Jeff_S

I know from 27 years of experience (yes, I had an original 128K Mac) that Macs also perform really well LOP!

Amazing. You mean a non MSC-rated A/P can actually be competent? Will wonders never cease! Seriously though, glad to see things have worked out and you're on your way.

Just took my first flight with the new Plane Power alternator and so far me-likey. My old Prestolite style (which, upon further examination, wasn't even a correct model for my plane!) always put out enough power but at low RPMs it was developing a very nasty pinging, which also increased when any major load was put on it. I turned on everything thing I could during today's test flight and the power output was very steady with the new alternator. I hope continued testing proves this out. Electrical systems can have so many gremlins that show up and are difficult to track down.

That little extra air intake on the cowling cracks me up. Looks like it's snarling at you, or maybe winking!

Quote: Magnum Let's keep it simple: With the same FF we are faster than brand B, P or C.

Geez Scott...what an idiot! Ha, just kidding. I too will file this little experience away in the memory banks and hopefully draw on it some day in a time of need. What Gary posted reminded me of something a very wizened aviator, with military and civilian experience up the wazoo, shared at an FAA safety session I went to this Spring. He said that whenever you transition into a new plane you go through stages of the Four C's: Competence, Confidence, Comfortableness, and Complacency. It's that last one you always have to watch out for.

Magnus, you are right. I realized after I posted that this was an oversimplification. The real issue is that the engine can generate more power with more air. And if we want to get all scientific, I will also agree that if you truly keep power output constant for any given density altitude you should see the same TAS. But most folks do as Ross described, which is to settle into a standard RPM/MP combo that they like and where the plane feels right, so in that case, cooler air should generally yield higher TAS than warmer air. That's the part I meant about "all else being equal."

201er, as Ross says, the only way to do a true comparison is by measuring TAS. Newer planes (not sure of the date) will have their ASIs in knots, while older models will show MPH. The general convention is to use knots because then we sound cooler and more sophisticated, although if you want to show raw numbers, you should use MPH. After all, the "201" is based on MPH, not knots. The "Mooney 174ish" just doesn't sound as fast! Two more issues to consider. In colder weather, the air is denser as you note in your post, so there are more air molecules for the prop to chew through. This is effectively what Ross was joking about when he said you'd have to stop for traffic lights...the only way to get 100% HP out of a normally aspirated engine is at sea level. So yes, in colder air you will get a greater TAS for a given altitude than you would in warmer air, all else being equal. Second, how you actually measure your TAS will be subject to some errors in calculation. If you have the adjustable doohickey on your ASI you can set it for altitude and corrected OAT and that will give you an approximate TAS. If you have an air-data computer, that will show it as well. I have both, and I find the ADC to usually be within a few knots of the ASI doohickey. The alternative is to use your E6B which I'm sure you carry and use routinely while in flight! (ha) Finally, why are you not seeing the speeds you think you should? That could be any number of reasons, including an older engine, excess drag somewhere on your airframe, a tired prop, or (quite possibly) somewhat inflated expectations. Remember that "201" was based on an entirely new airplane in perfect spec and with a new engine and prop. In real world work, I'll agree with Ross that my J can do ~160 KTAS if I really want to push with hotter engine temps and higher fuel burn, but I can also get about 153 KTAS flying LOP and save at least 2.5 gph and have a much cooler and happier engine. For me the choice is a no-brainer.

On my recent flight out to Denver from Atlanta, the first leg took me through some weather in the northern Arkansas southern Missouri area. Aside from one strong cell that I deviated around, mostly it was just leftover clouds with no turbulence or anything in them so I just plowed through. Since I fly at normally aspirated levels (I was at 8,000' at that point) I was going in and out of the these big tall cumulus clouds, and at one point I was overcome with the cool feeling that I was navigating through a big puffy canyon. I was in the clear, but white towers and cliffs rose up on either side of me, and I banked around some of them for fun and to get a minor sense of what a fighter pilot must enjoy. It reminded me of some great wall and canyon scuba dives I've had around the world, and reinforced the sense of three dimensions we enjoy in our Mooneys.

That position Scott describes is also very useful when it comes time to use the relief bottle or Travel John!

My PSE 8000 is great...installed by prior owner so I didn't have anything to do with the decision but it's been a fine unit. Has more capabilities than I will ever use. Haven't even tried figuring out the "playback recorded content" feature but I know it's there.

My opinion is somewhat controversial on this. I think the quality and reputation of the mechanic is more critical than the mere fact that it is an MSC. I know there are plenty of top-notch MSCs, and some that are less-so. As near as I can tell looking through my logs, my plane has never been to an MSC, but the shops it has been to have always meticulously documented their work and the logs are complete and clean. That said, if you have a choice between a good MSC and a good non-MSC mechanic nearby, for a plane of this vintage, why not go the MSC route? It can't hurt, and can only help.

