Shadrach

Quote: moodychief My engine was not running as smooth as it should. We had evidence of an intake leak (replaced all gaskets and hoses), but as we were checking everything else we discovered the manifold pressure tubing actually had a hole you where it passed through a bracket (that caused the hole) on the side of the engine. The manifold pressure on mine connects to the right front cylinder. It makes me wonder if that didn't contribute to me having to replace that cylinder ten hours earlier due to that cylinder sucking air and running leaner than the rest. I only have a single CHT gauge on my left rear cylinder. I'm not a mechanic so forgive me for talking in laymen's terms.

Quote: jetdriven An 8130 or yell0w tag is not a required item to install used equipment. It is an easy way to establish airworthiness but the final determination is the installing mechanic.

Brian, if you think the gauges out of your 91 are junk you should see the fuel and CHT gauges that came in my 67 F compared to what the EDM says... There a joke, I'd fly without the EDM if I had to, but I'd be nervous and antsy with the lack of information.

Quote: jlunseth George Braley talked about running a tank dry at the GAMI seminar, as no big deal and the best way to insure you get max range. But he flies an NA aircraft.

Duplex Scribendi...

Quote: gregwatts I think you are assuming that nothing could ever go wrong. Good Luck!

There are a lot of factors to account for in the combustion process. It is possible to make less power in a more abusive way with an AC engine. High internal cylinder pressures (ICPs) translate to heat and fatigue. An engine can make a given power level by achieving a high peak ICP with relatively low mean ICP through the power stroke or with a lower peak ICP and a relatively higher mean ICP (peak and mean are closer to the same value). Which do you think is better for the engine for a given HP, the hammer, or the steady push? This is the reason most who've studied combustion science on some level recommend avoiding ~50ROP, it is the best way to hammer a combustion chamber and piston. There''s a lot more to the story than just HP numbers. Watch you CHTs the next time you do a RTOP and tell me what you see. It probably won't be dramatic nor easy to normalize as OATs are different every day. You may or may not see a CHT bump from the reduced RPM. The reduced MP may negate any CHT rise, but it is possible that you're not being as kind to your engine as you think you are.

Quote: kgbpost More is probably better as you've stated. You can always pull the mixture knob back a bit if you don't need it, but you can't push further than the the stop when you need more...

Quote: Parker_Woodruff 400 dF is too hot, even if you're ROP. Get that takeoff fuel flow handled. Numbers per Shadrach are 28-29 GPH, but I've seen setups around 31 GPH.

Quote: kgbpost

Quote: kgbpost That fuel flow is much too low for an M20M.

Quote: jeckford +1 on this. I had a deal just fall through on a 67F which I thought was a "perfect" plane. Great new paint, interior, low time, new engine, landing gear actuator, etc... Deal feel through because reputable MSC found a lot of corrosion. Typical spot to check is left side of roll cage as this is where water will settle. It is inside the tube so you have to check with a magnet typically. According to MSC...corrosion is like cancer and continues to eat away at the metal...cannot be stopped. It was going to be $11,000 to replace that tube as the wing attaches there and the whole wing had to be removed.

Quote: johnggreen OK, supper done, glass of merlot, and I'm back. Referring to the LOM, there are two charts to reference. One, 3-82, fuel flow vs. brake hp says at the lean limit, you get 200 hp at 15 gph. I get this fuel flow at 2400/30 at 1650 TIT at altitude. Right behind that is the Performance Curve charts which would indicate that 2400/34" is about 90% of max hp and 2400/30 is 81%. You can look at the charts yourself and get confused without my help. Now, how I fly my Bravo and what I think I have learned. First, 2400/30" is my max cruise for me, maybe in a stiff headwind, 32", but almost never. I almost always lean to 1650 TIT. I have GAMI's but my EGT are spread pretty dramatically particularly from #3, my hottest to #4 & #5, my coolest. The spread is usually near 190 degrees. Still, when I do a lean test, they are right together. I have talked to the GAMI folks and they shrug their shoulders. My CHT's are always really good, so I don't worry much. I rarely even fly 2400/30" because at 2200 my engine purrs and I mean purrs. It is as smooth as a turbine and from 2400/30 to 2200/30, I only lose 5 knots. Even with TKS, my airplane flys faster than book, so again, I don't worry. If I'm trying to get range, I use 2200/28" and it makes a real difference. At gross weight, maybe a little more, I can climb to 15,000' and with this setting get 175 TAS at 13 gph all day. I recently flew from Durango, CO to my home base, Grenada, MS, with absolutely no wind and landed with 14 gallons. I regularly fly to Manassas, VA, KHEF, from Grenada, KGNF, about 60 gallons usage block to block averaging the two legs; one with tailwind and one with headwind. Even on a four hour trip, KHEF to KGNF, no wind if I pushed it up to 2400/32" I might save 13 minutes. Not worth the noise, fuel and wear and tear. Unless a headwind forces the issue, I try to fly at 12m to 17m. That where the Bravo shines. I don't fly unpressurized above 18,000, especially with my wife. That's a subject for another thread. Below 8,000' a good Ovation will eat my breakfast. Hard to get over 175 knots down low unless I really push some fuel through. Truth is, turbocharging, contrary to popular belief, is not about speed, it's about capability. There's a lot of weather and turbulance I can go over whistling all the way. I doubt, if you really put a pencil to it, that in a 1000 hours of use, that i average 5 knots more than an Ovation. This is getting long, but, another point, if you will go to the LOM, chart 3-83, "Fuel Flow vs. Brake Horsepower", you will see that the efficient power settings of the Bravo engine are from about 210-220 hp down. Above that, the curve steepens and you start pouring fuel through the engine with little return. That should be enough info to start a spew of interest and responses among Bravo pilots. I would like to know what settings, speeds, and fuel burns everyone else is seeing. Mine seem to be right on book. JG

