A64Pilot

The 2 quart level is a level that if you fall below will result in engine failure and if doesn’t I believe that oil level supposedly requires an overhaul. The upper level is determined by hours of fuel on board of a standard airplane, then using the max allowable oil consumption multiplied by number of hours of fuel available won’t take you below the min safe level. This is why identical engines in different aircraft will have different min oil levels according to the POH. ‘This is the formula used to determine max oil consumption for Lycoming’s .006 x BHP x 4 ÷ 7.4 = Qt./Hr. https://www.victor-aviation.com/pdf/tech-docs/SI1427B.pdf So if I do the math correctly, and check it cause I often mess up the math, but we are allowed to use .65 quarts per hour and it’s not excessive. So take .65 quarts times the max time aloft we can achieve, add that to two and you will get the min oil level at take off. Understand that’s MIN level, not recommended level and it allows for zero leakage. so a little extra can be similar to having a little extra fuel in the tanks Most engines max level is above the point where it will blow out the excess, the engine manufacturers know that of course but that allowable level may be required in order to ensure some aircraft can use that engine due to the rather long endurance they may have. ‘For some reason STC’d long range or ferry tanks are not accounted for in this oil consumption formula, so it’s possible in theory to run out of oil if your ferrying an aircraft for example, why long range tanks don’t require higher oil levels I can’t explain, it would seem they should. Who would fly a aircraft that burns a half quart an hour?

Where do you find this lean of peak table your adjusting fuel flow to? That would be helpful as X fuel flow at X RPM should equal X percentage of power output, within limits of course. Previously I had to find peak on the richest cylinder, then lean to get desired LOP setting, anything below -20 made the airplane unacceptably slow on my 540, and at the altitudes that gave me the highest true airspeeds (9 to 11,000) I lost too much airspeed LOP so I abandoned it, LOP works, it does reduce fuel consumption, but for me in the last airplane that was instrumented and equipped for it, it did so I believe primarily by reducing power so much. 50 LOP is a huge power loss, and at altitude there is no “simply increase throttle to recover power lost” your already there, turbo may be different, I speak of normally aspirated Oh, and on edit, wear is directly tied to RPM, one theory is its because of the kinetic energy of the rotating components, the higher the kinetic energy that there is, the higher the wear. I believe it’s largely due to the forces required in a reciprocating engine in reversing directions thousands of times per min. Plus of course for things like rings and bearing surfaces, the higher RPM results in more distance per unit of time they are drug across cylinder walls etc. RPM is the biggest reason why slow turning stationary motors last so much longer than their higher turning cousins, generators for instance in your part of the world to get 50Hz a single pole generator turns 3000 RPM, a double pole, 1500. The 1500 RPM generator lasts longer, twice as long? maybe not, but it’s generally accepted that the life is longer.

It would be very unusual for a prop to be more efficient at high RPM, the reason is drag, at higher RPM, the drag increase is quite substantial. But there is a lot of misunderstanding about props, due largely to marketing. Engines are geared to slow down the prop, even the old R-1340 was both direct drive and geared, gearing adds weight and complexity so of course direct drive is preferred, but that means you need to make power at a low RPM due to prop limitations and that’s tough, so it’s a compromise as everything is. ‘However even if a prop was more efficient at high RPM, the engine isn’t, the reason it’s not is drag, it takes quite a lot of energy to spin a motor and that energy is of course “wasted” as in it’s not being used to drive the airplane. ‘So from a efficiency perspective the lowest RPM that will allow you to make the required power will almost always be the most efficient. ‘However as of course horsepower is torque times RPM, once you reach the torque limit an engine can produce the only way to get more power is by turning up the RPM. The Toyota Prius is of course an example of an engine designed and operated as efficiently as possible, the Prius is computer controlled, and most often the Prius is run at wide open throttle with the computer turning down the engine RPM via the planetary gear system so that at full throttle it’s output matches what’s required. It’s not uncommon to see a Prius at 1200 RPMor less even at highway speed if your going slightly down a hill etc.

