Shadrach

Conversely, my F is bone stock and I am loath to have anyone mod it or touch the control surfaces for fear of slowing it down. Mine was a factory demonstrator for an East Coast Mooney dealer and I wonder if the rigging was given special attention in order to demo best case performance for potential customers.

Apt for a short body. The mid body is an excellent family hauler so it does not quite fit.

That is a better comparison...and the C172 is the Ford Taurus of aviation. Honestly the vintage Mooney is more like what Saab was prior to their demise. It's not big but it's big enough. It's not the fastest but it's it's far from slow. It's economical. It's quirky but well engineered. Generally designed to do more with less.

Either you don't have many makes in your logbook or you are deliberately trolling. Civic is a poor analogy. A K model will only really outrun a similarly powered NA Mooney above 10K. An Ovation is faster than a 200hp bird for sure but one has to talk themselves into caring about 15-20 kts. If you need to go faster than get a turbo and a nose hose. Below about 12K it's mostly bragging rights.

To add to my post above in terms of speed differences, a beautiful 2011 G36 took off behind me last week. He also did a day trip and taxied by as I was closing up my hangar after my return. For S's and G's, I just computed the round trip block speed of his 649NM trip...154.52kts. I have two trips in my spreadsheet from the last 5 months that are comparable: 706NM with a block speed = 147.08kts 708NM with a block speed = 147.5kts. Less than 8kts delta, but some folks would fall all over themselves talking about superior performance of that Bonanza when practically speaking, the difference in performance is negligible. The biggest delta between the two is operating cost, purchase price and ramp appeal. It's getting easier to be happy with what I have.

So speedwise, your E is well within the normal range for the model if not a tad on the slow side. The three bladed prop is not as efficient as a two blade. There are plenty of people who will tell you that it doesn’t make a difference and there are plenty that will tell you it’s costing you 5kts. You won’t have any idea unless you change propellers. The truth is, it doesn’t matter because from a practical matter, none of these planes are separated by that much in terms of speed. I have a 67F that I know it will do just over 150kts in cruise at just about any altitude under 10,000 feet. That being said, my current average GPS block speed as tracked over the last 5000nm is 144.9kts. It just recently fell below 145kts because of several trips under two hours that tend towards lower block speeds (for obvious reasons). What would I need to do to get a significant increase in speed? I’ve thought about this many times. Aircraft owners tend to assign a whole lot of value to things that really don’t make that big of a difference operationally. That’s why you’ll see people brag over a 7kt difference in cruise speed. The reality is that for me to realize a significant increase in time compression, range, and load carrying capacity, I would have to move into a high-performance twin or a turbine. Sometimes the best course of action is to recognize that what you have is delivering excellent, output value for the input. If you want to tweak your E to be faster, I think that’s an admirable pursuit, it may respond to some minor massaging. However, even if you were able to fettle and message it into 155kt cruiser, the time savings for most trips would be minuscule. I stopped wishing my bird was more than it is a long time ago and just decided to admire it for how well it does what it does.

I’m not advocating any particular way of running your engine. I’m just trying to help you troubleshoot a potential issue and also make sure that you don’t have a lean cylinder on take-off. There’s a good chance that there’s nothing wrong with yours at all and that you’re getting hung up on something that doesn’t really matter like raw numbers that agree. on takeoff.

Raw EGT numbers are really not very useful except for at takeoff power. What’s the egt on takeoff? Have you leaned on that cylinder? What’s the peak number? It would be good to know that that that cylinder is at least 250° ROP when full rich.

I am not sure when this started. Perhaps I have just become more sensitive because I am flying multiple aircraft types and engines. I feel a harmonic through the airframe when at low MP in the pattern. (prop driving engine). This harmonic does not exist in any other operational regime. Engine is smooth at all RPMS and MPs except for descending power off. The non-counterbalanced, IO-360-A1A does have a restricted RPM range (1950-2350) and I have always been able to feel a slight "buzz" in that range when transitioning through the caution range. However, now it feels like the buzz doesn't completely go away after dropping below the caution range. This buzz is not present on the ground. The engine is smooth throughout the RPM range during static runup. I have given consideration to the following: Intake leak - I have not ruled this out, but there are no other indications that an intake leak is present. Ring Flutter - I have no experience with this phenomenon but have read that it can cause vibration at low power. Propeller imbalance - Seems unlikely as propeller is smooth under most operating conditions. Motor mount - A cursory inspection revealed nothing. My motor mount is powder coated in white. The finish is in great shape which should make cracks obvious. I will give it a more thorough look soon. Idle - My idle is set very low, so low in fact, that the engine will quit on the ground if I pull the throttle all the way out. All thoughts appreciated!

Did MAM (Manassas Aviation Maintenance) close? There are quite a few recips on the field. I know that Chantilly Air won’t work on GA aircraft.

Oh yeah…cited for 106mph. I don’t remember what the actual legal limit was. He gave me two choices: 1) Pay the ticket in full on the spot - $525 (IIRC). 2) Follow him 80 miles in the opposite direction, spend Sunday night in jail and go before the JP Monday morning. Needless to say, I took option 1, which left me about $30. He gave me a receipt. I was actually hoping that he was corrupt, and had just taken the money, but I got a summons about three weeks after I arrived back east. Cost me another $500 to have a lawyer appear on my behalf. Big money for an early 20 something in the 1990s.

