Lood

My F takes an extra 2.3 gal per tank (i.e. 34.3 gals) when filled right up, but when filled according to the POH and triangular reference plate, only 32 gals. I fill it right to the top just before any long flights, and if needed in an emergency, I will burn 64 gals in total before I land. That way I should land with about 5 gals left. Under normal cicumstances, I won't burn more than about 55 gals before I land though, regardless of actually still having 14 gals left.

Here in SA, they have to drain the fuel, but the oil is part of the empty weight and is not drained.

In South Africa, our airplanes HAVE to be weighed every 5 years. My Mooney was weighed the year I bought it and its empty weight was 1700lbs. This meant a useful load of 1040lbs that I could load 656lbs with full tanks - not bad. So, I flew it accordingly for the next 5 years and never ever had a problem, or felt that I was running into trouble on any MAUW take off's. During that 5 years, I had just about all the old radio's and all other obsolete avionics, instruments and wiring removed and had them replaced with fewer, newer and a lot lighter components. However, when my Mooney was reweighed, it gained 73lbs and now has an empty weight of 1773lbs!!! You can do the math and imagine my disappointment, loosing all that useful load. My F can now legally carry what an older C172 can. Although I know for a fact that it does fly perfectly well "overloaded" with that 73lbs, I now stick to the new weight. I can just imagine the field day the insurance will have, should I have an incident and they discover that I was overloaded - regadless whether the latter was a contributing factor or not...

While I was filling my Avgas drums today at Tempe airport in Bloemfontein, South Africa, a King Air C90A was doing touch and goes. I witnessed about five before it taxied in to refuel. This discussion came to mind, especially with the King Air using runway 01, which is 3900' long and only 30' wide...

Done lot's of touch 'n goes - never ever experience any abnormal or even remotely critical situation. Never had the feeling that I was overwhelmed or overloaded by checks, etc and I'm actually airborne sooner than on a normal take off. I guess depends on quite a few factors though. I just wonder how a pilot, that never practice touch and goes in his Mooney, will cope when the day arrives and an unexpected emergency situation calls for an immediate take off after touch down, or even a normal go-around... If you don't know what to expect from your airplane and how it is going to react in such a situation, it WILL surpise you!

I don't have experience in an E, but at sea level, my F handles 1500 with ease. Like already mentioned, a lot of factors will have an effect on the overall performance. Two things that I've found are extremely important is your speed over the fence, or just before touch down, as well as your actual point of touch down. Depending on the weight I'm carrying, I slow down to 70mph just before flaring and it is of utmost importance that you put the airplane down right on the threshold. If you land even slightly deep, the situation might become rather intimidating. I also retract the flaps as soon as the mainwheels are firmly settled. Getting out of 1500' might actually be way more risky than getting in.

I have a habit to remove the cowls and poke around before every longish flight, especially flights on which my family joins me. Never found serious, but a broken langind light, but I keep at it.

How did Cirrus become as successful as they are - against all the odds of building a certified airplane, from scratch, in the current times? They dumped most of the 50 year old technology and while even myself still have doubts about composites, for instance, this seems to be the future. They incorporated a lot of the modern luxury motor vehicle into their airplane and they pursued an extremely clever and effective marketing strategy, and buyers seem to like that. There's no use in hand building a "super strong, all metal" airplane, like you did from the beginning and use that, among others, to convince modern buyers that you have the best on offer. People simply don't think like that when they have to fork out a lot of money for something. Also, everybody knows that Mooney is the speed king, but Mooney should maybe consider another marketing approach and boost a few other things than speed and efficiency alone. Efficiency sure must be part of the equation, but my take is that someone who buys a brand new Cirrus or Acclaim, for that matter, is not at all concerned about fuel consumption. Although both these go fast, they also guzzle fuel, big time. I vote for using more modern materials and building techniques, a better useful load (because that's why I'll sell my Mooney), two doors and slightly more room inside. Sadly, nothing Mooney do is going to come cheap, not even if they carry on the way they did for the past 50 years.

Well, as some of you might know, I recently imported an EDM900 from the US and had it installed in my F. Since day one, however, I've had some issues with it and although probably minor, I do not expect this from an instrument, certified to be used as primary. I actually regard the display issue on my unit, that does not function as advertized, as somewhat of a safety issue. What bothers me most though, is the don't care attitude revealed by JPI and their rather poor response, or actually the lack thereof. Like I've said many times in the past, I will never fly without an engine monitor again and should I buy an airplane without one, I will have one installed immediately. That said, I will never again spend one dime on any JPI product, ever. I know very well that this won't bother JPI the least, but I'm already feeling better. Good bye, JPI...

IINM, this is the same one that is also STC'd for Bonanza's. I've seen pictures of it on a Bonnie door and I'm sure it couldn't be too much effort to make it work on a Mooney door.

On my F, anything between 180 - 201 deg, depending on conditions and power settings.

If I do some slow, leisure flying around the area where I stay, I leave the rpm at 2400 and just throttle back until I see 90mph indicated. Can't recall what the fuel flow is, but I think it's somewhere around 6 gal/hr. Like others, my engine also runs very smooth at 2400 rpm, although I haven't tried anything lower. In my Mooney, the most noise does seem to be wind noise and not so much engine or prop noise. Very noticeable and dependent on the speed I fly at.