The first time I ever took the controls of a J was from the right seat in a plane I was evaluating for purchase. I was amazed at how solid the aileron controls were in flight...in fact, downright difficult to turn compared to my Warrior. I didn't realize at the time that much of this was due to the push-rod system rather than the pulleys in most planes. But what I also didn't realize was that even more of this was due to SPEED! I'd never flown an airplane at 150 KIAS before (at least not straight and level). It gave me a new appreciation for the real forces generated by an airfoil cruising through the air.

Holy moly. Can't we all just talk about LOP or something like that?

Yes, the bulb can be aimed. It may be possible for the PAR46 bulb to be inserted upside down...I don't remember if it has a flange on the back that fits into a housing. My cowl-mounted landing light was inexplicably (and undocumentedly!) altered at some point in its life so that there is an insert now that takes a standard PAR36 bulb instead of the usual PAR46 for that installation. And I know my A/P did a little jiggering of the housing to get it aimed correctly.

Geez Ross...Dave said in his post that he was restating the Lycoming position, and their position is well-known because they've had a write-up on it that's been distributed all over Hell's half-acre. I am in your camp and choose to use my JPI to its full advantage and fly LOP but I don't think Dave was taking a position one way or the other. I did have a CFI in Colorado marvel at my ability to fly LOP on a Lyc 4-banger without GAMI injectors. When I told him my GAMI spread with stock injectors was about .2 he was amazed. He said "usually 4 cylinder engines don't like to fly LOP..." or something like that. I just smiled inwardly. No sense starting an argument with the guy I'm trusting to get me over that next ridge!

Funny, over on the Piper forum we had a consummate whiner and forum "troll" who loved to stir up trouble and debate. His initials were PK. They finally banned him by blocking his IP address. I haven't seem the same level of ire from allsmiles...seems to me he does just like to strongly advocate his own positions, rather than make fun of everyone else's...but I found it ironic about the initials. I had a conversation with AAA when looking for my Mooney, and Jimmy seemed a stand-up guy, but I found my bird directly from the seller so had no need for the broker services.

On a Mooney forum you're obviously going to get a view slanted toward Mooneys. But as others have written, I think it depends on how long you want to keep the plane, as much as the configuration in which you're going to fly it. While I love my J, I fly it mostly solo or with one other individual. In this configuration you can load it with bags and enough fuel for a good 3-4 hours w/reserves. But adding people to the back reduces both luggage and fuel hauling, so you have to consider your mission. Also, kids grow, and fast, so every year you lose some effective room. If it's a plane you want to keep and use all the way through their adolescent years, the Mooney won't be the ticket I don't think. Get yourself a Cherokee 6 or 'Toga or something like that now, or a Bo' 6 seater if you can afford it. Then when the kids go off to school you can trade into a Mooney for you and the wifey to zip around more efficiently to all their college events, and to your beach house!

How was the weather for the program? I was out in Denver last week and did a bit of mountain flying on Thursday, but we had to cut the trip short (only got to Steamboat, instead of Aspen and Leadville) because there were already storms in the mountains.

I have followed the "1100 RPM at shut-down, then just crank it" approach to hot starts with mostly good success here in the South. But traveling out to Colorado last week, with temps as high as the South (90's) but the super-thin air, I found the flooded-start technique to be the most reliable. I would always try the hot-start approach once, but if it didn't catch, I had no idea where the engine was so I just used the flooded technique to good effect. Seems like it's the best approach when both the engine, and the outside air, are super hot.

Moontown is an awesome strip. They have a vintage Aeronca Champ there that rents for $35/hour or something like that, and a wizened instructor named Ken who practically gives his services away for $18/hour. It's a great place to get some tailwheel training and camaraderie. I used to go there all the time in my Warrior. Haven't been in my J yet...hearing too many stories about lower gear doors and other reasons people don't like to land J-models and up on grass strips. Probably just need to scoff at them and go do it!

Thanks all. Good ideas. I spoke to Cleon Biter last night and we're planning a full day of flying on Thursday to do the obligatory mountain tour, including Leadville. I hope the weather will hold for that.

Interesting...never had the "logged in as somebody else" bug hit me before. That was Jeff_S (me) who made the Front Range request.

Sorry, editing doesn't work. In the above, I should have said "horizontal stabilizer" rather than "elevator" although I think you get my drift.

What is "the step?" The "step" in this context is generally referred to as an attitude in cruise flight where you have achieved an optimal balance between lift and drag forces which allows a faster airspeed. The maneuver referenced would certainly help to increase airspeed temporarily, as by climbing a bit higher than cruise altitude and then descending to cruise altitude you are reducing the downward (and drag inducing) force on the elevator. The "myth" part is that some people say this "step" can endure for long periods of time, while others claim that eventually at steady cruise altitude the forces should equalize back to the best airspeed you can accomplish given the plane's current weight/power configuration. I won't take a stand on that one...I've certainly felt like I was on "the step" from time to time, but I haven't measured how long it lasted. A trick that does work for long-duration flight, and was referenced in a few threads on speed racing, is to configure your W&B with the safest allowable CG toward the tail of the plane. This will also reduce the drag-inducing downward force of the elevator and add a few knots of speed. Many folks will keep a 50lb bag of something in their baggage compartment if they are otherwise light on load to help with this.