201er

Quote: allsmiles Wasn't it US Air or some airline that was charging a double seat price for overweight passengers?!

Ok, so I'm thinking of a new way to use the power setting table. Let me know if this is right or some reason not to do it this way. Instead of estimating my density altitude and looking at the row for that altitude in the table, I will look at my max available MP based on full throttle during level off. Then find the highest altitude with that MP listed for the % power I am looking for and adjust RPM based on that. Am I right that altitude is irrelevant and it's only a matter of what MP is available and matching it to RPM based on that row in the table?

Quote: DaV8or

Getting in is one thing, getting out is a whole other story! I've had passengers weighing less than that barely be able to hoist themselves up to get out.

Well if you put all the J mods on the earlier models, you have a lighter/shorter version of the J so it isn't much surprising (namely the cowl and sloped windshield). Actually what I'm kind of surprised about is that an E modified into a J isn't even a little faster as the result of lower drag/weight.

I still don't quite understand how the same IO360 engine creates 20HP more when fuel injected than carbeurated. Otherwise the engines are identical right? How does fuel injection make 20 more horsepower?

Hmm, good point. But can't the amount of error be determined and corrected by noting each plane's engine off MP on the ground (ex plane A has 29"MP on the ground and 22" in cruise and plane B has 28"MP on the ground and 21" in cruise, would really indicate they are equal but off scale slightly)? Or do you think the gage may be inconsistent in a non-linear fashion?

On another topic I was just thinking about various Mooneys going some place together. I was wondering if you guys do in fact fly together with Mooneys of differing speeds (or in fact other airplanes as well) places? What kind of groups have you been in? Or does the Mooney M20TN go ahead, have lunch, and get home before his buddy in the C even gets there? I've never flown the same place as someone I know in another plane so I'm just wondering how you go about it?

Don't you guys have Mooney flying groups on this list? I don't know any Mooney fliers in my area so I can't try this, but I'm sure some of you here have flown to the same place in various letters of Mooney? Next time someone is flying a C/E alongside a J for a hamburger, can you guys compare what MP you get with and without ram air at the same altitude? Or is that a contradiction in itself to have a C flying "alongside" a J?

Well I've heard that. But what is the deal with 28" max MP for C and 30.2" for J. Is it just fiddling with the numbers or does the J actually develop higher MP at same altitude/conditions as its predecesors? Does E/F with ram air = J with ram air?

Did they really improve the induction system by THAT much going from C to J or did they just merely doctor the MP numbers?

I thought ram air just helps to compensate some of the natural loss of the induction system and filter rather than giving you a boost over ambient pressure?

No idea how they did the original test but the POH seems to imply that the stock 201 should get 201mph at gross weight and even more near empty. However, it again assumes you'll be doing it below sea level or in the dead of winter! Can someone explain to me how a Lycoming IO-360 was designed to require 30.2" MP to develop 100% power!? Or is it because of pressure loss in the system that you need 30.2" at the manifold to have 29.92" in the combustion chamber?

I agree it's helpful and not nosey. But I'd be a bit worried of him accusing me of breaking something by pushing on the wrong place.

No, I think my MP and ram air are just fine and the POH is in error. 22.5" sounds about right for 7,500MSL whereas my POH suggests 23.6" for 8,000!!! The MP gauge reads normal pressure when the engine is off on the ground and the ram air gives me the expected .25inHG boost in MP. But to be over 1" off on the book makes a pretty big difference. So what I'd like to know is if everything else is thrown off or just the MP values. Is the plane only producing 70% power at 8000ft as the result of actual MP being 22" rather than 23.6" or do you really get 75% at 8000ft but their MP listings are off? Anyone have additional data to verify this?

I've been making some recent efforts to look for ways to optimize max speed in my 201. Still can't get close to book numbers. Then while talking to someone about a speed test flight I did today, he caught on to something. I pointed out that today was a very close to standard sort of day and yet the max MP I was getting came shy of POH power table values. I explained how I was getting 22" MP at 7,500 while the book was giving figures based on 23.6". I originally figured it was just the conditions or I wasn't developing max available MP (even with ram air open). Well based on the 1" per 1000ft rule of thumb and more specifically looking up a table, I discovered that the POH inflate available MP substantially for the max power settings and that has a bit to do with why I'm not attaining book value speeds. So while standard pressure at 8,000ft should be 22.225 inHG, the Mooney POH gives a 75% power setting based on 23.6" at the same standard temperature of -1C. Where the heck are they getting this number from? How is this supposed to be useful to me when it is inflated over 1.3"? I checked for other altitudes and the error was not constant so I don't think it is expected boost as the result of ram air. I also looked at power tables for other airplanes and they tend to have a more standard MP value relative to altitude. Anyone know what this is about? Is the error strictly limited to the MP value or are the %power and speeds derived based on that exact MP? Does this mean that 75% is actually impossible above 6,500ft under standard conditions?

For my '78 201 the gear extension speed is 134kias and 109kias for retraction. What I wonder is how critical these numbers are? Has anyone exceeded these speeds and gotten away with it? Or has anyone exceeded them inadvertantly which resulted in gear damage? Personally I try to be careful and make sure I've slowed down sufficiently before extending gear. As for retracting, I have a hard time remembering that it's a lower speed for retraction but I'm in the habit of retracting the gear not long after takeoff so that helps me avoid that problem. But now during my instrument training, I'm dealing with a tougher workload and am afraid of not slowing down sufficiently to retract the gear on the missed approach.

Why not just fly off what you can beforehand and arrive with just minimal fuel and dump it? You may need a refresher on running tanks dry though =)

So how do the turbo guys fly their machines in the flight levels? Is it a different prop or same one? Since the engine is getting complete aspiration, can you fly the same RPM settings as a non turbo at low altitudes? Or do you need to increase RPM at high altitude to compensate for thinning air?

Well since the "bite" is different relative to air density and thus altitude, can it be said that this has some kind of effect on the L/D of the prop? Does this put it into a more or less efficient operation than comparable RPM at sea level? Does this affect more than a few knots or purely theoretical?

Hmm... anyone wanna tell me about props? lol

Fascinating. Does age and wear/tear of an engine affect real world results to tests? Is chart #3 a demonstration of the danger of being oversquare?

Quote: jetdriven

Quote: jetdriven I was thinking about a MOO-share idea where M20J pilots over the country pledge their aircraft, and others in the program can rent the airplane for a nominal fee, such as 30$ plus gas. Open pilot warranty wil cover you. Could work also for M20C, E, F, and K as well. This allows owners in the network to fly in a variety of areas in the country without paying 500$ to checkout and then rent a skyhawk. Interested?

Thanks. That is definitely an important point to keep in mind. But once below 65% where is the goal to be mixture wise? You can put it anywhere, but is it ideal to be at peak or LOP? Can't it be argued that outside the red zone and with manageable CHTs, peak is the ideal compromise of power/gas efficiency? So is there any reason to be at 55% power and LOP anyway? At low power settings, are you definitely immune from any risks of improper leaning or poor gami spread?