Not sure where Brooksville is exactly, but to get it out of the weather until you find something closer I bet we could probably fit it inside of my hanger. ‘I’m in Weirsdale Fl which is real close to the Villages, South of Ocala.

I know this sounds nuts, but at 97fl we pay $150 a year. I’m pushing to have that increased as it just covers expenses and I’d like to see a fund build up for expenses that you know will eventually happen, but it’s falling on deaf ears.

One possibility is he hit the car that was moving much slower with his righting tip, that could have pulled the aircraft around 90 degrees to the right?

So without going out and flying it, what power setting gets you 120 KIas?

Just looking and correct me if I’m wrong, but Carson’s speed is 1.316 time VG? Understand I learned what Carson’s speed was about 1 min ago. A J model’s VG is 90 KIAS? If so then 1.316 times 90 is 118 or so, which is so close to 120 that you can consider 120 as being the best speed for endurance ‘ fuel consumption and the desire to actually get somewhere?

I had to look up Carson’s speed because I had never heard of it, but it’s apparently the right side of what in the Military was referred to as “bucket” airspeed or close anyway. If you look at any L/D chart, even helicopters you’ll notice that it’s bucket shaped and Carson’s speed is apparently the front edge or right side of that “bucket” A nice compromise in speed vs fuel consumption

Just looking for power settings for when we are just out for the fun of flying or maybe sightseeing, looking at the trees turning color or whatever, not trying to maximize anything, a nice comfortable cruise is all, one that generates enough heat to keep the oil above 180f etc. I just got my Mooney and it will be a couple of months until the finances recover enough for me to install an engine monitor so all I have is the 40 yr old factory gauges so I only have approximations of what oil temp and cyl head temps are

Primary efficiency gains from LOP is from slowing down, not so much from an increase in BSFC. However there are a few people who stand to gain financially from selling products that if they are to be believed are required for LOP operation so it’s not surprising there are converts. Bottom line, if you keep power output low enough you simply can’t hurt your engine with the mixture knob, and rich mixtures are only required at very high power outputs which are of course inefficient. Maybe I should come “clean” a little, I have a background in aircraft testing, not really piston engine aircraft, but testing is testing. I’ve done some testing in my Maule with an IO-540W1A5D Lycoming that had Gami’s and fine wire plugs, engine was well broken in with a couple hundred hours on new Millennium cylinders and I had a MVP-50 that was multi point calibrated within 90 days. Anyway what I came up with was that the majority of efficiency increase from LOP came from the rather serious reduction in power output and not so much from any increase in actual engine efficiency gained from LOP. Said another way, set an exact airspeed say at peak EGT, write down the fuel burn, than set that same airspeed LOP and see what fuel burn is. You may find that the biggest variable is airspeed and if your after absolute minimum fuel consumption, that poking along at Vy is likely to give you the max range and endurance, but who can stand flying that slow? However what I was asking is whats some good settings that the engine runs smoothly and keeps oil temp above 180F in a typical warm day and what airspeed do you get and the fuel burn. In theory if your after absolute min consumption, full throttle to reduce pumping losses and very low RPM for prop efficiency and engine drag reduction and leaned as far as it will run to reduce power output as low as possible and airframe drag due to lower airspeed is the answer, and that’s ignoring altitude, which is of course not an insignificant variable.

I guess this is a model specific question, mine is a J. ‘I know many are all about speed, but sometimes your not in a hurry and efficiency has its own attractions. So what do you J model guys use for a low power cruise manifold and rpm setting wise? I know in theory that low RPM increases both propellor efficiency and reduces engine drag so the lower the RPM, the more efficient on paper. But I’ve done some testing with a different airframe and found that while I’m sure that’s a correct statement that the differences weren’t measurable with a known accurate to .1 GPH fuel flow gauge and indicated airspeed. My motor seems “happiest” vibration wise not going lower than 2350, but I’ve not extensively studied this, there may be sweet spots at lower RPM’s that I’m unaware of, plus I don’t know how well my prop is balanced as it’s a new to me airplane, so what power settings do others use? I’m not meaning this to get into a LOP discussion, although it may end up delving into that, just wondering what others use for a power setting and why those numbers is all.