The C should give you very close to 140kts, burning 9 odd gal/hr. That's almost 40kts faster than a C172 burning 6 gal/hr. If you do a 300nm cross country flight, the Mooney will take 2h10min and burn 19 odd gallons of fuel, while the C172 will take almost 3 hours and burn 18 gallons. Really not worth it to slow a Mooney down, because they're too efficient and economical. Now, we haven't even started with flying that same Mooney LOP...

My EDM 900 does EXACTLY the same. According to the shop that installed it, the installation manual did not call for a restricted AN fitting, so a standard one was used. Apparently, a restricted one is indeed needed. We played with the though of taking a standard fitting, fill it with either lead or epoxy and then drill a smaller diameter hole in order to "restrict" it, but I quote JPI: ">>Please send me a data download from the unit so we can assess the MAP issue. If the data shows no inductive noise on the MAP line, we can send you a snubber valve. There is no small hole. It looks like a porous material with no orifice..." My problem is rather unique though in the sense that I am thousands of miles from the US and sending anything to the US and back, will set me back R4k in our money! I can't help but think, a certified instrument in this price range should not have issues like these...

+1 on the factory reman.

Correct and confirmed by my AME this morning. They also quoted me on a stock replacement light, which they have in stock and somehow, it is almost like nine times cheaper than importing the Whelen LED light from Spruce. So, I'll stick to the old power guzzler it seems.Thanks to all for you advice and replies.

I'm really not sure, but can probably find out from the guy who installed it. Would the particular fitting make any difference?

My brand new JPI EDM 900 is absolutely amazing, but it does take a bit of getting used to, I must add. It's almost like doing a conversion to type - it takes a while for your brain to put your eyes on the exact spot, immediately, to find what you're looking for. Anyhow, among a few others, I decided to keep my old OEM MP/FF gauge and here's something that I've noticed. My OEM MP gauge is spot on when compared to the EDM 900's digital MP display and the OEM gauge is dead steady. If the MP is set, the needle will not move one mm. The MP on the EDM 900 however, is not. In flight, it continuously vary with about 1/2". Let's say I'm setting a MP of 21", the EDM 900 will continuously "hunt" between 20.8" - 21.3" odd. It is never stable or set on a single readout. Is this normal with other owners who also have JPI's with the digital MP readout or might htere be an installation issue with mine? Probably not a big issue, but rather annoying.

Is the part number supposed to be found somewhere on my old light? I didn't check when I removed the rear part that had broken off, but I'll have a look when I go out to the hangar again. I'll confirm the part number with my AME as well, tomorrow.

Hi all, I need advice again, please. My old OEM landing light broke in two and needs replacement. I would like to confirm whether this would be the correct replacement light (from Spruce): WHELEN PARMETHEUS SUPER LED REPLACEMENT LIGHTS - 14V PAR 46 - PLED461L Part # 11-09523 I would like to be 100% sure before I order, because with our poor exchange rate and the ridiculously expensive shipping costs, I can't afford to land the wrong light here. The light needs to fit my '67 M20F.

I find that 2450 rpm is the smoothest setting in my F. I must confess that I haven't tried lower rpm settings, but 2500 or 2550 certainly return quite a bit more noise and there seems to be quite a bit more vibration.

Thanks a lot guys, much appreciated. All your POH's are the same as mine and supports my argument. Just a minor technicality that I have to sort out with JPI.

I wasn't correct with my statement of being 130 - 150 deg ROP at target EGT, Dave. Your 200 deg is much closer to reality. Target EGT on my engine is 1230 on cylinder #1 and I peak is normally reached somewhere around 1420 deg. This means I'm at 190 deg ROP when I set target EGT, regardless of the altitude. Over time, I've learned what the take off fuel flow should be at most altitudes that I generally use, but besides that, the JPI makes setting it precisely rather simple.

Using target EGT, I'm at around 130 - 150 ROP - regardless of the altitude I take off from. I'm pretty sure that this setting has a rather negligible effect or limit on engine power and it keeps the CHT's very happy during all kinds of climb rates, even at very high day temperatures.

Guys, I need confirmation from a few other F owners and if possible, 1967 F models soecifically. It's with regards to the fuel quantity specified in the POH. Unfortunately, mine is in the airplane as we speak and due to the time difference between SA and the US, it would be really nice to get the info in advance. Beats having me lying awake until I get to my airplane, tomorrow. I'm pretty sure that my POH only states the total fuel quantity of my F, being 32 gallons per side and the total of 64 gallons, of course. IIRC, there isn't anything mention with regards to useable or unusable quantities of fuel? My stock fuel gauges are marked in lbs, with the full position reading 194 lbs. Converted back to US gallon, this equates to 32 gal per tank. What does your stock fuel gauges read - be it lbs or gals? Does you POH state anything wrt unusable fuel? Does you POH state anything wrt useable fuel? Is there anyone here that has a JPI, EI or any other digital fuel quantity gauge installed in your F and if so, what is the full tank quantity, displayed on your digital gauge? I appreciate your feedback.