AndreiC

Strange. After I land, most times I do not need to adjust the trim at all; the trim indicator is split about half-way by the top line of the marking on the side. (My transition training drilled the poem "flaps/flaps/mixture/switches/trim" into my head, and I do this after each landing; i.e., flaps up, cowl flaps open, mixture rich or leaned for ground ops, fuel pump and landing light off, trim adjust to take-off setting. But most times I do not need to adjust the trim at all.) I don't do touch and goes. If I am at my base field, where the runway is short (2900 ft) I always taxi back. If I am practicing at KMSN (10000 ft runway) I stop on the runway, do the poem above, and then go again. Too many touch and go incidents end up in gear ups.

Would look really weird with one square instrument in a whole panel of round ones...

My vacuum driven directional gyro is starting to show its age -- it drifts more than I would like if I do a couple of 360 degree turns. Whatever I install needs to have a heading bug to interface to my STEC 30 autopilot. Below is a pic of my panel. My options seem to be a) refurbish my unit (about $600 at Rudy's); b) install a new electronic unit (AV30C - $2200, GI275 -- $4500, plus install cost); c) find a used, good condition replacement unit for my vacuum unit (maybe some people are changing theirs with electronic ones and want to get rid of theirs?) I am a CB, and also not a huge fan of the newest electronic gadgets. I fly in instrument conditions maybe 5% of the time, and rarely hard IMC, so I don't see it justified to pay the cost to redo my panel any time soon. I don't think the added benefit of avoiding a (low risk) vacuum failure in IMC is justified -- my autopilot is independent of the vacuum instruments and could get me out of weather in a pinch. Plus I have a Stratus which provides an electronic AHRS on my iphone if all else fails. What do people recommend?

No, sorry, I realize now that what I wrote is confusing. My KIAS was about 130, if I recall correctly (I did not write this down). The GNS 430W has a TAS calculator, where you plug in your altitude, altimeter setting, air temp, indicated air speed and it calculates for you the corresponding true air speed. The 152 kts was the calculated TAS from my indicated airspeed, after all the corrections. So it *should* have been my actual airspeed if my ASI was showing correctly. Compared to the TAS calculated from three GPS readings at 90 degrees each, and inserted in this calculator here http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasgpscalc.html the TAS computed from what the ASI shows was about 6 kts fast.

I would be quite concerned about the plan to save money by owning a Mooney for the purposes of training, even if you already have the PPL. First of all because flying a complex aircraft is (as the name says) more complicated than a simple trainer. But also the cost of insurance and cost of annuals will be *much* higher than for a regular trainer. I owned Piper Cherokees for twenty years before my current Mooney. I am very happy with the switch to Mooney, but only because I plan to keep the Mooney for a long time and I am willing to pay for the advantages it offers. If saving money per hour was my first concern, the Cherokee would beat the Mooney hands down; probably overall costs would be almost exactly 1/2: -- the Cherokee did not have an airframe that could corrode easily, so I felt alright to keep it parked tied down outside with only a cover; the Mooney needs to be hangared. This costs 4x as much. -- annuals for the Cherokee were a (long) one day affair, costing roughly $1200. The first annual for the Mooney was closer to $3k, and I don't expect the next few to be much lower. -- insurance (and I am in the sweetest spot possible, instrument rated, >150 hours in type, >1200 hours total, no claims) is 3x as much as it was for the Cherokee. If you plan to buy the plane long term, make it yours, and improve it slowly as you go, by all means buy a Mooney and, on the side, do your IR and Commercial in it. It is very nice to be very familiar with every button in the plane, to know the exact flight characteristics, etc. But as a financial savings vehicle... definitely not sure of it.

I live very close to Aeromotors (like 50 miles away), and they overhauled my pump. Very fast turnaround and excellent service. Highly recommended.