Boeing helicopter? I know of only a couple of those and wouldn’t think there would be any sales for them?

Exporting aircraft I would always leave from there,(Ft Pierce) the FBO will rent life rafts at a reasonable rate and the Customs people are nice, Not so much at Key West or Miami. Used to be several I think Grumman Mallards there, maybe there was a shop for them, are they still there?

Only prop that requires grease is I believe a Hartzell, and be very careful greasing them, many you can fill the cavity with too much grease and as a min that will make pitch changes slow. The larger Hartzell’s we put on turbine crop dusters, every one of them you removed one zirk fitting and pumped until you got fresh grease out of the removed hole, but the three blade on my Maule you didn’t, you only added two or three pumps, the prop manual was very specific about that, and that was one thing that yes you could easily overgrease and if you did the only fix was pull the prop and send it to a prop shop. If there is any doubt, call Hartzell, their service support guys are good. I personally like Corrosion-X for just general spray some lube on things like hinges etc as it’s excellent for corrosion prevention, probably not a very good lubricant, but how much lubrication does a hinge need? WD-40 isn’t a lube, nor is it an oil, it’s a solvent, probably doesn’t hurt anything, but really doesn’t do much either.

The thing about living in a aviation community is everybody is a pilot and aircraft owner, plus of course your airplane is literally right beside of the house, just like your car is now, just the garage is bigger, so no more having to drive to the airport to go fly. Need an O-ring or whatever? someone has it, I almost guarantee it. ‘If for example one afternoon you think today would be a great day to go fly, well within 5 minutes your flying, and 5minutes after landing, your grilling hamburgers on the back porch, not having to do that drive to the airport opens up a whole new world. Plis there is always something going on, Covid has obviously put a dampener on things, but last week we had a balloon Rodeo where balloons were released when you called for it and the object was to bust them. ‘Many if it most people have two airplanes, sometimes more but it’s usually a modern traveling airplane and often something experimental or an antique to just knock about he local area, like a Baby Ace or in my case a 46 C-140. ‘Every Sunday we fly somewhere to eat breakfast, today it was Crystal River, Wednesdays the guys fly out to lunch. we had I believe eight aircraft this morning

I think there are grass strips, and then there are gravel bars. ‘Now the Maule I would take into a gravel bar, but I’ve yet to see any grass strip that I woudn’t take my Mooney into, with some caveats to that, many are just too soft after a soaking rain, and if it’s bad enough that you need to remove the lower gear doors, go somewhere else. Ours I guess are well maintained, but both runways have hills on them so that if your not careful your approach angle will pretty much equal the rate the hill is descending so that you’ll land in the middle of the runway, there are also bumps or moguls if you will so yes it’s a little more demanding than 5,000 ft paved. I have a shed load of tailwheel time, I believe about 6,000 hours worth and personally prefer grass cause grass and tailwheels go together like pizza and beer, once you get used to grass I believe you’ll find it’s more gentle on the aircraft, tires for example last just about forever and if runway alignment isn’t perfect grass will give a bit as opposed to snatching you straight like pavement will. ‘What I would love is the old Aerodrome, a large circular field where you landed and took off into the wind, no matter the direction, but those of course just don’t exist anymore. But I believe a Mooney is very much capable of grass and doesn’t need to restrict itself to large paved runways. A Mooney is more challenging to land on grass which is often short and narrow than say a 182 or a Maule, but I believe that often it’s limits are proficiency based, not aircraft based. But I just bought mine, and it’s been over 30 years since I last flew one, so who knows, but I believe I’ll find out the same I did with a C-210, that properly flown it was actually a very good STOL airplane, now my M20J will never be STOL, but I think it will do fine in grass, just have to respect it is all, protect the prop etc.

