KSMooniac

Scott, for the record, I agree with your sentiments completely. I think I recently read over on the AOPA board that the EAA/Peterson STC's for mogas covered just about every possible GA configuration that does indeed work reliably, and if they didn't get STC coverage for a particular plane then it just isn't feasible. 180 hp Mooneys of course are not covered... The argument for mogas for us is moot these days IMO due to the damn ethanol and other crap the greenies have mandated, which doesn't meet the existing STC's I just mentioned. I haven't read/heard anything about Swift fuel lately...I hope they're still working on the scale-up issues and can develop a solution that doesn't cost a fortune. GAMI's fuel also seems very promising and I expect we'll learn more at OSH. My money would be on one or both of those solutions for us... I'll restate the most important part of this whole debate...the fuel solution *must* accomodate the high compression and/or turbo engines because the users of these engines are the ones purchasing the vast majority of 100LL today. The fact that a Cub or old 172 can run on mogas or 94UL or whatever has no bearing on the economics of the problem. If a business owner with a 421 or a freight dog with an Aero Commander can no longer fly their planes, there will not be any infrastructure to sell whatever avgas ends up replacing 100LL because there will not be enough volume. That is why we need a completely transparent replacement for 100LL that will work without de-rating the existing engines.

From http://www.crcao.com/reports/recentstudies2008/UL%20AVGAS/CRC%20UL%20AVGAS%20Exec%20Summary%20FINAL%2005132008.pdf CONCLUSIONS CRC research into unleaded aviation gasoline alternatives has focused on meeting engine octane requirements. Research results to date reflecting the unleaded fuel blends identified above have not identified a transparent replacement for the 100LL AVGAS product. Although full scale engine tests indicated some blends were capable of providing knock free operation in the test engine, these blends represented the use of specialty chemicals which require further evaluation with respect to environmental impact. Economic viability of the blends tested is not the jurisdiction of CRC and will also need to be evaluated separately by industry. Furthermore, blend properties were not controlled for agreement with the ASTM D 910 specification as the primary focus was engine octane satisfaction. Although experimental blends of specialist components may achieve or exceed the 100LL specification of 99.6 MON minimum, such formulations are very different as compared to the current ASTM D 910 product and potentially compromise other important specifications. Depending upon engine power output and configuration, high performance aviation engines can require unleaded fuels in excess of 100 MON to achieve octane satisfaction. Leaded AVGAS 100LL or 91/98 offers greater octane satisfaction in full size engines when compared to unleaded products of similar laboratory MON. CRC test results are indicative of the significant challenge regarding a high octane unleaded AVGAS formulation and further serve as a reminder that aviation fuels represent specialized products optimized over many years to maximize performance and flight safety. Through the CRC, a broad range of industry expertise and facilities have been made available to investigate this issue. Such groups, with input from all parties, and working in collaboration with industry offer a viable means of conducting meaningful research. The goal remains a viable solution which assures performance and flight safety for both the existing and future general aviation fleets. ******** In the page above the part I copied, they mention one of the test engines as the IO-540-K, which uses the same compression ratio of 8.7:1 as our IO-360-A* engines (and perhaps the exact same cylinders) to achieve 300 HP. One can only conclude that the IO-360 is equally unsuitable for <100 octane fuel, especially without lead. A couple years ago Lycoming announced with great fanfare they were going to approve IO- and O-360s for mogas, but then didn't follow through to my knowledge. Like many of their public statements over the years, I think the marketing folks ran way ahead of the technical folks without looking at the real data...otherwise you can bet they would be pushing 94UL or mogas and not insisting on 100 octane like they are currently. (http://www.generalaviationnews.com/?p=25063)

Again, O-360s are not the same as IO-360s. The compression ratio is higher on the IO-360, and mogas or 94UL is not suitable without a knock-sensing electronic ignition to be able to tolerate the reduced detonation margins safely.

Surely a built-in O2 system could be added to any '79K using the Mooney engineering data for the later models. That would be a very easy buy-off, and not require an STC since Mooney already got it approved.

It is my understanding that the O-360 180 hp engines would run fine on 94UL, but hte 200 hp IO-360s will not. We really need to rally together to end up with a 100UL spec replacement fuel, otherwise we'll all be S.O.L. The planes that *need* 100 octane are the "working" planes that buy the bulk of the fuel today, and if they cannot fly, then there will not be enough volume to support the infrastructure to manufacture and deliver any airplane fuel. Thus, if 94UL is all we get, only the lower-performance planes could use it, and they won't be able to buy enough of it to make it a go for the refineries and FBOs.

My '77 J had a custom N-number right out of the gate, so I wouldn't read anything into the N-number on that bird. Most others were N201xx just like the K's starting in '79 were N231xx. The original owners could order an N-number if they wished.

They indeed published something officially within the last year regarding the obsolete/unserviceable *displays* for the legacy GX-** units. Perhaps they can service the guts of the box, but if the display goes T.U. then you are S.O.L. unless you can locate another serviceable box to re-install. At the time, they offered a pretty sizeable discount/trade-in towards a 430W/530W. With any luck we'll have a B-K option this year (snicker) orthe next-gen Garmin units unveiled...and the prices on the 430W/530W might come down accordingly. Too bad Avidyne & Chelton haven't pursued any retrofit navigator boxes and instead focused on complete glass solutions for OEM installations.

