jetdriven

Yeah Hank I keep forgetting you are carb'd. In that case do you keep it leaned to edge of smooth on descent?

I agree with both above. Set it LOP in cruise, note the GPH (around 7.5-9 in a J). Note this at top of descent. Leave MP at full. Keep the mixture at that cruise FF, which is progressively further LOP as you descend. Good, helps you get down. If getting high on your profile lean more and / or bring prop RPM back to 2000 RPM. Usually you dont have to touch the mixture for several thousand feet. Near the pattern switch over from LOP and lots of MP to 18" and peak EGT or a little on the rich side of peak. MUCH simpler than moving the MP and mixture so much.

I just bought one of these for my J, but it actually is quite larger than I thought. I know they are standard equipment on later model J's. Does anyone have any good photos of the bracket and how it mounts? thanks

Oh, now it if was Paris, TX I could come to that one. I got excited for a moment!

Our M20J is 24$ an hour for the time-based comsumables such as engine, prop, gyros, vacuum pump, belt, filters, tires etc. Fuel is right this second 5.25$ a gallon X 9. So thats 71$ an hour variable cost, or the marginal cost of one additional hour of flying the plane. On top of the 450$ fixed cost per month for things like hangar, insurance, annual fund etc. A loan is extra above that if you have one. This assumes nothing breaks, and the first year its going to be 5K for unexpected items and minor upgrades. Like a 650$ DG knob that breaks. I like to fix things as the year goes along and have an annual inspection thats an inspection, not a catch-up. Some defer all maintenance till the annual and are shocked when its expensive, well, uh, you never spent money on the plane during the year. Scott and Docket have it right. Have the fixed costs auto-drafted, dont look at them, put gas in the plane and try to enjoy it. We used to rent a crappy Arrow for 150$ an hour. This plane is way faster and turns out cheaper as well.

There are pilots on here on IFR flight plans in airways and had planes pass opposite direction above and below, no alert. Be careful depending on those things.

Thats a good explanation, Jose. The dual mag has a couple things that make it less reliable. First is there is a lot of moving parts inside the dual mag, including one set of breaker points that if retightened, come loose and cause engine failure. The other, is the hold down nut isnt saftied, which can allow the mag to loosen and fall out.

The FAA does not care. We do based on market valuation but not airworthiness. The OP asked if he should "shy away from it" presumably since it is somehow "weaker" than a lower time airframe. I have flown airplanes with 125,000 hours on them, and they are esstentially no different than one that has 5,000 hours. I flew a Cessna 401A that had 30,000 hours on it, smoking rivets etc and we all know Cessna's are built cheaply compared to Mooneys. They do require more maintenance but structurally, they are the same. Its steel and aluminum. Either it has a life limit or it doesnt. M20 airframes do not.

Provided there is no corrosion, hours really are meaningless, from an airworthiness standpoint. If there was an airframe life limit, the FAA would have placed one on it, such as the Piper Tomahawk, Cirrus, or P-Baron.

They did, its called the TBM 700. It was originally the Mooney 301, but Mooney sold the project to Socata.

A non "B" hub prop is going to be an automatic 5K deduction from the value of your plane, I looked at several and the AD hub prop is a deal killer. The prop shop is going to laugh as they are selling you a couple of blades and a hub that has zero value for 5K. Especially given the Hartzell top prop is 8K laid in and has a longer TBO time plus adds performance. You ought to be able to get a B hub hartzell for 5K, keep looking.

Even if you put an overhauled engine and a GTN in it you would be in it for ~110K. This would be an 1800 hour M20K with a fresh engine and a GTN 650. IS that a good deal?

yep get that ball centered. Make sure its actually the plane not the insturment, our old TC ball was wrong. Centered, but wrong. Interesting your average GS is lower than your IAS at 7500'. Makes me wonder, 157 KIAS at a ~7200' density altitude should be something near 178 KTAS. Could your IAS or indicator be wrong? Quote: Bnicolette Here is a TAS test I did a couple months back in my '82 M20J; sorry, no fuel flow information: My airplane also needs rigged as the ball is slightly out of it's cage in cruise flight to the right about a 1/4 ball. An upcoming visit to Henry Webers hopefull will fix that issue. Altitude OAT (F) MP RPM Direction IAS (KTS) GPS (KTS) 7500 28 22.4 2400 S 157 166 7500 28 22.4 2400 E 157 169 7500 28 22.4 2400 N 157 143 7500 28 22.4 2400 W 155 140 Average G/S 154.5

We just wnet through this whole thing. I used a water level at the wingtips to make sure the wings were level with it sitting. It was, and the ball was centered on the ground. In flight it was 3/4 ball to the right. We rigged the rudder trailing edge appprox 1/32nd inch IAW the Mooney service manual then the ailerons for roll centering. it flies wings level now, and ball centered. it used to fly right wing low 2 degrees.

