Shadrach

100LL predates most of our engines. They were certified with 100LL to ASTM D910 specs. The new fuels work in our engines but do conform ASTM standards. There is no currently no blanket authority to authorize it’s use. Therein lies the problem with blanket approval of a new fuel. They cannot just amend all of the TCDS’s.

FAA does not have the authority. I believe it would take an act of congress. I find it appalling that there was no federal framework initiated to deal with approving a “drop in” replacement. It comes as no surprise that providing a solution to the problem proved to be less convoluted than approving the solution. An STC is a lousy solution unless there fed is going to mandate a single formula.

New pickups are no longer inexpensive. And old ones don’t ever fully depreciate. A 15 year old F250 with over 100,000 miles can push $20k

New DFI engines run under very high pressures (4000psi). Some of them will need to be bled after draining. Modern Diesel engines run with pressures >30,000psi. Most of those systems will also need to be drained and bled.

We’re talking about turbo charged engines, not turbines. I have never heard of someone intentionally running a tank dry (unless it’s with a transfer pump) while flying a turbine.

Why? Are the rotary pumps sensitive to brief bouts of fuel starvation?

I fave been running tanks dry for decades without issue. I do try to catch it at the first dip in fuel pressure to avoid concerning passengers. Turbo is a different story. That being said, I’d think you’d have to be well above 20k for a restart to be problematic.

It’s certainly not a very conservative way to distribute fuel. I have found that Mooneys are not very sensitive to fuel imbalance. At least not those with 64gl useable or less.

Indeed. The listing states in bold that the aircraft must be off airport grounds by Dec 31 of this year.

Sorry that I’m late to the party. I have heard several old-timers swear by Everbright to keep polished aluminum airplane shiny. https://www.everbritecoatings.com

It’s a testament to the design that it and has been able to adapt so many different configurations and power plants. If you have an opportunity to fly a lightweight (Some are not so svelte) mid or short body, you should check it out. There are advantages. My solo takeoff weight for a 500nm flight is 2170lbs or 570lbs under gross. Plenty of surplus to tanker fuel and or anything else I might want to carry

Sorry for the thread creep. I did not take it as a slight. More of a misunderstanding of the performance differences between the models. You’re not the first to do it. The response was entirely based on the notion that the “big bores” can tanker fuel because they have such a surplus of power that they can better handle it. I understand why you would not want to land with less than 10 gallons, I feel the same way and that equates to an hour of flight at cruise in my bird. I will make an exception if I’m close to home poking holes in the sky on a VFR day. One exception I will not make is fuel location. I manage fuel in such a way that if I have less than 15 gallons on board, it’s always in one tank.

As a non “big bore” operator (my IO360 bore is a paltry 5.15 inches compared to the 5.25 inches of the TSIO550G), I’m curious if you’ve ever flown a lightweight four-cylinder Mooney? The Acclaim’s factory stated empty weight of 2380lbs (what’s yours weigh) is 700lbs heavier than the actual weight of my modest little F model. That’s a 40% delta. Fortunately the “Big Bores” come with 280hp up front (would you look at that, another 40% delta). That surplus in power makes all the difference in cruise. In terms of runway performance and initial climb, you’re right, a few hundred pounds isn’t really going to make a big difference for a “big bore”… It’s always going to take nearly twice as much distance to clear 50’ and nearly 1000’ more to get stopped.

I just had my DG and TC overhauled. It was just over $850 all in. I think the proprietary mx requirements of the new glass and the drop in demand for steam gauge overhauls is depressing prices. I will be moving to partial glass shortly.

Depends on how long you’re willing to wait.

I saw that as well. You don’t know for sure until you look. It’s a cool relic from a different time. Would be nice if it gets saved. I’m shocked he bidding is at 20k. It’s going to take 80k+ to make it a reasonable flyer. Panel, interior, engine, Tanks…

Yeah, whoever listed it is obviously not an airplane person but is willing to fill in the blanks with whatever they think sounds plausible. Some other gems: including the 3 prop propellers. Will need to remove the wings & disengage the fuel tanks in the wings, etc.

Has anyone ever seen another short body with a third set of windows in the baggage compartment? I did a double take when I saw a window in the baggage door. $900 LASAR mod in 1987. Sad to see an airplane that was so loved be equally neglected https://www.ebay.com/itm/155946229345?mkevt=1&mkpid=0&emsid=e11021.m43.l1120&mkcid=7&ch=osgood&euid=c2e120a08e5948859a6a2ff5f27f7190&bu=43165482485&ut=RU&osub=-1~1&crd=20231213015036&segname=11021

Oh I’ve been there. I have a 1973 Triumph Twin. Years ago the harness shorted into one big melted mass spewing electrical smoke from between my legs. At the time I was riding through “pig town”, a not so great neighborhood in Baltimore. It was about 11:30 in the morning. There was a women nearby sitting on her stoop. She looked at me, smiled (she had more fingers than teeth) and said “Honey, you picked a fine f*[%!ng neighborhood to break down in.” She then took swig of beer from a glass cowboy boot shaped mug. And that’s the story of how Lucas, “Prince of darkness” introduced me to my first wife… Just kidding. She was frightening but she did keep my bike safe (for a small fee) until I could arrange a truck.

MyI bad. I had it in my head that the short bodies had 25gl usable a side. You have to have one of the lightest all metal Mooneys I’ve ever heard of. What’s your empty weight? I thought my plane was light at 1680lbs. I know the O360 in about 40lbs lighter than the angle valve. I didn’t think Mooney delivered many planes that were under 1575lbs.

Everything else is not quite equal. In addition to the extra leangth, the F has a 165lb MGW increase as well as an additional 14 gallons of fuel. These may or may not be trivial differences depending on mission. Of the vintage models there is only one that can fill the seats and go somewhere.

I have found the green and red polyethylene stuff to be very robust. But then, I’m still running all original servos and vacuum step. Everything is still soft and supple and gets a coat of silicone at annual whether it needs it or not. The IPC calls for #1036 1.25 tube whatever that is. I was concerned about how to log the Gates vac tube that I was told to buy until I realized that the stuff I’ve been getting from LASAR hose does not match the IPC number either.

I’ll have to wait until I am out of annual, but I’d like to see what kind of climb rate I get out of 135KIAS and at what altitude that equals level flight. I have been flying this F for 20 years. It’s 150kt+ airplane the + will depend on altitude. I have verified it many times with 3 way speed runs, but what’s just as telling is breaking 150kts across the ground into a known (admittedly light) headwind. For many years I flew due west to Grandma’s (RIP) house for lunch. Many of those trips were made at just over 150gs to and just under 160gs on the return. It’s 140kt+ bird at DAs above 10K

What kind/brand of sheep skins are those?

Bottom line on the vintage birds. Speed wise all of the vintage Mooneys are within about 10kts of one another. The injected birds will run more efficient mixture setting and tend to run cooler. The F carries 14 additional gallons of fuel and has a 165lb GW increase but just a slight increase in empty weight. All of them are over achievers in their class. Pick the one that meets budget and mission.