Red Leader

Don't have Gami's but have been considering them. At my last annual I had several fuel flow tests performed and the output of the injectors was almost exactly the same.

Good points, all. My engine monitor is a new Insight G4 installed a couple of years ago. I took a picture of the instruments on that flight and just looked again - ROP I was at 11k feet, 30" and 2350rpm. The engine just loved that setting and I was faster by about 5 knots indicated. Still running close to 400 on 5 & 6 but lower on 3 & 4 and lowest on 5 & 6. The temperature spread was about 100-degrees (between #1 and #5) and my fuel flow indicated a solid 10.2gph. Not a big difference but noticeable. I don't remember things running that smoothly when operating LOP. In fact, usually when lean, the engine would stumble several times during cruise. On shorter trips when I lean, it might not stumble at all, but the fact that I feel it when LOP and can also feel the reduction in speed when leaning suggests I may not be doing something right. I am taking another short trip tomorrow and will play with it a little more.

Good morning guys! I have a 1981 M20k with the GB engine. We all know this model engine is prone to getting hot fast if you don't watch the temps, even with the intercooler and Merlyn (which I have) Usually I run LOP and watch my pressures and temperatures - running about 29" and keeping it under 400 degrees. At these settings, I don't get the of speed our model is known for but I do get good fuel burn (9 - 9.5gps). On my last trip, I was running a little late on the return leg so I ran it ROP. I was burning around 11gph, going noticeably faster while not seeing the high cylinder temperatures I notice on my typical flights. Other than fuel burn (and higher speed) is there anything I am doing wrong by running it ROP?

Why cannot you just reinstall the cover without the associated hardware? That would effectively cover the hole and keep it legal.

Insight offered me a 10% discount if I purchased an engine monitor from them during the event - I did so and am a very happy customer.

Take it to someplace reputable. Pay the extra because the alternative is even more expensive. A couple of years ago, one of my tanks suddenly developed a leak that was fairly severe. I had it fixed at a shop on my home field at a price exceeding 2k. My first fill of the tank (a couple of weeks later to ensure a good cure) and it leaked. To me. that the leak was coming from the same location, at the same rate and stopped at the same level. The same shop fixed the leak again and charged me another 2k, claiming it was a different leak. That totally pissed me off as it was OBVIOUSLY the same leak that was improperly repaired the first time. Lesson learned - take it to someplace reputable.

Great chart - I've seen that before. Is the airspeed listed in MPH?

How much damage is too much? What is the exact amount of impression allowed before it becomes unairworthy? Isn't it something like 1/32" Of course, your pictures show about the worst-case scenario that isn't an immediate failure- sorry about that.

I'd be looking more into the vibration that concerns you so much. On my last plane, I had a strange vibration that was minor but still noticeable. I had the prop balanced and it did little to resolve the issue. I saw the readings on the before and after (though I do not remember the numbers) and although slight, it was OOB. Are you sure it is the propeller? Have you had an IA check the operation? I would exhaust other potential causes before plunking down a chunk of change on a new prop. If you are sure it isn't anything else, you have a good used prop already - have it overhauled and rebalanced. You might find (if this is the issue) that an overhaul fixed the trouble and at considerably less cost than another used one.

"Cheaper Fuel" elsewhere suggests there was fuel at his departure point. If so, prudence suggests he should have added fuel to ensure an adequate supply before departing. I didn't see a listing of his departure point in the NTSB report - perhaps there was no fuel available where he started? If so, he couldn't have stopped at a closer airport to add gas? Doesn't sound very risk adverse to me.

Please do!

Check it out: 1968 Mooney Mustang - aviation - by owner - airplane aviation parts - craigslist If you cannot open the link, here is what it says: 1968 Mooney Mustang M-22 PRESSURIZED 5-Seat Single Engine. 310/Hp Lycoming TIO-541, 222/kt Max speed at 25,000’ 1100-TTAF/E $125K The ad doesn't say what, if anything, is needed to be airworthy, nor does it have any pictures. As much as I would like to have a plane with the performance of the Mustang, I am unlikely to purchase an M22 knowing there is next to no factory support. I am also unaware of a supply line on the secondary market for used parts which makes a purchase such as this potentially unwise. Thoughts?

