Shadrach

How on earth does would one cruise at 100%??? You'd have to stop for traffic lights, which is tough in a Mooney at full power! We're talking true airspeed. There is little point in discussing indicated or corrected when talking cruise numbers. My take is that these speeds are at optimum cruise altitudes but there is not a huge difference in speed at 4000 and 8000 probably a knot or 3... Best speeds are achieved at the lower altitudes, best fuel burn for speed is higher. the intersection ~5000ft DA... %HP in a NA AC for cruise is a pretty old school approach. I only know of a few that still throttle back for a specific MP, and they're super old school and have little interest in hearing anything other than what they know they know. I think most pilots just climb to their cruise alt bring the RPMs back to a comfortable level (~2500 is peak efficiency for most of our props), and lean according to their goals/comfort level... Whether it's 4K or 8K the delta in fuel burn will be greater than the delta in speed. The number you're reading are probably the upper end of the averages they see. I know of know one that flies normally aspirated machines by power % except for during instrument approaches. Turbo ACs are another story. What kind of speeds are you seeing? The upper range for a 201 is ~160kts from 4 to 8K, some do even better...

I've not seen anything dangerous that was not fairly obvious, but I've seen some crazy MX stuff. I had an 8K annual 2009...prop governor was the biggest $$$. I asked for the plane back with a list of discrepancies because I did not like the attitude of the manager (the owners are great folks though). I paid with CC over the phone (big mistake) as I was picking the plane up after hours. I picked it up on a rainy evening with no one was there. My plane was sitting out in front with no lower cowl and the oil cooler was wired in place. I had it towed to the hangar and started taking pics. The upper cowl was forced on improperly with the side stringers on the outside of the cowl. The outside of the cowl had been "wiped" with MEK, which took a good deal of the pin stripes with it (always hangared original paint). Rt fuel cap was not seated when "whoever" forced the tab down. I had to pry the tab up. I removed 3 ounces of water from the sump. The plastic trim from the interior was thrown in the baggage area. etc... After that, I went through the bill and started circling anomalies. The most egregious error being 2.5hrs to install an exhaust pipe hangar. I confronted the owner and "offered" to show his mechanic a more efficient method for the exhaust work. I worked out the bill with the owner (-$800) and completed the repairs with my friend who's an IA. We fired it up and the right mag timing was so far out that I was getting a 600 RPM drop... back to the shop. They R&R'd it gratis, but said it would take about 8 hrs to finish (I've since done it twice in under 3hrs). You'd think it was over but it's not. After return to service, the engine seemed "buzzy"... We tried a dynamic balance and it would not balance; we kept chasing the imbalance around the prop... .49IPS is the best we could get... I checked the timing and it was in spec. I am also fighting a mystery oil leak that is progressing. So, as I'm head scratching over the imbalance, our 2010 annual is due. The leak turns out to be a crack in the crankcase... During the injector line inspection I find a line that feels loose. After removing the line clamp, I discover that the #1 injector is not even hand tight it has clearly been chattering for a while as the threads are really beaten up. The line clamp was the only thin holding it in place. Did the injector vibrate loose? doubtful... I think it more likely it was cross threaded and felt tight. I think I had an intake leak at the loose injector that caused the buzz. I think the buzz transmitted through the generator to the mount and caused the crack in the case. Because of this and other experience I know do almost all of the MX on my bird under supervision. I hung the repaired engine on it and it's worked out beautifully. Why did I include this in this thread... because 30 hrs of bad mx can devalue your Mooney faster than anything short of a crash... and it's a gift that can unfortunately keep giving.

I've always wanted one for the right seat. Having the one for left positioned perfectly to blow up the inseam of the left leg inflating my shorts, makes the summer months tolerable...

Quote: rturbett 10,000? iwas having trouble reading your altimeter- looked like you were 5 ft off the ground doing 130 with your gear up! so in general, a c is doing 140 to 145 , and f with the extra hp is doing 145 to 153. Thanks, Rob

Is there an inlet duct on the other side of the area where it mounts?

Most Mooney specific parts are not wear items...landing gear and parts of the tail being the biggest concern in my mind. Most of the other stuff can or is being produced in the aftermarket...

Airtex made a piece for my manual gear F at my request. It works well, but I need get some double sided tape to keep the 2 front "ears" that fit around the Johnson Bar in place.

Numbers for my 1967 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. Speeds a tad conservative for light weights.

I would have moved on as well. From what I see, this machine is servicable/repairable, but it needs a lot of TLC and unless there willing to discount it deeply, I think it's good that you walked. I think the fuel stains look suspect... I have localized staining in a number of areas, and they are blue to brownish blue, nothing like the color of those stains.

Dupe...

