Awful_Charlie

I'm very surprised Mooney came out with that. If you look at this you can see the AF1 has been developed from a 250HP engine, and the 300+ HP engines have a different evolution altogether. In summary, for an AF1 it goes: Model/HP/Max RPM/Fuel/Compression/Description O-540-ALA 250/235 2575/2400 100/100LL 8.50:1 Two sixth order counterweights (not sure about the origin here - couldn't find an A1A, ALA is the closest) O-540-A1A5 250/235 2575/2400 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as O-540-A1A but one fifth and one sixth order counterweights O-540-A1B5 250/235 2575/2400 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as -A1A5 except for short propeller governor studs and two impulse magnetos O-540-A1D5 250/235 2575/2400 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as -A1B5 except for Retard Breaker Magnetos IO-540-C1B5 250 2575 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as O-540-A1D5 but with Bendix fuel injector IO-540-C4B5 250 2575 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as -C1B5 but with more effective counterweights for use with Hartzell "compact,, propeller IO-540-J4A5 250 2575 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as -C4B5 except comersion for use with turbo- charger, long reach spark plugs, piston cooling oil jets, AN fuel pump drive, vented fuel nozzles and -1200 series Magnetos TIO-540-C1A 250 2575 100/100LL 7.20:1 IO-540-J4A5 equipped with TE0659 turbocharger and low compression pistons TIO-540-K1AD 250 2575 100/100LL 8.00:1 Similar to -CIA but with D6LN-3200 retard breaker dual magneto, pressure controller, provision for cabin pressurization, rear mounted fuel injector, turbocharger mounted to rear of engine and higher C.R. TIO-540-AA1AD 270 2575 100/100LL 8.00:1 Similar to -K1AD but has a different controller system and has provision for a rear mounted propeller governor TIO-540-AF1A 270 2575 100/100LL 8.00:1 Similar to -AA1AD but has Slick magnetos, different turbocharger and an intercooler

Welcome DVA Dave, and thanks for the info. Let me digest your notes and see if I can come up with a loading chart in a few days....

Interesting that they told you EASA approval in July - I went to them for a KI300 for installation in my N-reg in July and they told me there was no chance! Their recommendation was an overhauled KI256, and they got a bit uneasy when I asked for other alternatives, although they grudgingly acknowledged that an Aspen adapter would do the job

I don't intend to drop the cowl just for the sake of some photos, so you'll have to wait until the next oil change - late May is when I'm expecting that to arrive

After the first couple of repairs (which didn't have the greatest longevity),every time I've found a crack (and I have a good peer about at the 25 hour oil change, typically finding them when they are less than 1/4", always on the welds) I get it repaired with a gusset rather than just getting the weld re-done. The Lycoming exhaust is certainly not great for robustness despite working a little mouse milk into the slipjoints at oil change. The last time round I got fed up with the frequent repairs, so got gussets added at all the points the welder thought looked fragile - it's held up for 2 years/200hours now without another intervention

I've used Tempest filters since I started doing my own oil and filter changes. I like the magnet in the end for a quick guess if there is a nasty surprise likely to come in the filter media! That it's a couple of bucks cheaper per unit in 6 packs is a bonus, and I've not had a rattler yet (in four filters a year for 6+ years)

A couple of observations I would add: Put something larger and softer on the floor before removing the last two fasteners - for one it makes it easier on the knees, and you can also lower the cowl to the floor after removing the last fastener without fear of scratching it. The other thing I find is that I can use one of my size 11's under the cowl to stop it falling down on removal, or support it when replacing. Otherwise that's pretty much exactly as I do it.

Aero is April 20 - 23, 2016 at the Exhibition Centre next to the Zeppelin hangar Not aware if what type the sim is behaving as - Timothy is an IFR instructor and probably has a few options available - I'm picking up some new pedals for it that are being developed on my way through. I'll see what I can do for photos, but previous experience has shown that we tend to be quite busy on the stand, and time to get a good look round is limited - personally I want to get to the Avidyne, Lycoming and BK stands but I'm worried I might not get the time even for that!

