 56 but not finished until 92.

Many will argue, but you won’t hurt one if your rich enough. You can hurt one if you don’t understand leaning and don’t lean aggressively enough, not every engine right out of the box will run smoothly LOP. ‘If your after speed, my advice is run it IAW Lycoming’s instructions and leave the LOP stuff for those that don’t mind sacrificing some speed for a pretty big decrease in fuel consumption. Just from your screen name I’m guessing your primarily after speed, as well as of course your numbers on your engine monitors.

Any small aircraft should climb better without flaps, if they wouldn’t then we would leave them down until we reached cruise altitude, better as in both Vx and Vy, but they enable slower speeds, speed reduction is their purpose Flpas add drag of course and increase lift, but they increase drag more than lift, or again we wouldn’t retract them. (no free lunch) FAA says the purpose of flaps is so to slow an aircraft for landing, partial flaps of course allow you to takeoff at a slower airspeed too, speed correlates to required runway distance as acceleration rate is essentially the same, so T/O flaps settings allow a shorter runway Any flap setting decreases L/D ratio Oh, and by increasing wing camber at the root, they also effectively “wash out” the wing, meaning that a stall is far more likely to occur at the wing root first and slowly progress to the tips, so a stall with flaps is much less likely to drop a wing. Other than practice, there just isn’t any good reason that I can come up with under normal situation for no flap landings, if the cross winds are so severe as to require a no flap landing, I’ll likely find a runway that’s into the wind and call Uber. ‘But we should all practice no flap landings because if you fly long enough, eventually you will need to, even the guys with manual flaps.

Farmers put calcium in their tractor tires, and I have heard car dealerships and oil change centers etc will give away used antifreeze. But I guess it depends on where you live. Good luck with it, fabric wise Sunbrella will last a decade on boats, but I think I’d look at place that makes truck tarps, ought to be real durable and handle winds well and be way less $$ than Sunbrella. I think if allowed you may end up self fabricating.

Only way I think you could pull off any kind of building, tent or whatever without firmly attaching it to the ground is to water ballast it. ‘One way often used for exhibition tents etc is plastic barrels, but 55 gl steel drums can often be found cheap and you can weld attachments on them. ‘Finding an airport other than a private strip that would allow you to do so may be more challenging than finding a hangar?

Well in truth we are in a single engine piston forum, and anything the Airlines or Navy flies is significantly different. ‘But no, I have never flown anything like a large Airliner and never will, but you have me interested why an Airbus needs more than 27,000 ft to recover from a stall. Honestly I’m very surprised from what I have heard that a swept wing aircraft is as stable as that one was in a full stall, I assume it was not in a deep stall.

Experimental is pretty much the only hope left for the common man. ‘I looked at everything from an RV-4 to a Bonanza before I found my Mooney. I haven’t any interest in building, none, and for an IA an Experimental loses a lot of its appeal, but what “got” me was that a decent built IFR RV-6 or 7 was $100K asking, with a field overhaul mid time engine. I paid $95K for my J model which pretty much duplicates the performance of a 6 or 7 but carries a whole lot more. A good Bonanza can be had for about the same price, but will cost more to fly and maintain. But as the 182’s and Mooney’s etc go away which they are, that pretty much leaves Experimental. Mooney abandoned the J because they couldn’t make money on it. Costs of manufacturing a small number of aircraft are so high, you have to sell the Uber expensive Luxury models that have higher profit margins, hence the pushing seven figure piston singles, which for me as a common man, may as well be a G-650. ‘I used to think for years that what wad killing GA was the expense, people simply couldn’t afford it anymore, but then we went cruising in our boat for a few years and I would see a whole lot of seven figure sportfisherman pull up to the dock and take on a $1,000 or more of fuel at a time and realized they could easily be flying for less than that boat cost. I think the difference is they can decide today they want a boat, and as long as the check clears they can be out driving around in their boat tomorrow. Immediate gratification, which is big in the world of today, and learning to fly takes a lot longer.

I tried saying this in a earlier thread, but you did it so much better than I could have possibly done so. On edit, I feel as if we are caretakers of a dwindling supply, and feel that beyond simply maintaining my investment that I should do my best to maintain my aircraft in at least a stable condition, with the goal of each year them being slightly better than they were the year before, and when that becomes no longer possible, I should sell them to someone who can. What are our kids or grandkids going to be able to fly if we don’t? To me it’s painful to see an aircraft tied down rotting away, even if it’s something as ugly as a Tripacer. There is an old Bonanza I walk past every time we go to Crystal River that bothers me, it’s probably beyond saving from a cost perspective. I think a Piper Super Cruiser is there and in the same position.