More info would be nice. Does the engine surge at idle (seem to cut out for a split second) when hot? Is it an actual stumble (a miss) the causes vibration. If you have an actual stumble, I'm betting on intake leak.

Quote: gregwatts I don't know, but I think you guys deliberately running a tank dry have some enormous balls....not sure how you even fit them into a Mooney! Once that tank is dry, you have absolutely no backup plan if something happens with the other tank of fuel, such as a clogged line or contaminated fuel, etc. Whatever happened to having "reserves"?

Quote: dgrami Several yars ago I was flying 30 NM west of Taos NM running very low on the left tank. I decided to switch tanks just before climbing to cross a mountain range. The fuel selector jammed in the OFF position. Fortunately was able to return to the left tank. I tried 1 more time to no avail, returned to Taos, could not find any mechanic, fueled up the left tank and continued safely to my destination on the left tank. Lesson learned was never to run a tank compeltely dry unless I am within gliding distance of an airport. The culprit as explained to me was the fuel selector o-ring had worn and "crimped" while in the OFF position as I was switching tanks.

Quote: Skyatty 2. The TBM-700 and PC-12 don't necessarily have the same roles at a B200 or 350. 3. SE Service Ceiling is a function of horsepower, weight, and the engine's ability to produce power (turbo or NA).

Quote: allsmiles Actually, when you lose an engine on a twin you typically will lose ~90% of excess thrust. This means a climb rate of say 1200 fpm will be reduced to maybe 200 fpm if you are lucky. And this is with a perfectly configured airplane. But the discussion was Mooney vs a twin. A twin doesn't necessarily translate into any added safety benefit. Again I point out the fact that serious business machines are indeed singles! The bottom line is we have to adhere to our personal minimums and limitations. Personally, you will not find me over the Gulf or the ocean at night unless ofcourse, I'm flying my other Mooney the TBM! As we say in the profession: "prevention is ALWAYS the best solution!"

Quote: maropers Another thought - 5 gallons in the left wing - landing in left traffic flow - uncoordinated turns - how far away from the pickup tube is that 5 gallons now? my 2 cents.

Quote: LT4BIRD The fuel system will collect trash at the lowest point. The Gaskolator.

Lefty here. I've never even thought of this as problem. I just write on the board while it's on my right knee or I palm a small notepad with my right hand. Ward, try hitting the back button on your browser and your text will reappear, then resubmit.

Quote: aerobat95 I didnt realize there were so many different options......this is a bit more complex than I was expecting.

Quote: aviatoreb My still pretty new to me Mooney M20K Rocket is surprising to me how steady it is in cross wind. So far I have "only" landed 15kts due cross wind component. I am really surprised how much of a non event that is compared to previous airplanes I have flown where that would be a much more hectic time. I am surprised to hear one person here claim 35kts 90 deg component - and even surprised to hear about 26kts cross component. There is a limit to how much you can dip your wing into the wind for a slip - especially in a low wing - eventually it will drag on the pavement before your wheels touch. I don't want to found out what that theoretical max is by my own experimentation - and I would have guessed ~25kts - so reports of 26 and 35 show my guess wrong. In an extreme case and emergency, I suppose you can use a mix of slip to max, then yes allow a bit of side load and also use the width of the runway if big enough to allow a bit of reduction in the side wind component. Not for daily use.

Quote: Immelman I land it just like any other small airplane: Rudder to keep the longitudinal axis aligned with the direction of travel, and aileron to keep the flight path tracking the runway extended centerline. Some people may get away with crab and kick, and that is fine... but I go back to my conventional gear training roots on this one. I would not crab and kick a taildragger because avoiding side-loads there is critical for safety (prevent a ground loop). With that said, I think its fine to fly final in a crab all the way down, establishing the above crosswind corrections well into the round-out phase of the landing. Just get the job done and the crosswind evaluated before the mains touch down. The tricks start to come as wind velocity increases to the point where you run out of sufficient rudder authority as speed bleeds off in the landing flare. If this is the case you may wanto go around and try again with a reduced flap setting and slightly higher approach speed. One other thing I will add is that the 12-knot max demo x-wind mentioned above likely has something to do with rudder authority. While I am no test pilot or aeronautical engineer, my opinion is that compared to other light single engine airplanes, the Mooney has less rudder control authority.

Scott, what kind of climb do you see with your E? I've been told that they are one of the best from SL to 4K. My F with a 2 blade is good for about 1000FPM @ gross on a standard day and will easily exceed 1200 when light. In the winter I've seen better than 1400 to 2K...