I currently have a 1988 560 SL. I’ll check the owners manual to see if it has a similar limitation. top speed on that 190 E at sea level is between 120 and 125 mph depending on which source you believe. I’m quite certain it was making 70% power or more, flat out at 4000ish feet.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time driving on highways that either have no speed limit or speed limits that were not enforced (Italy before speed cameras). I don’t think most modern cars would overheat at 60% power. Back in the 90s I drove my 15 year-old Mercedes 190E 2.3 from the West Coast to the East Coast. I was young and stupid and elected to set the cruise control at 117mph on highway 90 as I passed through through Montana. I did have to slow down occasionally, but the car would run flat out for extended periods without protest. That s about as was fast as it would go on 130hp. The needle on the coolant temp stayed right at 85C where it always did. Driving that fast for that long gave me a pretty severe case of velocitation. This resulted in a painfully expensive interaction with the Highway Patrol shortly after entering Wyoming Even the vintage Jags that I have flogged have had far more trouble keeping cool in traffic than at high speed.

It is possible for two things to be true at the same time. If there was an issue with the nose gear, a PIO would reveal it. I’m curious as to what happens to the over center link in this kind of a failure.

That individual elected to start taxiing with a battery that had been dropped and damaged prior to start up. I get that people may be ignorant of the risks involved in damaging a LiPO or Li-Ion battery, but this was not any more a battery problem than a powerplant failure that occurs after a prop strike/sudden stoppage that was never inspected. It might work out, but if it doesn't, it's often real bad.

It’s approved by the FAA for commercial flights. Are you currently carrying a fireproof battery bag in your airplane? To each their own I suppose…It never occurred to me that someone who would consider charging their phone/tablet with a plug-in cigarette lighter charger might find a high end power bank with a sophisticated battery management system to be the more risky option. I didn’t come up with this set up on my own. I have several colleagues who also fly regularly for work. This has become the go to set up for powering StarLink in flight as well as other devices. I’m likely going to buy a second because I occasionally fly into locations that don’t have an FBO and therefore don’t have power or Wi-Fi readily available. My flight bag is completely self-contained power and broadband solution. If I add a second power bank, I’ll I have roughly enough power for full day worth of work and internet usage, plus excess to keep handheld devices topped up. High capacity, smart power banks and StarLink have been a game changer.

Starlink Mini requires a minimum of a 60W power source but actual draw is more like 30W-40W while in use and quite a bit less when idle.

Just get a high capacity power bank like this. I run a Starlink mini and charge all devices on it simultaneously. I have a smaller power bank in my kneeboard pocket that plugs into my iPad with a 6 inch cord.

Yes, government mandated innovation is the key to success…thank God they made horses illegal in the early 1900s or the automobile would’ve never been invented and city streets would still be full of horseshit.

We all do, but it's a lot to expect new pilots to understand. I don’t even wanna think about how much time I’ve spent studying combustion science to gain what I consider a rudimentary understanding. Even with several hours devoted to engine management, most pilots would only learn enough to pass a test. Close, but I don't think that actually true. If it were, BFSC would not continue to drop at leaner efficiency ratios.

You can do it and I can do it. However, it took quite a while to get to that point. I think you mean "just a tad lean" of tripping the knock sensor.

These engines are not a mess. They are actually an impressive combination of power, weight, reliability and specific fuel consumption. The fixed-timing, ignition systems with which they were certified is the hurdle to utilizing different fuels. All of the current Rotax models run on pump gas yet are turbocharged and running higher compression ratios than any of the normally aspirated legacy engines because they can run variable ignition timing. As far as innovation goes, this is what happens when the regulatory barriers to entering the market are perceived to be greater than the return. This is not to say that no one can succeed by innovating in aviation, but it's easier and more profitable to take advantage of the regulatory hurdles by rolling up legacy companies and the doubling the pricing of existing products à la Hartzell Aviation.

It's a perfectly fair comparison if we're talking bore sizes... Which people frequently use as a proxy for things that have nothing to do with or are completely unconnected to bore size.

Agreed, but if we're going to be precise, we should stop referring to the "big bore" engines as being the hurdle. The hurdle is high performance GTSIO/TSIO engines. As far as bore is concerned, there is a 0.125" difference in bore size between most horizontally opposed aero engines over 200hp, with the exception of the Continental 360 which is smaller by more than a half inch smaller than the others. The issue has nothing to do with "big bore." I think the point that Rich was making is that the 8:1 CR, 200hp, Lyc IO360's 1.8 horsepower per cubic inch is at the top of the hp/displacement scale as for NA aeroengines. Engine Bore size Lyc 360 5.125" Lyc 540 5.125" Lyc 720 5.125" Con 360 4.438" Con 520 5.25" Con 550 5.25"

I had the same experience. I made a trip to New England Yesterday. My transmission speeds in the at 165kts were well over 100MBPS. I facetimed my wife as I passed over Manhattan and the call was flawless. No buffering or connection issues. I have the Roam-50MB at $50/month. I had the antenna mounted to the passenger side windscreen but that is suboptimal. I need to find a better placement. I think we're less than 10 years from an inexpensive (relatively), GA version that feeds from a low-profile, external antenna. I know some of the corporate fleet has moved to Starlink but I am not sure how they are mounting the antennas.