201er

Vx increases risk of stall and we know stalls take more lives than quit engines.... just sayin.

Remember guys, I'm not only asking about the impossible turn. I'm also asking if you take off and climb straight out to 2000ft or 4000ft and proceed on course, with no other places to land can you make it back to the airport? What about if you departed, turned crosswind and then went on your way? And let's say at full power climb you have a lot of options for return, but what about if you climb "25 squared"? Are you still out climbing your glide and giving yourself the chance to come back? If you climb full power to 1000ft and then bring the power back for the remainder of the climb, will that climb angle still exceed glide?

Never really tried, so not sure. If you take off on a runway climbing straight out and get above the minimum safe altitude to turn around (to rule out dangerous maneuvers), will a Mooney make it back to the runway? Is this the case for all models or only certain ones? What is the sink rate of a Mooney in glide? How much altitude is lost performing a dead stick 180? How much more altitude do you have to have to be able to safely extend gear and flaps in time? So what is the minimum altitude to be able to do a 180 and land back on the departing runway?

Well I'm at least sold that LOP climb makes more sense than "25 squared climb." n74795, we had a poll (can't find it now cause it was on the old site) and more than half of mooney pilots said they reduce power for climb rather than climb full power. So given the fact that most pilots are doing that anyway, perhaps it's a better idea to reduce power in the climb by pulling the mixture back rather than doing this by pulling the throttle back! Air is free, gas costs money.

You're missing his point. We're talking about LEAN OF PEAK climb. What you say is true for typical Rich of Peak operations. Once you're below peak (or that point somewhere around 40F ROP, but that's subtle), going leaner and reducing fuel flow is cooler. If things are hot when you're lean of peak, then you have to reduce fuel flow and go even leaner. Increasing RPM should help make things cooler LOP as well.

BTW, I wonder if flying lighter by going LOP helps with anything? Say you're going somewhere that would normally require full fuel but LOP you can take 30% less fuel. If you actually do that and not top it, you probably save even more by having less weight to haul around?

I'm not sure I can picture why an LOP climb would be more efficient than ROP. I do see how LOP can be more efficient in cruise. However, I see a few problems with the concept of LOP climb. I'd like someone to break things down and prove that LOP climb is more fuel efficient. 1) I realize that LOP climb wastes no fuel for cooling so fuel is only used for thrust. 2) LOP Climb takes longer to reach altitude because less power is lower climb rate 3) Laminar flow wing probably more efficient in cruise than in climb? 4) ROP climb gets you to altitude quicker which means you are at higher altitude and TAS sooner AND you are sooner to begin LOP cruise for efficiency 5) LOP climb starts with reasonable power but quickly dwindles off effectively to cruise power but being used to climb Just some of my thoughts about LOP vs ROP in climb. What else can you tell me about it? Can someone lay the case and justify LOP as being more fuel efficient in the long run for climb in the span of an entire trip.

How much of a role does ambient temp play on CHT? Is the correlation direct? At same power setting 80F ambient leads to 380CHT, so is it 360F on 60F day? I don't think its so direct or I'd have like 330CHT in winter being 50 degrees colder but I don't. Is there a way to translate the 380 mark based on OAT to determine the equivalent for that day? I don't mean to put too much importance on numbers but it would make it easier to have a ballpark of what to look for.

Ok, given an LOP climb... how do you move the levers to transition to LOP cruise? How do you set power and mixture properly when you were already LOP to begin with.

Maybe 380 is a good number for hot days or standard temp days but I agree, on a cold day it could mask what would have been 400+ on a warm day. But what about LOP? Is it bad to be over 380 while LOP?

The first NJMP Holiday Fly In was a great success. Read the full story, check out photos, and watch the video here: http://njmooney.com/past.php

But the problem is that this is about the hottest place you can be running things. I don't think anyone denies they want to go fast. Not everyone wants to save gas but many of us do. If 0-30ROP was a safe/cool place to run, I think most of us would. But in reality it gets way too hot, esp at the higher power settings that we want to cruise at. So realistically it only leaves the choice of 100ROP or 20LOP to fly over 65% power.

I'll be there. I heard Cris, Bret, Anthony, and a bunch of others will be joining us. Our friend the good dentist suddenly came up with some illness when he realized we'd be discussing oil additives. jk

I'm curious why you don't merge your cherokee and m20c into one... a 201? In terms of room, hauling capacity, range, fuel burn, and pretty much anything I can think of (not even counting speed), the 201 beats the cherokee. Unless of course you two fly both planes simultaneously, then go for it!

How is the engine capable of running soooo lean? You're already lean of peak at a high altitude and thin air. How is there enough gas in the mixture to let it work when you get low? Or is it because you are continuing to maintain that high altitude manifold pressure during the descent using the throttle? If the throttle is used to maintain the same MP as WOP at high altitude, mixture never changes right?

Hey you guys who are voting, can you provide some explanation as to why you do what you do? For example, why is 80-100F ROP the most widely used ROP cruise mixture? Why are the majority of you climbing to cruise at full rich mixture? Unless you like to cruise low.

Sorry, I meant in relation to additives.

The difference is you can still ride your plane if you answer honestly like nothing happened.

^ Great point. Doc, I have a question for you. Why do you trust Shell or Exxon (whichever of those two you get your oil from) as your oil of choice but not ASL? What kinds of independent controlled studies have you seen for their products that convinced you to use their oil and additives?

Based on another topic about folks second choice plane, I was wondering if Mooney is their first choice or something they were forced to settle with? Did you get a Mooney because it's the best plane you'd hoped for? Or did you settle for it as a secondary choice because you couldn't afford/find something that you were more interested in. Also within the models of Mooneys how do you feel with one you selected? I'm especially curious about the vintage drivers in that regard. Any regrets not getting a different model or all together different brand?

Ok, out of interest sake, I'd like to copy the LOP Poll but with the question on the ROP side. If you regularly fly LOP but occasionally cruise ROP, vote where'd you'd be ROP. Also adding another poll for climb ROP. What's your basis for the amount ROP that you fly at? Dr Dentist, do you have the data that proves ROP is best and exactly how much?

What blasphemy!

"What about CamGuard? At $25 a pint at each oil change, is it worth it? Considering just its rust inhibitor properties, using it will add a buck an hour to your operating costs, if you change oil at 25 hour intervals. If you're worried about corrosion due to disuse, we think the data - both ours and CamGuard's own detailed test results - suggest it has merit." 14 Day Oil Shootout, Aviation Consumer February 2005 Attached another study I've seen, not sure who put it out but looks like an amateur. Although the non-manufacturer studies are weak, they all agree. On the other hand, I have not seen a single third party study that disagrees or even observes harm in CamGuard. As I previously stated, on this basis alone and the price it's a gamble already worth taking. 0411-CORRODION-COMPARISONS.pdf

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/oil_myths_debunked_197096-1.html Just one of many articles about this if you even bother to look at evidence. But if you prefer to believe in the Easter Bunny, by all means go ahead.

That's all you get for spending that much more fuel? 1.5GPH extra for 3-5 knots!? Then again, going ROP on 11.2GPH, you probably wouldn't break 150knots...