jetdriven

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

Allsmiles is right. Airtex makes a nice midlevel interior and, as Jim R. has done, you can paint the plastic. It certainly isn't going to be Aero Comfort quality, but it is a nice improvement from 1979. If you are interested in spending hours and hours. I actually used fiberglass cloth, .030 thick ABS pieces, and ABS cement to repair plastic cracks and holes. It takes time, but can be done.

Norman, how much did that Top Prop give you as far as cruise speed and climb? Quote: testwest +1 for the Hartzell 2-blade Top Prop (with the blended airfoil (BA) blades). We sure like ours!

According to AOPA, the Mooney has something like ten times less the fatal accident rate of its category when flown IFR by an instrument rated pilot. Overall the accident rate is about the same as rthe Bonanzas etc. Cirrus are substantially worse.

I use the Armstrong towbar method. Mooneys are easy to push. an A36 is not.

This is why the manual gear Mooneys are worth the same as electric gear ones. Because the manual gear is simple and works well, the electric is easier to use but has a potential 3000$ worth of stuff to go wrong between the actuator, gearset, and landing gear relays.

A dialed flange can check for a bent flange but cannot detect stress cracks anywhere on the crank. Good call splitting the case and sending the cranks and case off. You'll likely find a couple spalled lifters and a bad cam. Replace these with new parts. You can manufacture the middle belly skins pretty easily. They are just flat metal with holes for the screws. I dont think a zero time prop with an AD hub is worth much at all. Might want to reconsider having the hub zyglo'd every 100 hours that is a pain. I didnt think even a shop would assemble a Hartzell with an AD hub. I think he is unloading free parts on you for 5k. 8K gets a new 3-blade.

Ours depends on DA (temp mostly at sea level) but 18.0 GPH is average for 1,000' altitude full throttle and 2700 RPM full rich. As Ross said, the RSA-5 injector varies fuel flow based on mass air volume.

i dont think the sniff test for oil can measure viscosity, lubricating ability etc. The redline is there for a reason.

Metal fatigue only happens when you repeatedly bend the metal to the elastic limit. Since it doesnt bend, the life of your plane effectively infinite. Look at what hapens with the coil springs in your car, or the crankshaft and rods in your Lycoming engine. Nothing, because they are not stressed anywhere near their design limit. If there was a life limit, the FAA would put a limit on it. Corrosion is a separate issue, but yes, it weakens metal.

Ours will only add one bar of battery life in 3 hours to the aera. I think the system voltage is too low, the aera shows 13.5 volts, I am going to adjust it to the full 14v and see if it helps.

"how fast does it go, and how many gallons per hour" tends to piss off owners of other airplanes. But hey, what else is there?

To prevent taking off leaned: when you lean on the ground lean it as much as possible. It won't go to takeoff power like this, it just stumbles. Reminds you to go rich again.

Likely your high oil temp was because of low airflow, these planes really dont like 90 KIAS or less. I think W100 holds its viscosity better at high temperatures. 15W50 is so thin to begin with.