Alright, I have more data points. I just completed yesterday and the day before two flights of around 3 hours each. I tried different settings to see what changes. The flights (KEFT-KJWN and back) were conducted at 9500 and 6500 feet, respectively. The overall point-to-point average was 143 knots, and this includes the climb/descent times. On the way out ForeFlight said I had a 7-8 knots tailwind, on the way back the winds were roughly calm. Moving my seat back as far as it could go (basically flat against the rear bench) gave me another 2-3 knots. The trim indicator was close to (but not quite at) the nose down stop, so I guess I had a fairly far aft cg. Running at 50F ROP (10.8 gph) gave me a lot of speed increase, about 8-9 extra knots over peak (9.3 gph). When leaning I used the strategy described above, where to lean to peak I was making sure all cylinders were lean of peak, while when running ROP I made sure all cylinders were over 50F above peak. I don't know why the difference in speed was this large, it is not justified by the calculated difference in power output. This would be interesting to try to hear opinions from others why it happens. All the cylinders stayed nice and cool, CHTs in the 335 range for three cylinders, and 355 range for the highest one (#2). Also, it appears my airspeed indicator is showing somewhat on the high side. Doing everything above to get speed (seat back, max power) I managed to squeeze 146 knots out of the airframe, calculated with a 3 direction GPS measurements (at 90 degrees compass headings). The calculated indicated airspeed at 9500 feet, ISA+10, 10.8 gph was 152 knots. So probably my ASI shows 6-7 knots fast. All measurements were done at WOT/RAO/2550 RPM. I was probably 300 lbs under gross. I am wondering if the numbers above strike everyone as expected, or some of you see them as wrong in any way (for example I was puzzled by the high fuel flow at peak).

I got the impression from reading other threads (but I may be wrong, and am curious what others think about this) that running an engine way past TBO increased the chances that some expensive parts inside the engine would need to be replaced at overhaul (crank out of machining limits, for example), costing more money to do the overhaul. Is this accurate or an old wives tale?

As many have said above, $65k is high. The big question marks for me if I were looking at this plane (I’m not) would be if there is any corrosion in the airframe (biiig question — this could be game over) and if the engine will need to be immediately overhauled due to sitting outside for a while. If a mouse made its nest around the tube structure and peed there, it will cause corrosion (big money to fix, most planes with corrosion are trashed). If the camshaft got pitted from sitting, it’s overhaul time ($40-50k). So your best bet would be, as suggested, to sink some money into it in the hope the news will be good. Get a good mechanic to check for corrosion, and do an annual, fly it 50-100 hours and you may be able to sell it, in annual, for perhaps $75-85k?

Even in climbs I do not see CHT’s over 370, so I hope my misadventures did not damage anything. But thanks for the advice, I will keep it in mind. (My concern was that as I now understand it, by running at peak but using the leanest cylinder as reference, ai may have been running with a few cylinders 20 ROP, which is bad.) I’ll adjust my leaning procedure. My EDM-700 reports a difference of about 50F between the highest and lowest EGT. Is this what the GAMI spread is?

This is what has been puzzling me too. Maybe the key words here are "provided you use the richest cylinder". I have been leaning using my EDM 700, stopping when the first EGT peaks. This (I guess) means that I am using the *leanest* not the richest cylinder. I hope operating this way has not damaged something in my engine (I always run well below 75%, closer to 70% or 65%). But next time I go I will try to use the richest cylinder for leaning to peak. Question: when going for 100 ROP, do you use the richest or leanest cylinder for reference?

It would be very helpful to know -- hours SMOH -- when was the last annual? -- a ballpark price -- and to have some interior photos. Thanks!

For these numbers, how close to standard atmosphere (ISA) were you? (I see you're in AL, so you may be much hotter than ISA.) I am puzzled by the fact that with basically the same engine (IO360-A1A) I am nowhere near 70F ROP with 10.3 gph. I know my fuel calibration is accurate, because when I fill up the tanks it is within less than one gallon. Yesterday I was at 8500 ft but ISA+15 (so closer to 10500 DA), and at peak I was at 9.4 gph. To get to 70F ROP I probably would have needed at least 11-11.5gph.

As I said earlier, I am hoping to get as much as can from what I have now. I don't have the money to replace a perfectly good prop for a couple of knots. If at the end of all investigations it turns out the prop is costing me all this speed loss, so be it. The plane was perfectly clean, with smooth leading edges. I will see if my mechanic can borrow the Mooney rigging tools, to check the controls, at the annual. I'll also get the gear checked.

The plane has flown regularly > 50 hours per year (last year I flew it 120 hours) for the past 7-8 years, since the engine was OH'ed by Penn Yan with new cam. The cylinders were replaced by the previous owner with new Lycoming cylinders due to a diagnosis of "rough running". My mechanic, when seeing this logbook entry, suspected that they may have had sticking valves and he was surprised that they did not try to hone the guides and instead elected to replace all 4 cylinders. But I guess if money was no object at that time... I have no reason to suspect a power issue, the plane climbs very well and performs excellent in all respects, short of the cruise speed.

