KSMooniac

If that kit were available for $15-20k, I would right this very minute be figuring out a way to get it on my J, but at $34k+instl I won't even ask for more details about it. I believe the creator/owner of that company has gone west and the widow is "in charge" now. Makes me wonder if they are selling any at that price...

I've used 2900 x 40 a few times in my Mooney without too much anguish. I'm based at 7000 x 150 so it is quite a different sight picture, and much greater sensation of speed on the narrow strip. I cannot imagine going to 25' though!

The is one lister on the aviating.com email list that has one of those kits on his J and is quite happy. I've corresponded briefly with him a few months ago as I am quite interested too. However, their price is beyond comprehension, IMO. I'd much rather have a TN-Lycoming than a TSIO-360 Continental of the M20K, but there isn't a really good way to convince myself it is worth 40 AMU.

Jim, unburned fuel most definitely does not cool anything when ROP. It is another old wives tale that comes from the observation that enrichening the mixture (when ROP) results in cooler EGTs, so folks erroneously conclude that extra fuel must "cool" things. Wrong! All the extra fuel does is slow down the combustion event within the cylinder (just like extra air) and the result is lower EGTs. Also, EGT =/= exhaust valve temperature. Actual valve temps will track closer to CHTs than EGTs....think about it for a second. The valve & seat are fit into the cylinder head, and all of the heat of the valve goes to the seat and then the head via conduction through the solid material. The heat from combustion is whooshing past the valve and transferred via conduction from the gaseous mixture to the solid, which is much less efficient than through the solid contact. By maintaining a lower CHT, you'll have lower valve temps since the heat will be more apt to conduct away from the valves due to the great temperature difference of the cylinder head. Also, in your experiments, when going LOP you should be using your *richest* cylinder for your reference, not the leanest as you do when ROP. Remember than 40 dF ROP is the worst place to be...so run your last cylinder to peak at PEAK (or LOP) and see where the others are... Mooney's recommendation for 25 ROP is absolutely horrid!

Welcome, Amelia! Nice write-up...I had to check your profile and saw that you are a writer! Please post some more tales and stories when you can! I think one of Craig's (site creator) desires is to see us write up trip reports, PIREPS for products/shops, tips & tricks, etc. for storage on this site. I think all of us should set a goal to write at least one thing in 2009 that is worth saving here.

I see no measurable difference on my '77 J and never use it. In fact it was completely deleted on the later model J's and there is a kit available to do so for our planes. As I found out a few weeks ago, the deletion kit is *much* cheaper than the rubber seal between the ram air ring and the cowl! Before I paint my plane I will either apply the kit (needs to be painted after installation) or switch to a LoPresti cowl that retains ram air and makes it effective. The Pre-J planes I flew (a couple F's and and E) it was good for a solid 1" of MP when used, though.

Thanks for posting the pics! The shelled cliffs give me chills...

Tom Horne recently had a very favorable column in AOPA about LOP ops as well as Aviation Consumer. Go read those two pieces, then read all of free Deakin columns on Avweb. If you want more of the debate with a lot of the data, go search on the AOPA Forum as well...this topic comes up very regularly and there is a lot of the data, science and logic already posted over there, but you'll have to wade through a lot of crap to find it. At the end of the day, the APS course is the most efficient way to learn all you need to know about engine management, for either ROP or LOP operations. There are times for both, and it is worth the effort to learn *why* that is...

"Able to" and "want to" are two different things, unfortunately. I wouldn't hold my breath, Adam. I think they're offering an experimental-only 180 hp TN powerplant and I have no idea if/how many they're selling. The -390 looks intriguing, but it is priced pretty high if I recall correctly. I think modern -360s with the roller tappets are pretty high too for that matter, although I haven't begun a hard look yet. I'm rapidly approaching overhaul/replacement time in the next couple years and will have to make a choice. Currently I'm leaning towards a quality field OH at half the price of a roller tappet OH and maybe 1/3 the price of a -390 because I'm not sure the benefits are worth the huge price delta. My 201 has a 1991 factory O/H installed at Lycoming that was never "right" judging from the first owner's correspondence with Lycoming while trying to get all the leaks fixed and other squawks fixed. They never got all of the leaks resolved, so I'm tolerating a mess while I continue to fly the hours off... (compression and analysis are good) That is one reason why I'm leaning towards being involved with a field O/H to make sure all the details are done correctly. Not to mention the chance of being a beta-tester for new Lycoming hardware like recent cams or cranks that have come out of PA in the last 10 years.

