Shadrach

I think I'd just ask him if he thought it was safe and why... Why all the need to find and inform a perceived authority figure? Is it codified in the regs as illegal? What recourse would said perceived authority figure have? I have departed my plane for short times while it was idling on a few occasions, and it's always a been a non issue... Twice during solo jump starts and the one and only time I forgot to latch the baggage door. The procedure is is quite simple. 1) throttle to idle (about 800RPM is lowest I'll idle a lyc 4cyl) 2) Depress and lock parking brake 3) Throttle back up to test the parking brake. If it holds at >= 1700rpm then proceed to step 4, if not then you've additional issues... 4) Throttle back to idle 5) Take care of whatever it is that needs to be attended to quickly. 6) All people always stay behind the wing. I do not think that the FAA would say boo about this unless there was an incident/accident, and then as with almost all things aviation, we know were the responsibility lies.

Quote: DaV8or I spoke with Lycoming reps at both Air Venture and the AOPA summit last year about LOP ops. Their position is that you can do LOP with their engines but they don't recommend it. This is because running LOP reduces the margin for error with regards to detonation. The leaner you go, the closer to potential detonation you get. This doesn't mean you can't run LOP safely, it just means you have to be very careful. They insist that anyone running LOP must have proper digital instrumentation on each cylinder to do so safely. In short, they said you can do it if you are properly equiped, but be very, very careful. They don't recommend it because they don't trust all pilots to be that careful and would rather recommend ROP because of the greater detonation margins that allow for ham fisted screw ups. Don't know what they are going to say at OSH, but I guessing it's along these lines.

I'd love to see some pics if you took them; the opinions on what is considered "bad" varies a bit from person to person and A&P to A&P... I am of the opinion that finding a 40yr old airplane with 0 corrosion is a rarity at best and next to impossible at worst. I've never seen aluminum "bubble"... In an aviation context, I've seen pit, filaform and few forms of intergranular corrosion with pieces flaking or chunking off...

I think when comparing space, the medium bodied Mooneys compare nicely to the larger, newer Arrow fuselage and beat the shorter early versions hands down. I would say that any of the medium bodied models (I'd exclude the M20G as it's been called underpowered) and up will have adequate room for your family with margins to allow for the growth of your kids. The added benefit over the Six is that you will be able to easily reach them if they start the typical kiddie "back seat" bickering... In my mind, the biggest issue that contributes to the "tiny cabin" chorus that most non-Mooney people sing about Mooneys has and always will be ingress and egress... It's not horrible if you're in descent shape (my 72 yr old dad has no issues with either seat), but it's not like getting in a C, P or B etc..because the seats are close to the floor so you must step down into the plane and then sit down. This first impression contributes to the perception that Mooneys are small. The second biggest issue is that most Mooneys have the seats full aft when sitting on the ramp to assist with the above mentioned ingress/egress, so when someone looks inside they see what looks like 3" of rear seat leg room and 2 narrow black holes up front. It's deceiving. I'm 5'11" 190lbs. 31" inseam, 33" waist and 44" chest...my F model fits me well. If I packed on 50 or 60lbs, I might feel differently. However my IA/friend is 6' and 230ish and we did fine side by side on a 2hr XC. You need to try one on and see, but I can tell you that I've filled my seats many times and once or twice the lightest of 4 pax was 175lbs. With the front seats adjusted for me the rear pax have more foot room than many full size cars. In addition to interior dimensions, useful will be an issue with some models. Numbers for my '67 M20F: MGTW - 2740lbs. Empty Weight - 1681lbs. Useful load - 1059lbs. Full Fuel - 64 gals or ~384lbs. FF payload - 675lbs. Cruise speed ranges from 153kts (GPS verified at 7K 100ROP Ram air open) at -10.5ish GPH to ~145kts on closer to 9.5ish GPH LOP. The above varies a bit with CG and weight. If you crunch the numbers you can see that if I am willing to slow to ~145kts (I am, and usually do a bit better), I can go 500kts with an easy 1 hr reserve and almost 800lbs. in the cabin. We do 3 hr legs on longer multi-leg trips with pax so we then have the option of putting over 800lbs in the cabin. We've also done a few non-stop trips in the 800+NM range. KHGR (the home drome outside of DC) to KNEW (New Orleans) was memorable as was a nonstop home from Austin of over 1100nm with a nice kick in the pants from nature. All in all a pretty versatile traveling machine...

Well done!