If anyone is coming to Aero this year, please pop into stand 533 in hall A5 and say hello - I expect to be there for the duration. Timothy will be doing simulator training, and you might be able to get a cup of coffee from us too! Ben

#1 - No go: Four up with that much cross wind puts me into the "too unhappy" territory. Runway 35 would be marginally better (change the tailwind component into a headwind, and hence get off the ground earlier), but I just don't have the experience in take off in the Mooney in those sort of cross winds. If I had more experience in the >25kt cross wind I might think differently. #2 - Go with the proviso that I am assuming there is an instrument approach at the destination, or somewhere near enough to let down and go to the destination under the cloudbase (or that the route can be flown all the way below the coudbase and maintaining 500' terrain clearance) then 5sm and 1000' is enough, but would be had work if for a long time. 4dC temp/dew point spread suggests that 1000' is as bad as it should be. Depending on the depth and type of the overcast, and experience of the Pax, may downgrade to a no-go if it is going to be a protracted bouncing around at the cloudbase. #3 - Go (Probably!): There is an exposure until the weather improves en-route, which might be a mile or three, or 90%+ of the route, the former wouldn't worry me, the latter would. One of the places I often go to sits on a hill, and sometimes in bad vis - a couple of miles away it is CAVOK. Icing is a risk but I'm FIKI, so prime the system on the ground and top up the fluid. #4 - Go: Can maintain VMC below the CB and keep clear, and if we end up at an inconvenient alternate then we are in no worse position than if we didn't go at all. If Pax are unknown, or known to be nervous flyers, then may convert to a no-go, as the landing ("Arrival!") is likely to be 'sporting' #5 - No decision: If I have the fuel to make it to the destination and return to the departure point then it would be a go. If due to trip length/W&B limitations I can't have an alternate outside of the area forecast to go below mins, (eg the departure point) then it's a no-go. Also remember the legality of alternates and Wx (1-2-3)

Just re-awakening this topic, as I'm interested in the loading positions for the extra fuel. My CofG is too far forward for my liking, and I find the forward limit more restricting than the aft limit. I could just add another charlie weight, but if the LR option moved the loading point back that might offer more flexibility. Is there a CofG change for fuel in the sub 89USG loading José? Any change of figures please?

What does your PoH or MM for your s/n say? On my Bravo the Hobbs is triggered by the RPM indicator

It's probably marginally smoother at 2400 than 2200, but not significantly. I think I need to have a prop balance, as the vibration is a bit high for my liking, but I need a prop reseal anyway as one of the de-ice boots is starting to perish, and I'll get that all done together when I go over to Straubing for the avionics work later in the year (MT prop HQ is at the same field, and they service the standard McCauleys)

You're looking very similar to me Dave The high alu back after 1700 odd hours was due to a new (second hand!) #3 cylinder being installed at 1727.7 and flushing out all the disturbance that created I'm not very good at recording FF/KTAS in a spreadsheet (I make the odd note on my kneeboard, but then frequently omit transferring them to something more permanent!) So far together we've got: I run LOP with GAMIs (#5 last to peak by about 0.5GPH) as fuel is the lowest it's been for a long time with a best price around €1.60 a liter - which is about 7USD a gallon Here's a Savvy upload with a few FF sweeps at different MPs: https://www.savvyanalysis.com/flight/1302605/a40ba126-3dd6-461f-ac4d-f18e0b2165d5

Curve 13491 Sheet 1 of 3 - "Normal Rated Power 270HP 35" HG" Curve 13495-A - "Density Control Full Throttle setting Limits" between 34" and 37.5" for an IAT of 70dF to 170dF Curve 13492 "Max Cumulative Manifold Pressure" - 38" MP is maximum for "standard hot day" (I can't find a definition of what "hot" is though) at 19,000 ft AMSL. Standard day at 6000'AMSL max is about 34.5" So 38" is not something you should normally see, and is a hard limit that must not be exceeded in a similar way to the 500dF CHT limit

