T. Peterson

Will, I would explore this a little further before abandoning your prior procedure. Something just doesn’t seem right about that. Lots of smart guys have not commented, but two of them have noted that the POH trumps the engine manual. On another thread @hubcap pointed out that Continental says continuous rpm should be limited to 2400. I don’t doubt him for a minute, but that wipes out half the cruise chart in the POH. I’m sure someone will be along to help us out.

1) I hope I don’t embarrass myself. I understand your point that the cold air is more dense, thus enabling higher power and therefore higher temperatures. What I don’t understand is why that manifests itself as higher cylinder temperature than TIT. 2) In a phone conversation with a friend of mine who is also on this forum, he told me that the Mcauley (sp?) two bladed prop is according to the manufacturer most efficient at 2500 rpm. It seems strange to me that any manufacturer would mate a 2500 rpm prop to a 2400 rpm engine.

I have decided against the “aftercooler”! (I wonder if @MikeOH will give me an “attaboy” for a technically correct term even though I don’t have a clue as to why it is technically correct!)

I talked to Western Skyways a few minutes ago and they will order and install GAMI injectors as part of the build! Thank you!

1) I am generally cooler than 380 as most often the TIT is limiting, however sometimes the cylinders do reach 380 before the TIT hits 1580. This seems to occur more often in winter flying. I am sure that makes sense to some of you,but I am not engineer enough to explain it. 2) You have really flummoxed me with the 2400 rpm limitation! I don’t see that in the POH. As a matter of fact one of their cruise power examples uses an rpm of 2500, and the charts have columns out to 2700. I would sure appreciate further education on this subject!

I don’t have any trouble with heat other than limiting my leaning at cruise. I climb at 38 inches, full rich and cowl flaps wide open till I reach my preferred cruise altitude of 11 or 12 thousand. Cylinders rarely get above 380 and TIT low 1500’s. Then I stow the cowl flaps, set 29 inches, roll the prop back to 2450 and lean till TIT is at 1580 or the hottest cylinder is at 380. Generally this yields a fuel flow of 12.5 and TAS of 158 to 163. For 10,000 bucks I am not going to add the intercooler unless I become very dissatisfied with the performance of the new engine which is coming later this winter or early spring……I hope!

You sir, have hit the nail on the head! I think I made a mistake when I bought a turbo charged airplane. I tried to sell the airplane earlier this year, but when an oil analysis revealed high nickel content indicating worn guide valves, on top of the chronic oil leak the potential buyer withdrew with my full approval. I had warned him of the oil leak but I was unaware of the valve guide issue. As soon as I received the oil analysis I simply forwarded it to him and of course he rightfully declined to complete the sale. I decided right then to replace the engine. I certainly wasn’t going to pawn this mess off on someone else. I also realized that I would need to keep the airplane which was not a big disappointment even though I was beginning to realize exactly what you pointed out, I really had the wrong plane for my mission. You also pointed out that this engine replacement is a very expensive proposition! My mechanic tells me it will probably cost ten grand to buy the intercooler, install it and paint the cowl. I will pass on it for now and see how the new engine works out. It was supposed to arrive in January but two days ago I was told that date was probably unrealistic. My intent now is to fly the airplane for a year or so after the new engine and if I am unhappy sell and buy something else. I really want more UL, so an Eagle might better fit the bill than an Ovation. I very much appreciate your post as it cements in my mind what I was strongly beginning to suspect. I had actually begun looking at ads for Ovations! I am deeply appreciative of all the advice shared on this forum. Some very wonderful people inhabit Mooneyspace!

Thank you for the detailed response. Very helpful and informative.

That’s impressive! Thanks for the tip.

I have not talked to a vendor. I can add fuel now and get power, but I cannot lean to less than 12.5 gallons an hour or TIT goes high. I’m temperature limited not power limited. I could probably do 170 knots but the fuel flow would be 15 gallons or more an hour.