Quote: carusoam Ghovey, The major change of the 310 STC is the higher rpm limit. 200 more rpm, about 8% increase in rpm over the O1. NA engine should ingest about 8% more fuel. WOT at SL going up to 2700 rpm. HP difference is 280 vs 310. Approximately 10% more fuel burn expected using this calculation. This is the major issue. 10% more power does not equate to 10% more fuel. It equates to 10% more fuel + whatever additional fuel is required to manage the combustion event to maintain reasonable CHTs. For the most part, if you operate at 2500 rpm, your numbers will probably overlay the pre STC change. Some difference should be expected by the different prop, but probably on the order of a couple of percent. as for excess heat, you are burning 10% more fuel, and not increasing cooling capability, that I am aware of. Right, which is why more fuel flow is required to increase cooling capability. I am still operating / leaning in the blue zone on the ships EGT during climb. I accept whatever CHTs come with that. I might see low 400s briefly. This may work out fine for you, but just remember - the only thing that is really cooling an exhaust valve is it's very brief contact with the valve seat and the heat dissipation that comes with it; the cooler the seat, the better. Low 400s on a regular basis (even for a short time) are not ideal for long term engine health... If I want to flush more fuel through the system, lean lower than the blue zone. Are you familiar/using the blue zone? Best regards, -a-

Where was the corrosion found? What type? I am always curious to see how the older birds age and where they fail. Also, not that it matters now, but the I do not believe that any of the 69 models have the "dog house style" cooling plenum as was mentioned earlier. There has been a lot of mentioning of of "low hour time" SMOH but "high calendar time" engines, or planes that have seen little use for a year or so. The real rule of thumb in these situations is...it depends. Engines do not necessarily corrode just because they've not run but it certainly does happen. Looking back through our logs (long before I was a pilot) there were a few years that logged 5 hrs or less and one that logged zero... The original engine (1967) was run from 0 to 80hrs a year, almost never preheated and was primarily run 50 ROP. It was OH'd in 2000, it was 33 years old @1950 hrs. It had a single cylinder replaced due to a broken exhaust valve at 1850hrs it was OH'd because the cylinder incident left the pilot with (understandably) little confidence in the engine. The link below will tell you all you need to know about Mooney electric gear... http://www.donmaxwell.com/publications/MAPA_TEXT/Dukes%20ITT%20landing%20gear/dukes__itt_landing_gear_actuato.htm

Squirrel, don't be doing anymore "snap rolls" in that B model... ;-)

Is it frayed and worn or did it separate at the armature? Prop cable might seem surprisingly short if your not familiar with the set up. Russell at SWTA has them for $541.00... http://www.swta.net/mooneyproductinfo/mooneyserviceparts.html Texas Air Salvage is parting out a 65M20C which has the same assembly. Although I don't know if they still have it. http://www.texasairsalvage.com/Aircraft_view.php?editid1=22

I'd have been annoyed. I imagine that most Mooneys will climb full flaps just fine, mine does...not max performance by a long shot...but fine, unless the DA is so high that performance is already marginal.

My bird climbs fine on go arounds even with full flaps, though I've never tried it at gross.

Quote: 1964-M20E During run-up mine takes a couple of seconds to respond hot or cold and the knob is out much further than in cruise. I tend to agree it is an rpm thing at 1700RPM. I believe the prop is being moved to a higher pitch at lower RPMs since the engine is not developing much HP. This might be sound physics? When in cruise just a turn or two and it goes right to 2500RPM.

The Yoke, Flaps, Brakes, and Landings thread has brought out a number of differing opinions regarding pattern speeds, approach speeds, what Mooneys are "designed" for, what Mooneys will do, What we should do with our Mooneys...etc..etc. In reading all this, I came to the conclusion that we as a group are utilizing many different methods. I see a lot of pilots fly an approach and then briefly level out 50-100 ft above the TDZ and sort of "step down" into the flare. I have heard this referred to as the round-out. I was taught to merely slow descent slightly at ~100 feet if necessary, but typically I reserve most or of my energy for flare. My best landings are typically at speeds that only allow me to only flare in ground effect to bring the sink rate to zero. For short fields the the wing is so unloaded in the descent that full aft elevator (in my lap, at the stops) is required to arrest the descent... So with all of the talk of numbers and flap settings in the other thread; in this one, I'd like to get an idea of what different folks do technique wise in the last 100 or so feet before touchdown..

