Shadrach

I think it’s a retract thing. I have a buddy who currently owns a Cherokee but previously owned a Comanche. He has about 500TT, 200 of which were in the previously owned Comanche. He wanted to get another Comanche 250, but none of the insurance choices were palatable. He also got quoted for an M20C and was quoted $3200 a year for 70k hull.

Just to be clear, you were flying heading, not gps track? Headings were 90° off and turns were in the same direction?

Indeed it is. They’re probably cheaper to keep than the geared sixes.

Twin Bonanzas have been equipped with a verity of geared, Lycoming sixes but never a 720 to my knowledge. The GO engines magnificent sounds…

I think the injected, NA, mid bodies do fine up to the oxygen levels, though they do warrant more carful consideration when loaded to MGW. My comments were specifically around runway performance as I don’t think a K model will out perform a lighter J or F until the DA gets to ridiculous (>12K) levels.

AKA mass airflow.

Please report back on your experiences.

The early poh’s were optimistic. Someone gave the factory a dose of truth serum in 1968. 1967 AFM cruise numbers for M20F at 7500’ 1968 AFM cruise numbers for M20F at 7500’

I am very comfortable with falling leaf stalls in my F in the clean configuration. I’ve held full aft elevator for over 1000” of descent with minor rudder inputs to keep roll deviations less than 20°. However, things are quite a bit more dramatic with the gear and flaps down.

I’m still t to hung to figure out why your mission warrants a turbo?

At 2200lbs, you should definitely be 150kts or more leaned for best power at 7500’.

Scott, Those are really good numbers. I am not trying to pee in your cheerios here but some Aspen installations have the propensity to overstate OAT which in turn can inflate calculated TAS. Have you crosschecked the primary thermometer with the Aspens OAT reading? A 3 way GPS speed run on a smooth day is the closest we can get to determining actual speed.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation, but it seems to me that once returned to LASAR, the parts are rapidly turned around for shipment back to the owner. It would be nice to have some transparency on the issue.

Years ago I bought a few NOS 10A Klixon switches from an eBay seller. He must have bought a large lot of them because he had over 50 in stock. Several years later my 10A boost pump Klixon switch developed an “auto shut off” after a few minutes in operation. There was no PMA stamp on the original switch nor was there a stamp on the NOS switch. Just the manufacturer and PN. An IA friend told me the NOS switch was a paper weight without an 8130. I decided to take a text poll of some of the IAs in my contact list (5 IIRC). The majority of the participants (which included an FAA PMI) understood that the switch could be ops checked, installed and the aircraft returned to service. What was surprising was that 2 working IAs believed that a perfectly good, NOS part was a paperweight because traceability and airworthiness was dependent on form 8130.

My assumption that this is an FAA issue is just that, an assumption. However, If it is indeed the case, I’m curious why they needed to inspect every part rather than a sample from the batch. If the parts are defective, then by all means, recall all of the parts and issue refunds or offer replacements inside a specified time frame. If the parts are not defective and no physical changes/modifications are being made before returning said parts to the customer, then this looks like a bureaucratic goat rope to me…

When running LOP, I choose the mixture setting that is as close to peak as possible that yields healthy CHTs taking into consideration the OAT. As I get higher, that setting gets closer and closer to peak EGT. At DAs of 10K or more I run 100ROP. in most cases, I am shooting for maximum speed per unit of fuel. At a given manifold pressure and RPM, the intersection of best speed and fuel burn is peak EGT. It is near best BSFC and before significant power loss, but well after peak CHT. It’s not ideal, but it’s a close to ideal as there is for NA operations.

I seal off the fuel pick up and tow it to the wash rack for a thorough flush. I think that when sealant fragments are found in a gascolator screen it is often from an old repair that was not thoroughly flushed.

Probably more at full rich if factoring in temperatures that accompany such conditions. I only mention it as an example of my comfort running LOP at high power. On other hand, there are very few scenario where I would choose LOP above 5000’ DAs

No question that a turbo affords you choices that NA operators don’t have. Whether those choices are worth the cost, heat and weight depends on the mission. I think you may be underestimating how well the NA birds do below Oxygen altitudes. My plane is vey useable up to 12’500msl even in the months where the DA might be in the mid teens. I’m not concerned with mixture setting up high, only available power and fuel burn. Does it make book numbers? Close enough.

Do you have a prohibited RPM range?

I don’t have reliable data yet. I am in the process of fine tuning my totalizer. I would guess low 11 to high 10gph range depending on temp and pressure.

The breakfast burritos at the Jolly Kone in Bridgeport are worth the wait time and the payload they displace…

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”…