201er

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...

I'm curious how far you LOP you set things for cruise? How many degrees F EGT LOP and at what power setting? Do you go further LOP at higher power? Do you think the Mooney/Lycoming360 "red box" is different than the typical IO550/Bonanza settings that are discussed?

Do any of you cruise (or climb) at over 75% LOP? What's your speed, fuel flow, deg LOP, and temps?

Because you are climbing at closer to (or possibly even above) 100% power on a normally aspirated engine. You have more power available from the engine for the climb so fpm is greater. Climb configuration is near best L/D so the friction of air plays a smaller role. In cruise, you're going to reduce power to a prescribed power setting (75% or below). So in summer you may be taking off and starting with 90% power and diminishing as you climb. In winter you start with 100%. That extra power down low plays a big role in takeoff distance and initial climb angle. But when you reach 4000ft, the excess power is irrelevant (let's say 80% everything forward in summer or 85% in winter) because you're still going to reduce power to 75% or below. If you're making 75% power in denser air vs less dense air, you'll go faster in less dense air. So when cruising at equivalent power setting in summer, I postulate your TAS is faster than in winter.

Sounds like a 747 would suit your mission well. Short runways weren't a criteria you mentioned

Ok, we decided to postpone the event by a week to Sunday January 6th. Everything else is the same. Hope you can make it.

I tried the silicone ones for the first time today and you guys are right. They're not as comfortable or quiet as the foam but if you tweak them just right, they work ok. But if you don't put them in right, they do nothing. Not sure if I'll go back to them or just deal with stiff foam in winter.

From what I can tell, the mic is excellent. On par with Bose. BUT it's bigger and you can't easily turn it away when about to pop a sandwich into your in air refuel hole. Normal headsets let the mic swivel up to get it out of the way. On the Halo, you can only move it by bending the wire it is attached by, but then you gotta readjust it all over again to get it the way you like it. I would never recommend the Halo to a student, renter, or passenger. They are delicate, wouldn't handle being in a bag well, the case is useless, but if all you do is keep them permanently plugged in on the panel and only use them for the same pilot, I think they're the best. It's expensive enough to be excellent quality but cheap enough that I won't be kicking myself for losing or breaking them. The Bose always made me nervous about leaving them on the glareshield or forgetting them.

The Bose really is that much better than the David Clark. But for the same price as a David Clark, you can get a Halo which is even better than the Bose. I don't have any affiliation with any of these companies, but I'm just really happy I found the Halo. I just wish I didn't spend so much money on the Bose first to find a cheaper headset that is better. The David Clark caused me fatigue (even when used to it) after 2 hours. The Bose I was comfortable with up to 4. The Halo I've worn for 8.5 hours non-stop and my ass hurt more from the seat than my head/ears from the headset.

After using nothing but the Halo for an entire year, recently using the Bose in someone else's plane, the Bose felt soooo excruciatingly heavy and uncomfortable! Completely different than the feeling I got when I went from David Clark to Bose, back then they felt golden!