OK, let's all work together on this to see if we can produce something more useful than Lycoming I was thinking that together we can take a few steps to get to a sane usable set of limitations, flows and power with limits: I suggest we start with MP and RPM, then add fuel flows, and then from that we can overlay resultant power. To this end, here is an alternative 'graph' of MP and RPM, which is so far solely my understanding and interpretation of Mooney PoH 3502 Rev H (28 Apr 2005) and Lycoming 60297-23P-2 4th Edition (Oct 2006). It's not overly pretty or neat (it can be tidied up when we have agreed the numbers/bands) but is hopefully a starting point. Parts I am particularly unhappy with are the areas for notes 4, 6 and 9, but I'm looking for constructive suggestions for the whole lot Ben MP vs RPM.pdf

As mentioned in several other posts here, I fly at lower power and fuel flows that many Bravo owners, and looking back through my logs I see that my average flight time is 1:15 - many of my trips are a 2+ hour leg followed by a 10 minute hop (for the sake of customs), but over that time my average fuel burn per flight hour is 16.2 USG/Hr. Batteries for Aspen/Lifesaver/ELT eat up cash, other big consumers are the O2 cylinder replacement, oil & filters (every 25 hours), and in the last couple of years I've replaced both the ship batteries - the life of these seems to be highly variable, the last ones for me being around eight years, but others are replacing them maybe after only two. A defective TKS panel was more of a hit than I would like, and the infamous back spring is not cheap either. I budget about €12k per year for fixed costs (hangar, insurance, Jeppesen, regular maintenance) which comes in about right but will vary depending on the deals you get, but an exhaust repair/turbo/O2 cylinder will possibly take you over. Maintenance can be variable depending on what you want to include too - do you expect to keep up with avionic/gadgets (eg ADSB/8.33kHz radios) and are you going to include a re-paint periodically?

Here is the AF1A/AF1B fuel flow vs. BHP chart. Pencil additions are mine - use at your own risk! Agree with Don - 100% does not necessarily need 38", and at 2400 RPM anything over 34" makes you engine tester

Good thread, and looking forward to some more answers coming along. Normal SOP for me is TIT limit 1650 and CHT limit 400, but would take a higher CHT (say 420) if I had to climb for an ATC restriction or terrain cleananceas long it it was only a few minutes. I also try to manage cooling (myth or not, I'd rather not be cracking heads if it is avoidable). TT 1900 hours, new turbos with previous owner, then I got 1000 hours out of the last one, two new cylinders, one early in its life and one from me at about 1700 hours, the other 4 are original with good compressions. Oil consumption is about 5.5hours per litre/quart. I bought the aircraft with about 1400 hours on it I normally run LOP, about 10-15degress if I set it right. Standard cruise is 30"/2200 at 13-14GPH for 180KTAS ish at FL180, and might back off for a tailwind (just a few days ago I was running 24"/2200 at just under 11GPH for about 155-160KTAS at FL170 as we were 600lbs of people & baggage, and I was trying to get enough fuel on board for a return trip - as it turned out I was a few gallons short after the outbound leg, so had to do a fuel hop on the return). I can't hit a TIT of over 1650 at 30" and below, but going up to 32" and 2400 and above I can, I normally run 34"/2400 at 22-23GPH and 120KIAS for the climb and keep CHTs under 400 without a problem. The rate of climbs deteriorates above FL200 (critical turbo alt should be FL210, but I'm keeping the IAS up) The Lycoming operators manual has some interesting figures: it graphs 91Lbs/hr for 75% which is 15.2-15.7GPH depending on the density you use for fuel, yet for the "normal cruise(75")" it quotes 17.1 GPH which is 102lbs/hr. For 65% from the graph is is 78lbs/hr (12.7-13.1GPH) yet quotes 12.5GPH. From the graph, the best BSFC is 0.45 which you get in the 65-80% band. All remarkably inconsistent! I put the POH figures into a spreadsheet in a previous post - it is still available there if someone can make sense of the Lycoming figures that would be great! Ben

as would a tail tie-down loop!

