Shadrach

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-

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.