No, but I have done my share of whipping. All were after landing and all were deserved. Twice, years ago, I observed my instructor almost losing his mind over the radio to another pilot who was flying dangerously (and I mean DANGEROUSLY). This pilot took the runway while we were on short final - I saw and avoided (barely), after ignoring our radio calls and not looking for planes on approach. An hour later, this same pilot cut us off in the pattern and almost hit us. In both cases, the other pilot blew him off after the chewing and got a severe talking-to in the FBO later. I haven't heard him at the airport since.

That happened to the battery in my last plane. A few years ago, I flew to another airport to discuss avionics upgrades with the shop but when we went to leave, the plane would not start. We got a jump and flew home but the battery refused to spin the prop after shutdown. Talk about sudden with no warning! I don't remember how old it was but I do not believe I got near the life out of it that you did with yours - well done! My replacement, at the time, was around $600.

Welcome to the club! What is your plan now? Perhaps there is a Mooney in your future?

Been there, done that. Don't let them say it's the antenna (which might fix the issue) when all it could be is a connection that is fixed when installing a new antenna. They LOVE to bill for solving problems which they might have caused. It allows them to make more money and helps them save face - you, otherwise, would never know.

Unaware of any interference caused by the addition of a SureFly but more likely you will find it is a wiring/connection issue caused by others fumbling behind the panel or engine bay that might've caused this issue. Take it back to the mechanic that installed the device and find a diplomatic way to inquire if it might've been something done during installation to cause the trouble.

That looks like the best attempt at switch cover replacement I have ever seen! I would love a complete set, including the master (provided it can be replaced and recreated in a red resin). Do you need a specific list of what I am wanting? How do you get the old covers off?

Since this is a recent development, your question should focus on "what has changed recently". Did you notice the issue just after an annual? Did someone work on your engine recently? Get the oil changed? Update something in the engine bay? It is possible that nothing has changed recently and that this is just a new development, but I would start by answering the aforementioned questions. Who knows, it could be something as simple as the temperatures in which you fly because of the changing seasons. Once all this is ruled-out, you could look at the fuel system, magneto timing or change in flying habits.

I might be a little biased (currently owning a "K") but would vote for the Encore - best bang for the buck, performance and efficiency. The cost to buy-in is the only reason I can't vote for the Acclaim.

Why not?

Trust, but verify - if you can

I have seen that issue twice on two different planes in the last couple of years - both times it was a leaking intake gasket causing the mixture to run lean. You might want to check it out.

A lot of information presented here and all with good reason. What hasn't been brought up is why you want such a performance machine as your first plane? As mentioned previously, insurance is a large chunk of cost when operating any aircraft. Starting out with a big-bore Mooney might not be the best idea for a newbie (no offence). My last plane was a Grumman and I miss it SOOOOOO much! The handling was nimble, like nothing else - it felt like a go-kart for the sky. In comparison, my Turbo Mooney is faster but handles like a '70's pick-up truck. Many are talking maintenance - my smaller Grumman was relatively inexpensive (as airplane go) and performance was adequate. Insurance was less because of the fixed gear but my retractable gear Mooney is worth the extra expense. Realistically, it all boils down to mission. It was asked, though I didn't see an answer, what your mission will be. With that big picture in mind, that should be your determining factor for deciding which way to go. If you want speed above all else, and there is a lot to consider, the Bravo or Rocket will be a good choice. My recommendation is that you make a more reasonable choice before trying to buy the performance beast that some of our aircraft can be. Get time in a Grumman, then perhaps a Commanche - your experience and insurance premiums will thank you when later you decide to go Mooney.

I've got an extra I can sell for less than that. PM for details