George, I absolutely sensed that you want to learn all about this, but unfortunately a web forum is grossly inadequate to convey all of the data and science that backs it up, so I can't just post what you are looking for. I'm not saying this to dodge anything, either, so I hope I don't come across as a smug internet tough guy. Truly the best place for you to go to get this data is the APS group...they are unbiased believe it or not. That venture grew out of the ignorance and old wives tales at the urging of a few folks on the Avsig BBS forum many years ago to fill the void that exists in regards to knowledge of engine management. They did all of the research, gathered the data and developed a wonderful short-course to pass it on to those pilots that want to know everything they can about operating their engines. I learned more in their 2.5 day course than I did in many of my full-semester engineering courses. I *saw* real-time data from their test stand demonstrating the principles conveyed in the class. You might think that GAMI is promoting LOP ops so they can sell more GAMIjectors...that is false. APS is a separate venture from GAMI, although one of the APS principals is also a GAMI principal. GAMI turned into a company *because* of the research that led to the APS class...they saw how superior LOP ops were in general and that many factory engines couldn't run LOP due to unbalanced fuel flows. In a classic American success story, they developed a product to fix that problem. If you don't need GAMIjectors to run LOP, then they won't sell them to you! (I didn't need them.) The key to the debate is first understanding the scientific principles behind the combustion event and how it relates to internal cylinder pressures and temperatures. After that is understood, then the nuances of mixture management make more sense, and more importantly the recognition and diagnosis of engine problems becames easier as well. There really is no better way to learn it than to attend their course, or perhaps take the on-line version for starters. What you don't get is a cookbook method to simply set 50 dF LOP and trust that it is OK...you'll end up fully understanding what is happening when you move the red knob of death. The easiest free education would come from reading all of Deakin's articles posted on Avweb as mentioned earlier. They only begin to scratch the surface, though.

George, you *really* should go take the Advanced Pilot Seminar course if you consider yourself open to fact and reason. They have done all of the hard work gathering the data and distilling it into a very positive educational experience. It is the closest thing to any "comprehensive study" you'll find in the public arena, and you will be convinced of the merits and especially why running around at 50 dF ROP is about the worst place to be. (Aviation Consumer is about as unbiased as they come, so you might read them too.) Sure, you might make a 2000 hr TBO run, but will likely need to replace your cylinders. What if they could go 4000 hrs? That coupled with the fuel savings and the cleaner running characteristics make for a *very compelling* reason to go LOP all the time. Lycoming is acting like an ostrich with it's head in the sand. TCM isn't much better. Cirrus got bold by mandating LOP ops for their turbo-normalized SR22 *and* took on the burden of the engine warranty when TCM refused to honor it because of LOP. Now TCM has increasing amounts of egg on their face as the trouble-free hours pile up. Like Greg said, sooner or later the knowledge will be commonplace and these kind of arguments won't crop up, but until then it will take individuals like us to try to convince folks like you to become more educated on the subject and *then* decide for yourself. Blindly believing Lycoming when they have a vested interest in keeping you ROP is not wise...think about it...if everyone demanded LOP capability, they (a) would have to improve their induction systems and ( would sell fewer replacement cylinders at a minimum.

Mooneys are up next according to the Lycoming rep at Don Maxwell's seminar last month. I think 2nd qtr 2009...we'll see.

Jim, you should check out fltplan.com . It is internet-based as well, completely free, and will give you ETE/GS predictions at the appropriate altitudes for your route of flight. For example, if you plan for 7000', it will also show 3000, 5000, 9000, 11000 so you can compare the times enroute based on the forecast winds. In my experience (almost 2 years now) it has been very, very accurate with their M20J profile.