It depends on the IAT (or IOT in the manual) - check the engine OM Figure 5-16 on page 5-25 (Curve 13495-A) - it could be as low as 34.25" and as high as 37.25" for the 'Normal' line (70-170dF. The lower end of that would be an OAT around 40-50dF at sea level I think) Yes, it is very sensitive - after several attempts, me & my A&P lockwired the adjuster for both rotations, and then gradually tightened one or the other and snugged the adjuster with a spanner against them until we got it nailed - it took us all afternoon. Great picture Tony - but sorry, I don't like your lockwiring - there's nothing to stop the adjuster working anti-clockwise, and the bottom right screw doesn't look properly 'in safety' (although the effect might be trivial if just the one comes out, but then it you're going to the bother of putting wire through it, it might as well do something!)

89USG is standard 102USG with the factory extended option 120/132USG with the Monroy mod - the difference depends on if you have speed brakes fitted

Is the difference in the rate on the loan enough to make a personal loan unattractive? I'm pretty sure just about any bank over this side of the pond would do a loan for whatever you want (even something without a re-sale value, such as a holiday) for 50k and only be interested if in you can pay it back, and not give a hoot about what you were using it for.

Well done Mooney for getting this together, and I really am glad to see it, but can't help thinking they've missed a trick. 1000lbs of payload just isn't enough for a go-places four seater, and a long-body isn't the best choice for half hour round the block flights. Stick four FAA standard 200 lbs fleshy things in there, lose (an optimistic) 50 lbs for fuel reserves, and that leaves a measly 150lbs for trip fuel and baggage. You can get away with telling some friends that they're only allowed to pack a toothbrush and one pair of undercrackers for baggage, but even for me that's stretching it for a week away. That assumes you actually get your new bird with 1000lbs usable though - if you need FIKI or aircon I suspect the figure is going to be lower, meaning you are constrained to hops of an hour to get anywhere, and at that rate even a car starts to look attractive. The competition which is selling has a useful load of 1150-1300lbs, and they accomplished this on the last update by adding a gross weight increase, but I do wonder how much Mooney looked at what could be improved, for instance That big lump on lead on the elevator controls under the panel - there's 2 lbs that could probably be replaced by a spring for a fraction of the weight How about a deal with a composite prop, Skytec, Plane Power to get weight off the front end - there's an easy 20-30 lbs by changing accessories/supplier All those bellcranks and pivots under the floor - all made in steel, and probably ripe for replacement in something else Charlie weights in the tail to get the CofG acceptable - how about a couple of battery box positions instead (and even move the access panels back to match) The long steel control tubes are also screaming for something lighter, and the trim system could be cable without a loss of control feel Whilst I'm having a bitch about things I've found the hard way on a Bravo, I hope they've got rid of that infernal lower cowl fastener directly above the nosewheel that requires a special screwdriver just for that one fastener - decreasing the fastener count by one and moving the two either side of it closer together would make the job of removing or replacing the lower cowl noticeably easier Don't get me wrong - I think it's great that Mooney is moving back into production, but the competition has moved on, and the product needs to be competitive with what else is out there in the sub $1M four seater market

Thought we'd been here before. They are fitted to Cessnas too, and list price for the assembly is $200 or something rotten. See and I got a batch of 6 bulbs from the bay of e for $18, they take maybe half an hour each to cut down, remove the leads from the old bulb and solder them onto the new . On the other hand, if you're someone who makes 1000 bucks an hour, then just do another hours work and tell your A&P to change 'em