Shadrach

If by a few feet you mean 30 to 40, then I agree. If you mean 3 to 5 feet then I disagree. The whole point of staying in ground effect is to benefit from the increase in lift and the muting of induced drag when flying near the runway. This corresponds to a reduction in the AOA required for level flight while in ground effect and allows more of the aircraft’s energy to be devoted to accelerating. It’s pretty clear that the Bonanza in the video attains an AOA that was adequate for liftoff in ground effect but was increasingly inadequate with every foot of additional altitude. Rather than lower the nose, he ignores the first rule of holes and elects to keep shoveling.

Thats a pretty reasonable strategy but perhaps challenging in the Texas summer. If it were me, I likely would not bother with setting at a specific power percentage and would run it as hard as possible using CHTs as my guide while varying RPM setting.

I would never call it overhauled but years ago we replaced a cylinder on a Continental 0200 with a serviceable steel cylinder and new rings. We used a dingleberry hone on a hand drill and had no problems establishing oil control nor problems with oily plugs. Is a dingleberry as precise as a honing machine? Absolutely not. Is it possible to get good results with a dingleberry hone? Absolutely.

#3 is typically the hottest in this application under most scenarios but close to #2. That reading is amplified by using a spark plug ring thermocouple and reduced by using a piggy back on a bayonet.

it was. I would have raised the gear, but I don’t think it would have mattered much in his case. Looked like he was at an above optimal AOA that was masked while in ground effect but became critically obvious as he tried to climb higher than about a wingspan above the ground. Looked like he kept pulling and decelerated mushing back into ground effect and ultimately, the ground. As you know hot and heavy operations require some finesse.

Are you running bayonet probes on each cylinder?

according to the NTSB the DA was 4100'. The aircraft was TN'd and was making >90% horsepower throughout the sequence. He was 100lbs over gross. NTSB blamed it on a "wind shift" and the extra 100lbs. Maybe...but to me it looked like his pitch attitude put him behind the power curve about a wingspan above the ground.

When I broke in my steel cylinders, we did an oil change at just over 5hrs. Oil consumption was normal after that. Something weird is going on and it does not necessarily have anything to do with your break in procedure.

It’s hard to tell, but it appear the flaps are in the take off position. Once airborne, he woild have probably been better off without them

In my opinion anything above ~ 1.4Vso on take off offers diminishing returns.

I think this is the crash being discussed. He did not attempt to accelerate in ground effect. He lifted off in ground effect and continued to attempt to climb with insufficient energy. As he attempted to climb out of ground effect he found himself short on energy and long on induced drag. He likely slowed down from the attempted pitch up mushing back into ground effect. By the end of the runway, he was in the position no one ever wants to be in. Short on airspeed, altitude, runway and ideas.

I hate to be negative, but if you haven’t been able to establish oil control in 17hrs, it’s not likely to get much better. I can’t speak to what the problem is, but what you describe is not normal for nickel carbide cylinder break-in.

This thread is getting kind of silly. Both those who want the latest and greatest and those who want a preowned bargin, benefit from one another. New buyers would not trade up nearly as often without a secondary market to allow them to recoup some value from the equipment they wish to replace. Bargain buyers would be SOL without early adopters to supply the secondary market with desirable preowned equipment. It’s a symbiotic relationship and makes for a heathy market. As for working on used equipment...all equipment is used equipment after the initial installation.

When the starter does engage, is it turning the prop as expected or does it seem labored? The Bendix needs to spin fast enough to engage the centrifugal clutch. A shot of light lubricant isn’t going to hurt anything and may improve operations considerably.

This was the point I was trying to make earlier with regard to my experience climbing >1000fpm with the gear down. Below about 80KIAS the drag from the gear is a small percentage of total drag. At SL, Vx for an M20J at MGW is 69KIAS. At 10,000ft, it’s 71KIAS.

In my 20s, I might have made a few passes that were low enough to net a 50% reduction in induced drag. Of course, I wasn’t doing it to build energy; I brought plenty of that to the party. I don’t think any of my instructors would have complimented me on my ability hold it in ground effect. My 25 year old self now feels vindicated by this thread!

Beat me to it. If 10% were needed, no Cessna high wing would ever experience gound effect.

Automobiles have come a long way. Especially with fuel delivery and engine management. Modern cars could be absolutely bullet proof but they’re not engineered for that. They’re engineered to meet emissions metrics. I have seen self inflicted wounds caused by EGR systems, especially when coupled with DFI. Thankfully most issues don’t start to manifest until ~100k or more. Mechanically they will run nearly for ever with high quality and frequent oil changes. Our beater car is 15 years old with >220k but runs just as strong and quiet as ever. I replaced the valve cover gasket last year and there is no visible wear on the valve train. The cam literally looked brand new with over 200k. I think improvements in lubrication have had a larger impact than improvements in metallurgy.

I’m not saying you should, but I’m curious about your no night flight policy. Back in the days of incandescents, that rule would be a challenge to follow.

You know, I’m not so sure your choice wasn’t the best. Unstable air and high DA…gear probably did not make that much of a difference and if you’d settled back on it would have been ugly. Flying off the cliff with gear down seems like a reasonable strategy.

The first class three medical I ever attained as a student awkward. I was all of 24 years of age and after the exam had concluded I said “so that’s it?” and the AME said in a sort of creepy way “That’s it, unless you think you should have a prostate exam” to which I quickly said “no thanks” and headed for the cashier. If that AME is still in practice, I bet that he’s quite pleased with the basic med examination checklist.

There are plenty of draggy airframes flying around with 360ci, 4 cylinder lycomings that never see the kinds of speeds that Mooney pilots find optimal for cooling.

I agree with all that you've said above. However, we are focused on two different things. You're focused on the performance of the pilot in an unusual situation (entirely reasonable) and I am am focused on the performance of the plane. My post is meant to be informative with regards to how the plane performs dirty and what must be done to extract reasonable climb performance under those circumstances. Climb is a function of excess power. If you're trying to climb at normal climb speeds with the gear hanging out, you are putting most of that excess power into over coming drag to attain a speed number that is not really relevant to the current situation. Yes it's slow, and outside the normal SOP. Perhaps the best course of action is just imagine that 4 cylinder Mooney with the gear down is slightly faster Piper Archer because that's about how it will perform. I have flown a number of airframes equipped with Lyc 4 cylinder that cruise at indicated speeds that are slower than climb speed in my F. Those airplane climb slower still yet their engines do just fine...in a pinch, so will ours. Perhaps it will be of use to someone in an unusual predicament with gear that will not retract.

My Vernier has no button either. It has a friction lock that makes resistance infinitely adjustable. When landing at short fields I loosen it for rapid movement in case I need a quick and precise shot of energy to complete the approach. I cannot imagine it would present much of a problem in formation flight. I've never had problems holding position on other aircraft.

At Leadville?…Probably. At the more moderate DAs (3,000ish) that I was flying?…It was fine for pattern work. Things were a little warmer than usual upon attaining TPA but well within the range of comfortable. I did three circuits without raising the gear all with max performance climbs to TPA and never saw CHT over 350°.