It certainly isn't as polished as others, but it is free, very simple, and I find it to be exceedingly accurate on time en-route forecasts using the wind data. A very nice bonus is the presentation of recently planned and ATC-provided routes/clearances for similar flights. Gives you a very good idea of what you'll get if going IFR vs. what you want.

I looked at the original AOPA one briefly but didn't like it at all and primarily use www.fltplan.com now and find it to be wonderful. I've poked around in the new AOPA thing but haven't used it enough yet to know whether I'll switch or not. It looks like a big improvement to me, though, and I'll give it a try when I have more time before my next trip.

George, do you know if your fuel:air ratios are balanced already with your IO-360? Many of them are very well balanced right out-of-the-box and thus do not need GAMIjectors at all. If you haven't already, I would suggest running the "GAMI Lean Test" to baseline your engine. (You can find the instructions and data sheet on their site.)

Congrats!

What's up with your gender on the avatar???? Pre-op tranny or something? (before anyone gets offended...he is a long-time classmate/friend/coworker and hangars right behind me!)

Adam, I think the concern is less about the cost of 100LL and more about the availability of it in many parts of the world...it just isn't as easy to find at any cost compared to JET A or diesel. Once that is understood, then making a low-end turboprop makes some sense if one is to go after international sales like Mooney appears to be doing. This makes (or maybe *made*) sense when the dollar was weak but who knows since the entire world economy appears to be sliding backwards right now. As I understood the short presentation this past weekend, the RR500 would be bolted to an existing M20 airframe and would have to have the long range tanks to be useful. Optimal efficiency in the teens at 27 or 28 GPH. I missed that it would only be certified to 18k...that makes absolutely no sense to me...I thought it was only the critical altitude of the engine. I don't see why anyone would buy this thing in the US since it is slower, less efficient, and much more expensive than the M20TN. Sounds like Porsche Mooney, Round II if you ask me. Perhaps there will be enough international sales to not completely lose the farm? (fingers crossed that the parlay the experience into a true 4-place + bags pressurized airframe with a derivative engine)

Greg, I still think he said that the critical altitude of the engine would be 18k, not the absolute certified ceiling, meaning it won't be able to maintain 100% power above that altitude. We'll see... Regardless, I'm considerably less excited about the project since the only "improvement" will be the ability to burn something other than 100LL, but at a significantly higher rate for no more additional speed or utility.

All of the above! Our political class be gettin' too big fer their britches, I'm afraid.

http://www.donkaye.com/Dons_Homepage/Flight_Instruction.html Not sure if he goes to Europe, but he did go to Australia last year (I think) as part of a Mooney tour. I imagine he might be willing to over if paid, though.

I installed a XeVision HID landing light into my '77 J (in the cowl only) at annual last January and am quite happy with it. The light dropped into the factory location, and the ballast installed on the firewall with 3 bolts. The switch wires were easily connected to the existing wires via the factory knife connectors too. Very simple and effective.

I concur with Jim's assessment on cockpit space. I'm 6'1" also and fit perfectly in front. The F and later models have an extra 8 or 10" of backseat leg room (can't remember exactly right now!) and will be comfortable for any reasonably sized adults. The short bodies (A, B, C/D and E) are best suited to kids or one person sitting cattywompus. I've flown my J 4-up quite a few times with no complaints from the backseaters.

Data point for useful load...my '77J has a 1021 lbs useful load. The panel, windows, and interior were updated by the previous owner. Removing vintage avionics saves weight, and sticking with standard thickness windows, reasonable interior, etc. will prevent the weight gain. I have a fixed rear seat (wish it folded!) and new plastic pieces that are painted and thus not covered with additional material. No headrests either. No wing tips or other mods (yet). Strip-n-seal of the tanks instead of bladders this year too. You'll have to look at each candidate airplane individually to check useful load as it is not uncommon to 100 lb. or more differences from one plane to the next. As mentioned above, fueling to the tabs (50 gallons) is usually more than enough fuel, and having a modern totalizer system allows reduced fuel missions with high confidence when needing to carry a lot of payload.