Shadrach

Ram air Open. I have logged many hours at 2500msl WOTRAO in the winter when the DA at that altitude is about -500MSL. 30”inhg, 2500rpm and 40LOP on richest cylinder 157KIAS (which corrects to about 155).

Frictional loss questions are above my pay grade which is why I asked George about it. I am comfortable running my IO360 LOP at at max achievable manifold pressure any altitude. I frequently fly at sub sea level DAs in winter time @2500rpm WOT RAO. I simply not WOT, full rich CHTs and shoot for slightly more conservative numbers on the lean side.

The same mechanism that took the Soviets to “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us”…

Well, next time just say 65% so it does not trigger the crowd that thinks “you loose a lot of speed cruising at 65% LOP compared to 65% ROP”…

FYI - Less is more regarding soapy water. It need not look “milky”. Just capable of suds.

I don’t see how you get bitten by reading the words as they’re written. Interpreting this as a major alteration would require ignoring the regulation as it is written. I have seen an odd culture within the DOD industry. I heard the term “courtesy 337“ used by a chief maintenance inspector on several occasions. One was specifically regarding the removal of carpeting from a King Air. My response is how is that a major alteration and how is it a “courtesy”. His response was the ASI at the FSDO appreciated the documentation. I understand that it’s important to maintain the relationship with the FSDO, but absurd is absurd

More or less. There are marginal differences with RPM changes. Friction losses affect power output. Is it a lot? No. I asked our favorite “Attorney/Salesman” about it back in 2010 and he had this to say:

Suggesting that a there is a strict interpretation of the definition as written that make this a major alteration is a mistake. Words mean things. Major alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications— (1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or (2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations. So, does it meet any of the criteria in (1)? W&B - No Structural Strength - No Performance - No Powerplant operation - No flight characteristics - No Other qualities affecting airworthiness - Well this is the catch all, but I would say a good test of whether it affect airworthiness is whether or not It affects the physical operation of the aircraft in an measurable way. In other words, are there operational parameters in which the replacement VR would operate differently than the original? If the answer is no, it’s very hard to make the case that it affects airworthiness. As far as (2) goes, I’m assuming you wouldn’t even be considering the installation if you weren’t able to do so in accordance with practices acceptable to the administrator. So what we have here in essence is a reading of the actual reg versus an interpretation that is not at all commensurate with the actual definition codified in the regulations by the FAA. People have to stop playing this game. We have a responsibility to ensure that regulations are interpreted as they are written.

1080lbs useful? It might be the most expensive pre-J model, but it is also likely in the top ten if not top five of all Mooneys for real world load hauling. Properly planned, that bird will take four 175lb adults and 100lbs of baggage ~600nm and land with VFR reserves. It is nearly a perfect family plane.

One can conduct an apples to apples almost every time they fly, especially with a turbo. Set you engine for a book 100ROP power setting, let stabilize and note the IAS and CHT. Then adjust MP and mixture for the same speed on the lean side. In my experience an IO360 will see a fuel savings of ~10% and a notable decrease in CHTs running same power LOP VS 100ROP. If I make the comparison at low altitudes and power settings above 70% where the appropriate ROP mixture setting is near full rich, the fuel savings is substantial. eg: let’s say I’m bucking a headwind at 4K in the winter. I can set the book number 25’x2500 at 80% power full rich (no leaning below 70%) burning ~14.8hph or I can run 80% at the same speed while saving >3gph.

I am pretty sure my engine will make 65% hp LOP at 7500’.

Collecting accurate data is not easy. Not suggesting that any one is lying. I’m suggesting that their numbers are imprecise.

Are you the YouTube guy to which I was referring? Those are the number that looked a bit flakey. Seems highly unlikely that an additional 1000ft and .01gph of fuel netted nearly 4kts of additional TAS.

I let mine lapse, but I think I will rejoin as the legal plan is worth the cost. Being so close to head quarters, I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly under every president since Boyer.

That is everywhere now. I always check out the author of any article I read. More often than not I find a 20 year old idealist that doesn’t know what they don’t know.

Those numbers look optimistic me. Without seeing gps flight data of a three-way speed run, I am skeptical. I am currently in the process of adjusting JPI K-Factor with the goal of achieving FF accuracy of <.3GPH. That process has left me skeptical that any monitor is sufficiently accurate to determine LOP power until tested.

He’s not mixing analogies to support anything. 65% is 65%. You’ve spent several paragraphs needlessly muddying the water. All that matters is that there is sufficient air available to facilitate a lean of stoic combustion event that contains sufficient fuel to generate 65% horsepower.

Cruise power tables suggest that LOP is doable at the altitudes mentioned, but in some cases rpm will need to be increased.

140kts +/- 5kts

Not at all an unreasonable ask depending on equipment and engine time. Encores are super nice and relatively rare aircraft. $200k is lower end of that market. The Encore is the ultimate Mooney in many ways, however, I am not sure it’s the best mountain mooney. Most have empty weights between 2050 and 2200lbs. That puts them near the bottom of the Mooney power to weight ratio hierarchy. We’re talking about 200ish horsepower airplanes. Turbo or no turbo, under most scenarios, the fatter the airframe, the more runway it’s going to eat. I would urge you to look at book runway performance numbers for all the models you’re considering rather than making assumptions about performance. You might also consider TN’d J or F model. Same size cabin, lighter airframes, less expensive to overhaul. And both likely have better high altitude runway performance than of the K variants save for the Rocket.

There are good mechanics, and there are not so good mechanics. I realized at some point halfway into ownership that it’s foolish to think that only the “not so good ones” make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, the difference between good and not so good are the processes used to reveal mistakes before the aircraft is returned to service. Several years ago, I noted an EGT increase on number one during climb out. This was a few hours after I had performed a plug rotation. Mag check revealed a miss. I was deeply disturbed to find that I had failed to tighten the lower plug lead on #1 which had completely detached. Not only did I not tighten it, but missed my mistake on final inspection before reassembly. I changed my process because of it. My leads are 90° elbows. I used to orient/angle all of the elbows by hand before tightening. I don’t do that anymore.

Easy to forgive your confusion. Champion makes an after market ignition booster called “Slick Start”… SlickStart™ unleashes a firestorm of ignition energy to get your engine started

If indeed this was caused by loose and detached plug leads, having an engine monitor and knowing how to use it may have prevented this accident.

PDK stands for…Doppelkupplungsgetriebe Which literally translates to Dopple - double Kupplungs - clutch Getriebe - gear Definitely a double clutch transmission. Like most German, it sounds beautiful when spoken…

Faster is not the same thing as better. Hence my comments that perhaps more are being used as track cars where absolute numbers trump the pleasure of rowing while heel and toeing. Don't get me wrong new generation of autos are great…heads and tails above yesteryears slush boxes. Whether dual clutch or hydraulic (ZF 8hp) they’re great. I have driven many, many PDK Porsches and I would only choose one if I was trying to be as fast as possible…not for fun.