I’m replacing my engine with an overhauled unit from Western Skyways in January. My 1979 231 K model has been equipped with the Merlyn waste gate, but not the intercooler. Other than just hearing that intercoolers are good, I have no clue as to the quantifiable benefits. Yes, I do realize that cooler operations are good, but I am looking for a little more than that. I cruise almost always at 11000 or 12000 feet. I don’t fly lop because I don’t have Gami’s, and I don’t want to fly slower than 160 knots true. As it is, it takes 12.5 to 12.7 gallons an hour to make 160 knots. I keep my cylinder temperatures at 380 or less and my TIT at 1580 or less. I will allow 1590 if I need it to keep 160 kts. It annoys me when TAS drops into the 150’s. I would very much like to get at least 165 kts burning no more than 12.0 gallons an hour, but I don’t know if that is possible without an intercooler to keep the TIT cooler. Hopefully replacing a 30 year old engine will be of some advantage, but the question is will adding an intercooler give me a significant performance benefit? Your opinions are invited, and from past experience invaluable. Thank you.

Very very nice!!

I certainly respect that opinion. If I was more mechanically inclined with matching skills I may even share it.

I’m not the expert that are many of you, but the equipment which must be purchased, the time and effort involved, the dubious forecast of reliability and the potential damage to the battery does not make it seem that these capacity checks have a worthwhile return on investment.

You fellas have certainly come to the table with a plethora of information and I am very grateful for your insights!

I sure hope you and the other knowledgeable fellas will chime in on this particular engine. I have very much enjoyed this thread and often thought it would be cool to have a turbine powered Mooney, but not at the expense of fuel efficiency. Apparently, according to the previous posts, a turbine is very fuel inefficient and even suffers in some situations worse performance. I did not know this, but I wonder if the problem is turbines in general, or the application of a particular engine? In other words could the “right” turbine engine be superior in both performance and efficiency to our current piston engines? For instance this RR300 you described? Of course I realize cost is most likely outrageous, but I am just curious about the suitability of the engine itself. Is a turbine engine simply not suitable to a non pressurized General Aviation aircraft?

Absolutely correct!

It’s worse than that! Most of the time the guy at the head of the line doesn’t turn on the yellow! I brought this up to my Texas friends and they said you are not supposed to pull into the intersection when waiting to turn left. I just thought, how did you miss that in drivers education? Then I thought that maybe things changed since 1974 when I took Driver’s Ed??…..or maybe Texas taught things differently?? I was taught to pull into the intersection (keeping the wheels straight to avoid being pushed into oncoming traffic in the event of a rear end collision) and then at least one car would be able make the left on the yellow. I am so delighted with your post as I now know that if my thinking on this is crazy, I know at least one other crazy person that thinks the same thing!

I might also add that over the years I myself have received some ATC goading, some deserved and some not. One way or another it was all in a days work and I tried to learn from my mistakes or show grace to other's mistakes. My only real regrets are the times I was not gracious.

I was making a general statement. I have no idea what the particulars are of this event. I have not even watched the video, but I have experienced landing behind professional pilots that were dawdling. I have also coached several of my First Officers over the years to be mindful of traffic behind us and to expedite getting off the runway. I’m not heated up over this incident one way or the other. If the gentleman was confused or disoriented, he owns the runway. If he was just oblivious, he could profit from a little goading to get his rear in gear.

A single phrase rebuke may be constructive or even required, but a radio diatribe is never necessary or professional.

Legally, when you are cleared to land you own the runway, but to needlessly dawdle or stop on the runway is unprofessional and selfish.

I would offer that if an owner wants to run N2 in his tires because he just feels better about it and has had a good experience doing so, I will not gainsay his decision.

I certainly wouldn’t delete the forum. I don’t comment much because so many of you fellas are more learned and astute on the various subjects than am I, but I learn and am often refreshed on things I know but have not thought about in a while. Even the whiners provide a bit of entertainment until they don’t. Then I just stop reading their posts. Most of you that contribute provide some good food for thought and I am grateful for your insights. I don’t think we want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Eric never said or implied that anyone was selling snake oil.