@Wistarmo- If it works for you then go for it. Perhaps your ASI is optimistic at slow speeds. 1.3 Vso is a good rule of thumb for most AC. I feel that 1.2Vso works far better in Mooneys (1.1Vso shortfield) because of the fact that they tend to realize more of a ground effect cushion due to the proximatey of the wing to the ground when compared to a highwing or even some of the taller low wings. The speeds above are what I use for short final and flare. It's no myth that Mooneys are not as forgiving as other less clean, non laminar airframes. In my plane, 5 knots does in fact make a big difference (depending on your definition). I'd say it equates to ~400-500ft depending on conditions. In your original post you listed flare and underlined it before listing your speeds... "I have a '93 M20J (MSE) and I try to flare at 65kts by myself, 70kts with one passenger, 75kts with two passengers, and 80kts with 4 passengers. My short final speed is about 5kts higher." 80kts is about 1.4Vso and is a bit fast over the numbers, and more so in the flare. The 80 in the flare statement is probably what got everyone asking. At the weights most of us fly, a Mooney won't flare at 80kts...it will climb as soon as you raise the nose.

Quote: 201er How do I tell if it's the result of priming too much or not enough at first?

Quote: jetdriven prime volume depends on throttle lever position more than anything. Is is idle? 1000 RPM full?

Quote: jetdriven I have the Mccauley C290D5 governor and the McCauley B2D34C prop. It is also on the low pitch stop below about 100 knots. It governs exactly to 2700 RPM for takeoff and down to 2000 RPM with NO hunting. I can assure you it is a design feature. Myabe thats why the early J's have 2000 RPM for a mag check and prop cycle setting. Below 2000 RPM it doesnt really cycle. At 1500 RPM, the prop does nothing. No other piston I have flown is like this, except a B 55 Baron as I remember.

Quote: Wistarmo To fantom: If they are in my POH, there is nothing recommended about them? Yes, I can touch down at 2500 lbs and 60 kts or 2740 lbs and 65 kts. I can cetainly do that if that is my goal. I am not trying to land at the slowest possible speed or the shortest possible distance. I am trying to get the smoothest, most reproducible landing I can. To Magnum: Forgive me if I misunderstand your question, but I am unable to find a "maximum performance landing" in my POH. If you could direct me, I would be interested in finding that table. My POH only has tables for "Normal Landing" on "Hard Surface" and "Normal Landing" on "Grass Surface". That is all that I am trying to do, a normal landing.

Quote: Wistarmo According to my POH, Section V, "Normal Landing Distance", the recommended approach speeds are 70 kts at 2300 lbs, 74 kts at 2600 lbs, and 78 kts at 2900 lbs, with full flaps. I am not working out of short fields, however, and in hot and humid Florida I usually avoid fields less than 3000 feet. Rather than try and specify for others an exact speed for their approaches and landings, I think what I would like to communicate is that one speed doesn't fit all weights and each pilot should see what works for their aircraft under a variety of loading conditions. For me and my plane, coming in solo at 70 kts leads to floating down the runway, and coming in with three passengers at 70 kts leads to a teeth-jarring landing.

Quote: Wistarmo Referring to Hank's two posts-- I have a '93 M20J (MSE) and I try to flare at 65kts by myself, 70kts with one passenger, 75kts with two passengers, and 80kts with 4 passengers. My short final speed is about 5kts higher. My most embarassing landings have been with four on board and flaring at too slow a speed.

Quote: 201er C) Is there a better way than POH method (mixture rich, boost pump on, boost pump off, mixture off)?

I'm not sure what circuit your 396 is wired into. If it happens again, try unpluging the 396 and see if that stops it. Not sure if it in fact the stall horn has anything to do with the noise beyond the fact that taking that circuit off line stops the noise. Did you try pulling other breakers? I'm assuming your radio master was off.

OK so I payed close attention to pitch lag whe turning the knob today. My prop responds in under a sec even at 1100RPM. It took approximately 520 degrees of rotation to go from 2700 to 2550. I must also state that this is a 2 year old prop governor. The last one did not work as quickly during the run-up. It did work fine in flight. It was removed for a leak and found to be worn out of spec. Jet, If your prop does not "do much" at 1700 RPM, I'd be leary of the condition of the governor... I was testing mine this afternoon and pulling the control would yield a notable drop at any RPM I tried.

My POH says anything >100 for take off is kosher... It's usually there when I reach the runway except in the dead of winter... I'm in the 135ish after a 2 min taxi this time of year.

Quote: ErickR It seems to have just started getting this high, I imagine the problem was masked by the colder temps of winter. We purchased the plane in January so this will be my first summer with her. I am going to try a new oil temp sensor and see if that helps. If not we'll try cleaning the oil cooler. Thanks for the help