I’ve exported several Crop Dusters to Canada, factory new ones, zero time and it still wasn’t easy. ‘There are NO 337’s allowed. Lord knows how they get GPS spray guidance systems on crop dusters in Canada as none are on factory drawings etc. ‘I don’t think I have ever seen a US aircraft without some kind of 337, so how is it done? However it’s done and of course done frequently, we hired an Agent to get it done, I would think that is your best bet.

Your very honest, most aren’t. Winglets on almost any GA airplane won’t do much, because we don’t fly at very high angles of attack. If you really want to go fast and if money allows, put a GE H-80 in that thing.

I hate to say it depends, but it does, my early model M6/235 would hang on the prop at an airspeed that the airspeed indicator didn’t indicate, I believe due to the extreme nose up attitude, it also had pretty much zero aileron effectiveness at that speed, if a wing dropped, only the rudder would lift it. That was fixed with later model M6’s and subsequent Maule’s with ailerons that were 6” longer. VG’s helped aileron effectiveness greatly, but did little else except slow you down slightly ‘Anyway if you were trying to get in short, about 30 mph and you had a steep descent, elevator would not arrest the descent either, it took a little throttle to blow enough air over the rudder to raise the nose or you would land hard, hard enough to break something. ‘You could easily get stopped before the end of the numbers on a runway if you were light and zero wind, you could also get airborne before the end of the numbers too. The problem if you will with a Maule is fuel consumption, the MPG for my Maule was identical to the C-210L that I flew at about 10 NM per gallon, the 210 was 20 kts faster and could carry a lot more though, and if kept light a surprisingly good STOL airplane. It appears at first glance that my M20J’s fuel consumption is about 10 GPH at 155 kts giving of course 15.5 NM per gallon, butI’ve only had it a few days so not sure. I know I can slow down and likely get 20 MPG? Normal approach speed was if memory serves was about 50 MPH on short final, chop power and a Maule with flaps out glides about like a short wing Piper, that is to say drop a coke bottle out of the window to see where your going to land. On edit, a 235 Maule’s fuel consumption is actually lower than a 180 if flown at identical speeds, the reason is your power is so low on the 235 that you can very aggressively lean it out, and real world the 235 actually adds to useful load, a Maule’s actual ability to carry things is based on CG, and the heavy motor will allow more weight in the cabin before you get to stick force neutral point. A Maule has huge overlapping doors, think old station wagon and can carry large awkward things because you can get them into the airplane

Any decent SCUBA shop should be able to give you the number of a local shop to hydro your steel tank, once hydro tested, a hydro is good for 5 years. unfortunately I don’t believe kevlar tanks can be recertified, once they hit expiration date, they are no good. In other words don’t buy new tanks every 5 years. ‘Cost of hydro ought to be about $50.

Hesitant to post as I’m the new guy, but you shouldn’t shoot an approach with a lot of up trim, the reason is the reaction you’ll get on a go-around. I learned this on my Maule, a STOL airplane that full up trim makes for a nice slow approach with little force on the yoke, but with over 20 feet of 48 degree flaps and an IO-540 in the nose when you go to full throttle for a go around, it takes both hands to keep the nose down, or you will stall. The biggest reason it’s so bad on a go around is the force of the airflow from the engine at full throttle adding to the elevator force, an aircraft on a slow approach the airflow over the elevator is much less than it will be when the motor is at full throttle. So I now shoot an approach having to hold some back pressure, that way when the dog or whatever runs out on the runway in front of me, I can go to full throttle without it being so much of an effort. Now while not applicable to a Mooney, but in a normal airplane with an elevator trim tab, going full up actually reduces the total up elevator available, the reason is your driving that tab full down, and that reduces the surface area of the elevator.