Quote: Cris Ghovey- You got it right. The rpm's drive the cht temps all else being equal. I had a short flight Thurs. on an 85 D day at 100' elevation. RPM was 2690 & fuel flow was 32 GPH with the cyl temp at 402 D thru 2000'. You really need the higher fuel flow at max operating rpm. I don't recall the climb rate but I'll go back & confirm the figures for you when next I fly. This was a real issue at the MAPA PPI I last attended but I do not recall why it was so important to have the higher fuel flows. I seem to remember it is vital for cooling at ROP as well as getting the full performance but there was something else I'll have to check my notes.. I get similar performance as you in terms of CYL LOP at the reduced RPM's & I suspect that Ovation owners in genenal do also. "a " you want to chime in on this?

I'd never met Chris , but always enjoyed our exchanges and his posts on the mooneytech mailing list. This is sad news indeed. RIP.

On my '67 F there are 2 set screws at about the 10 and 5 O'Clock positions on the back side (inside cowling) of the light housing. They do an almost reasonable job of allowing adjustments for windage and elevation. I would hope that a machine that is some 18 yrs newer would have a more sophisticated and effective set up.

I don't remember my first Mooney flight as I was probably about 1.5 yrs old. We've had 3 Mooneys in my extended family over the years. So Instead, I'll talk about my last Mooney flight. I made a quick run to W. MD to take my Mother and Grandmother (88yrs old!) to lunch. On the return flight yesterday evening, as I was descending into my home base (at about 168kts indicated and 184kts across the ground) I looked out at the smooth flush riveted wing with the ground passing underneath at an impressive rate and could not help but feel like I was riding a knife that was purpose built to razor it's way through the atmosphere. I have never gotten that sensation in any other plane. The wing looked so very robust, rigid and strong, almost as if it was stationary and the world was rotating below. The tower gave me a straight in for rnwy 9. I held 170kts GS or better until 3 mile final. As I was putting the plane away I reflected on the fact that I had made two 50kt trips at 3000msl almost due West and East. Cruise GS in both directions was over 150kts and I burned ~10gals for the whole deal (climb,taxi, etc)... There are of course other ACs that can do what mine did, but none that I know of are certified, unmodified all originals (save for the panel), that are 44 yrs old... Truly a remarkable design.

Quote: DaV8or The messenger just got shot. Seriously, I think you should go to Oshkosh and school Lycoming face to face. It might be cathartic. Of all the stuff that is out on the interwebs on the subject, the chart I've attached below is the most useful I've found. It is the hypothetical detonation margins required for engine certification. What is sad is, that when each and every engine is certified by the FAA, it is tested for detonation to see that it meets these guide lines. The data must be recorded somewhere. I think this data should be in the POH or something. I think it would be useful to pilots to have a chart like the one below that would illustrate exactly where your exact engine was found to detonate during testing. I imagine that the FAA and Lycoming both have this data, but I'm not sure how to get it.

I want to apologize everyone, especially Dave if my last post came off as snarky (and also for the typos)... Perhaps I misinterpreted the comments about Lycoming, perhaps I was thinking of some previous exchanges we'd had before, either way, I could have been less caustic. The basic concepts of for leaning both rich and lean of peak have been explained and posted over and over here and other places. There have been a number of columns, articles and seminar/webinars on the subject. I don't care how anyone chooses to run their engine. Considering all of the free info that's been available for quite some time, I think that any experienced pilot that has been involved in the discussion should at least know the basic concepts of combustion science. Especially if they're going to make statements as if they are presenting factual information. If you're on this board, then you're tech savy enough to get the info and my experience tells me that everyone here that I've interacted with is quite bright, capable and articulate. I know Lycoming's position on leaning. I also know that the engineers in Lycoming's employ understand combustion science. So my conclusion must be that Lyc's position has nothing to do with the science...maybe this will change next week at Osh. No one at Lycoming with any techinical background and merit would [should] ever say "the leaner you go, the closer to potential detonation you get". So either Dave or the Lycoming rep does not know what happens to the combustion event as it goes from rich to the lean side of the air fuel ratio spectrum, yet both of them should know - regardless of what either think is best practice. What happens when an engine is leaned is not the stuff of opinion, it is factual and repeatable... However, what is best practice, is always open for debate. Hat tip to Jeff for calling me on out for the "tone and tenor" of my last post; I needed it...thanks!

Lood, I have the Zef regulator and a 50 amp Gen. It works much better than the old delco unit. From an operational standpoint, I have never felt that I needed more. As far as being "troublesome", we've been lucky as we've only replaced the gen 3 times in 44 years However, they are troublesome in other ways. They are heavy which puts additional stress on the crank case at the mount. It was theorized that my crankcase may not have cracked had we been running an alternator instead of a Gen.....i If I had it to do again, I would have just sold the reg and gen on ebay and bought a Plane Power conversion. An added benefit to the Alt vs Gen decision is that the alternator is smaller and makes the engine bay somewhat less crowded.

Quote: jetdriven I dont know why you guys put any money into a generator. They are heavy, troublesome, and dont put out any current at low speeds.

Most any reasonably stocked repair station will have them... $.30-.50 each depending on size when I bought a bunch last year.

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-