To answer some of the comments. I did a careful W&B calculation, and my CG was smack in the middle of the acceptable envelope. (2133 lbs, 96.19 moment.) So, no, the CG was not far forward. I will try next time to add about 30 lbs of water jugs in the back of the plane, and we'll see how that goes, but it is a bit artificial. I have a digital tachometer, and the MP gauge was repaired and calibrated less than a year ago. I trust them. Other suggestions of what to try? Engine is 600 SMOH, with new cylinders about 250 hours ago, runs like a top.

How would losing weight have helped here? I calculated now, and I was 450 lbs under MGW!

Yes, but 13 knots? That’s almost a 10% loss!

I have done lots of tests, and I decided my 1970 M20E is slower than it should be, and I need to do something about it. Please let me know what things you have done that got you back some of the lost speed. Things like rigging (what did you do?), remove antennas, etc. I don’t want to think about installing speed mods now; what I want is for my plane to do as well as it can with what it has. Specs: pretty much stock, except for the 3 blade McCaulay prop (non-scimitar) and the LASAR guppy mouth closure which helps with cooling but not with speed. Plane has been waxed and cleaned and as shiny Why have I decided it’s slow? Today I did the following test run in smooth air: 8500 ft altitude, 30.13” altimeter, ISA+15, WOT+RAO (22.5” MP), 2500 rpm. Mixture leaned to peak, 9.4 gph, 70.5% power. Using the 3-way GPS measurements it turns out I was cruising at 143 knots (or 164 mph). Plane was light, close to 2200 lbs or even lighter. My POH says that at 10000 feet DA (which with ISA+15 this is a good approximation), at 70.1% engine power, I should have been cruising at 156 kts (179 mph). This is not a small difference, it’s 13 knots! People spend a lot of money for mods that would give then that… I want what’s mine for free Thanks all.

On my most recent BFR my instructor decided to test me on engine-out landings. He pulled the power abeam the numbers and said "go". The first time it went terrible, as I dropped the gear immediately and would not have made the field. Second time I did much better, though I landed a bit long. My current best guess at what the engine-out landing procedure should be is: -- trim immediately for best glide (100-105mph depending on gross weight); -- turn slightly towards the field, but continue flying a pattern -- drop gear and flaps only when landing is made -- slow down to landing speed (80 mph over the fence) For me at least this workload was enough that I did not have time to attempt any engine restart procedures from pattern altitude, so if engine out happens at that altitude and I don't have a great guess for why it happened, I would only focus on landing. I would be very curious to hear what others have to say.

I think it's luck of the draw. The previous plane I owned, a Cherokee 180, had sat for over 10 years with minimal activity (maybe 10 hours total over 10 years). I got a great price on her, and flew her for 10 years after at about 60 hours/year with zero problems. Great compressions, no signs of any corrosion. But the place where it had sat was in the desert part of Texas, with almost no humidity. So I think it depends on where it has sat. Also I was told Conti's have less problems with camshaft corrosion than Lycomings, since the cam is located below the cylinders and gets more oil when it sits. But I don't know if other parts of the engine don't suffer more, just have no experience with Continentals.

I think it's Rev H, 11/1/85. BTW, I think the schematic you posted is the one for the gear motor, not the flaps... It shows a couple of relays which are not there in the flaps circuitry.

I attach here the schematic from the Mooney Maintenance Manual for your plane (and mine). If nothing else, this should be helpful for your mechanic to sort things out. As you can see in the cross reference, the switch described as 20CF02A in the first diagram is listed as the 12TS147-70 switch that you show in your picture above. I don't know why the switch is labeled as ON-ON-ON on the casing, because the electrical diagram in the MM depicts it as an ON-OFF-ON switch as I described above. If you or your mechanic are still confused, it may help to know that my mechanic installed the switch listed above (12TS15-7) and it worked great with no modifications to the wiring. Schematic 1.pdf Schematic 2.pdf

I am surprised yours would be wired differently from mine. What do you mean by ON-ON-ON? The way mine works is it has two 6 pins, call them ABC and DEF. In the neutral position of the switch (in the middle, where it stays if your hand is off the switch) there is no electrical conductivity between any pins (OFF). In the up position, which is momentary, pins A and B are connected to each other, and so are D and E. In the down position, which is also momentary, pins B and C are connected to each other, and so are E and F. I think this is what is meant by (ON) - OFF - (ON).

The switch I ordered in the end was this one: https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/785-12TS15-7 It looks like they have it in stock. This was the second switch that I ended up ordering, because the first one did not have the right kind of terminals. Please check that the wires on your plane indeed have ring terminals which are held by a screw that screws into the switch (this is how my plane is) -- if that is so, then this is the right one. Good luck with this! It was a frustrating story for me till I found this switch.