If you're open to door suggestions, check out Hydroswing doors instead of sliding or bi-fold options...they seem to be the gold standard now. http://www.hydroswing.com/

Looks like a decent deal. The software on the 430 is not-current, and I bet it is not a WAAS unit, so that is a bit of a downer. Otherwise, there isn't much to nit-pick! Intercooler and JPI would be mandatory equipment on a K for me, and a Merlyn controller would be very nice to have also.

Watch it, Mcstealth! There are other Aggies here too!

There is no additional gross weight increase available for the Rocket or Missile conversions. There is a gross weight increase available for the 252 if it is converted to an Encore configuration, but it will likely bust the budget unless you got the 252 for really cheap and in need of an overhaul. Managing fuel load vs. payload is an important aspect of operating any high performance plane. Simply "topping it off" for every flight is frankly quite silly, and reduces performance, especially if filling extended fuel tanks. These days a modern fuel totalizer system is relatively inexpensive and offers tremendous safety benefits starting with managing partial-fuel situations when you need to carry more in the cabin on a trip. My J has fuel tabs at 25 gallons, and 32 gallons max per side. I opted to add the wing mechanical fuel gages when I had my tanks re-sealed so that I can always tell what I have. I also have a JPI EDM-700 with the fuel flow option, and I have used that totalizer quite a few times to balance fuel and payload. It is quite nice to *know* I have 42 gallons to start a 450 NM trip and watch it burn down and verify my reserves. If I didn't have that, I would likely have to fill to 50 gallons and leave something behind, or else fabricate a very accurate dipstick and fiddle with the fueling on the ground to get to 42 gallons. My advice is to get over the irrational fear of managing fuel and look closer at how you can balance the useful load of any candidate airplane with your planned mission. You'll probably find that a Rocket or 252 will be able to do it just fine!

That plane is at-risk for a gear collapse, and the gear rigging should be adjusted by a Mooney-savvy mechanic using the maintenance manual procedures and Mooney-specific gear tools to get it back in spec. These days with hull values depressed, a gear-up landing or gear collapse can total an older plane since a new prop and engine tear-down will be needed. It should be fixed before further flight...

That nose gear estimate sounds high to me too. Talk with LASAR about getting one of their overhauled truss units and then start from there. The plane still sounds like a strong buy to me too.

Another vote to keep going! That is a lot of Mooney for the price, even if you have to do a full tank re-seal on your nickel.

Congrats! Looks like a great plane, especially if you're getting a low price!

Try NAFCO and US Aircraft Finance too. Both had pretty competitve offers when I was shopping earlier this year.

Looks great!

I've done some 4-up weekend trips in my '77 J. It is a maximum-performance mission, but doable if everyone is not obese and you pack carefully. I have a 1020 lb useful load, and this is adequate for 2 males/2 females, less-than-full-fuel, and weekend baggage. I have a fuel totalizer with my JPI engine monitor, so I'm quite confident launching with say 42 gallons of gas (vs. 50 or 64 as those are normal markings) if I need to in order to stay under max gross weight (2740 lbs in my case). Without the engine monitor, a fuel dip-stick would likely suffice to determine exact fuel load, and then you would have to be sure of good weather and range from there...but the totalizer sure removes all worry about flying a trip down to minimum IFR reserves. I wouldn't do such a trip in a mountainous region as the climb rate up high gets quite small, but for a flatland XC a 201 at max gross does very well. I've never had a complaint about back seat room, and quite a few comments that pax were surprised how comfy it is back there. My younger brother and I pretty much grew up in the back seats of a C model, but outgrew that as we got older. You won't have that problem with a J! All Mooneys are excellent IFR birds, so you would do fine getting the rating in one. I got my IR in my college flying club and did my Mooney/complex transition during that period, so I got a few hours of IR instruction during my 10 hour checkout and am glad I did so. Bonanzas are nice too...hard to go wrong with either. Just make sure you get the W&B data for each individual plane you consider, and plan some sample trips with your 4 folks + bags and fuel. I think you'll find that the lower fuel burn of the J might equalize any perceived useful load advantage of a Bonanza, unless you can convince yourself you'd fly an A36 much slower on a 4-up trip. It is very, very hard to intentionally slow down to increase range on a given fuel load.

you might look-up jasonwojo on this site...he has two Rockets currently and is always looking for deals!

That sounds pretty reasonable, even low to me, time-wise. I figure it would be in the 40-hour range with the lubrication steps included. I spend a lot longer doing it owner-assist style because I'm slower than a pro, but likely more methodical too.

Hi Bacachero. Not yet, I'm afraid! It is still on my wish-list but I have another idea I'm going to try first...smaller scale and hopefully easier to execute.

TCM did indeed have a rash of poor quality cylinders (thanks to some wunder-MBA cost savings) that led to a lot of premature cylinder/valve problems no matter how the operator managed the engine. Hopefully those days are behind them, but you never know...

Job, yours does sound like a rare Lycoming! That is great that it won't eject the first couple of quarts.

Parker, that is a huge improvement, isn't it? I never liked the white yokes...

Quote: KLRDMD If you get an F with manual gear and hydraulic flaps, you may see a difference.