FWIW it takes 45 minutes to remove the injectors and another 45 to reinstall.

We can get 8.0 GPH st 2500 RPM at 7500' but it is quite lean at that setting, maybe 50-75 LOP. We use more like 8.5-8.7 GPH. Are you at WOT? The air distribution is more even there. Try soaking your injectors in Hoppes #9 or acetone overnight and clean them up. What is your GAMI spread?

and that it is to be insured for XXX hull and XXX liability, you are a named insured etc etc

We have put 100 hours on our plane so far and it depends on altitude, but generally between 3000-5000 in cruise it is WOTLOP 2500 RPM and 50-100 LOP. 5000'-7000' it is WOTLOP 20-50 LOP 2500 RPM. Above 7000 we run WOT near peak and all of these net you 152-154 KTAS and 9 GPH (low) to 8 GPH (high). We recently trimmed it better so maybe 2 more KTAS there. Running at 2400 RPM costs you 1.5-2 knots, but lowers fuel flow .2 to .3 GPH and MUCH lower noise. This all nets around 17 NMPG. Flying slow say 110 KTAS and 6 GPH nets you around 10-15% more NMPG but with a 24$ an hour dry cost it is largely offset. Our machine is a 1977 J model, 5000 AFTT, 1400 SMOH, McCauley 2 blade prop, stock antenna set, nose gear doors need rerigged, paint is 15 years old, and no ram air. I think there is 3 more KTAS hiding between gear door rigging, flap and aileron rigging, eliminating the ADF antenna, and some nonstandard fasteners. so the 9-9.5 GPH 155 KTAS early J's are mostly correct. I think the later MSE's etc are 5 KTAS faster.

such as CYGK or CYAM you can view it with foreflight 4.0 but not 4.1

We have one that works pretty well, but the previous owners sent out the AI, DG, control box, servo, and roll filter to be overhauled in the 5 years before we bought it. With the S-TEC 30ALT module its a great combo.

I agree courtesy goes a long way and I really appreciate the differing opinions, even if I dont agree. We can all slap each other on the back congratulating each other on how good we are doing running 75 ROP or climbing at 25 squared, or we can test each others theories and stimulate critical thinking instead of going along with the herd. Oh I forgot to mention fuel bladders there. OK I am laying off but I learned moe from these forums than from anything else. We rarely break things now and out fuel usage is below planned. Knowledge is power. Keep all those opinions, experiences, questions and viewpoints coming.

Thats just a little more FF than a Bravo, and what was that useful load? 2,000 LB?

yeah, that was a bad recall. It said that night IMC goes "off the charts" for category while Mooneys are a slightly higher value, but no numbers. its 1/2 to 1/3rd for IFR compared to category and around average overall for category. Sorry to get that wrong!

The E is a rocketship, even compared to a J. Great airplane, Im sure you will enjoy her for years to come.

Thats a great article about the Bonanza. so IFR flight plan Mooney fatal accident are about 1/2-13rd of the category average. Overall fatal accident rate is about average. For the category, which includes Bonanza's and likely Cardinal RG's, commander 114s, etc. here is my source: Looking at accidents that occurred under instrument conditions, we found that the Mooney pilots seem to do a significantly better job. The IMC accident rate per 100,000 hours for the Mooney is just a little over half the accident rate of the other retractables (5.91 versus 10.14). It's even better for instrument-rated Mooney pilots on IFR flight plans, at 1.89 per 100,000 hours versus 4.97 for the comparison group. For this group of airplanes, the record proves the adage that you are definitely safer on an IFR plan. Mooney pilots also hold the advantage at night. This is the period when we typically see the accident numbers per 100,000 hours skyrocket. The group as a whole literally goes off the graph we produced in the book, while the Mooney shows only a small increase over IMC accidents in general. The question is, why? from: http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9510.html