201er

I was at the museum Saturday. Friday night I departed from NJ and flew to Toledo Express. They had cheap lodging right off the field ($55/night, decent room). Onto MDW next morning. First went to Shed Aquarium, then Field Museum. Afterward went to KC09 for fuel. At $5.35 a gallon, it was the cheapest (and most run down) full service I have ever witnessed at current prices. Even with the 30 minutes fuel I went out of the way to get gas there, I saved over $150 on the top off! From there it was 2 nights in Cleveland. Burke Lakefront airport was within walking distance of hotels and many museums. Was a fun trip. Only after did I find out I might have been able to get insurance credit for it all too!

Someone mentioned being sure to stay above bottom of green arc for CHT. Also my mechanic cautioned me against flying at low power settings (below 65%) due to low CHTs. 1) What would the bottom of the green arc for CHTs be numerically? My factory CHT gauge is unreliable but I have an EDM 700. What numbers are you looking for on low end? 2) Is it really bad for the engine to be doing something like 45% power or whatever minimal power would be for maintaining altitude? You have to admit the fuel flow at low power settings is incredible. Could be going 20kts faster than a skyhawk for several GPH less. When you're just hanging local/sightseeing, what's the lowest power setting to use and what's wrong with using low power settings? 3) If low CHTs are bad, is it a good idea to lean for highest possible EGT or CHT during low power setting? My guess around 50ROP should yield the highest possible CHTs for that setting?

I too flew to Midway while escaping Irene. I think Odyssey is the FBO I went to. Friendly and helpful. The ramp fee was $40. At $8 a gallon for avgas, it was a bit ridiculous to buy fuel to get the fee waived. Landing fee is something under $10 by mail. They gave us a ride to the train station by crew car and picked us up on the way back. The orange line has trains running at least every 15 minutes and it is only 15-25 minutes to Chicago depending where you are going. It took 1 hour to get from the plane to the museums on Museum Campus. The train is cheap (like $2 something each way). So I think this is a more practical approach than going somewhere else to rent a car because parking in the city is tough or expensive. Most things are in walking distance and the train/water transit is practical. Here's a short article I wrote about some exhibits at the Field Museum: http://TrainedParrot.com/Carolina_Parakeet Picture attached and short video of my plane's VIP treatment:

Well let's say you're just sightseeing or local flying with no need for speed. Naturally you want to pick whichever power setting that will cost you the least gas for the same distance. The option is to stay at a faster RPM and throttle back or to run at a higher MP and reduce RPM. Let's not bring mixture into this because it should apply equally regardless of MP/RPM producing the same power. Looking at the 20J POH, 2700RPM/18" MP can produce 55% 138ktas at 8.6gph. 2200RPM/22.2" can produce the same 55% and 138ktas 7.8gph. Clearly reducing RPM is more effective (assuming POH is right). My take on complex airplane operations (and I could be completely wrong, still learning) is to pick a power setting and then find the lowest RPM that can produce that much power for maximum fuel efficiency and equal speed. I still don't understand the reason why the POH recommends diminishing max power/MP for low RPMs as altitude increases. Why is max recommended power at SL for 2200RPM, 27" and 68% but at 4000ft, 2200RPM, 24.4" 62%. Once again, let me remind you this is not for lack of greater available MP because higher power settings are recomended with higher MP.

Very interesting response. I'm going to have to read those articles and give this some more thought. Does this mean that running 2700RPM at higher altitude is less bad than cruising 2700RPM down low (noise, engine wear, oil burn, etc)? However, I think you missed part of the oversquare point for high altitude and lower MP recommendations by POH. It would have been my guess that if 27"/2200RPM is allowed at sea level, that you would be good to use WOT above any altitude yielding 27" MP or less. However, if you look at the 4,000' performance table I posted, you'll see that although 26.2" MP are available (2400RPM column), a maximum of 24.4" is recommended for 2200RPM. This yields 62% power. There is clearly some kind of purposeful intent her rather than providing a 65% setting and whatever MP between 24.4" and 26.2" that would provide it. Also, they did not provide a 26.2" MP power setting for 2200RPM even though it probably would be available as well. Based on the table it doesn't seem that 2200RPM is an inefficient prop setting at 4000ft. In fact the opposite. 2400RPM and 23.3" yield 65% power, 9.2gph, and 152ktas. 2200RPM and 24.4" yield 62% power, 8.5gph, and 148ktas. My guess is that at 2200RPM and 25" you could get about 8.7gph and 150ktas. For these reasons, except if oversquare is the culprit, I cannot understand why the POH does not provide a 65% or full throttle power setting at 2200RPM at 4000ft as just one example.

I'm a bit curious about how many Mooney (let's say just M20s) have been built and how many still remain? Perhaps a breakdown by models?

I think a major reason why Mooney prices haven't come down THAT much is because there aren't all that many available. From most planes out there, a Mooney is the top of the line, best bang for the buck, etc. Look at how many Pipers, Cessnas, and Bonanzas are available for sale and then look at how many Mooneys. I think it is a "buyers market" for singles in general but the lack of available Mooneys, lack of brand new Mooneys, and incredible value of the plane, they still sell.

Alright, well in that case, why do you think they didn't include higher MP at lower RPM at higher altitudes but did at lower? According to the oversquare article linked above, your best bet may be to stay at full throttle and reduce RPM to set power. Also, still wondering what the practical limit of oversquaring is. What is wrong with cruising at WOT and 2000RPM at low altitude rather than higher RPM and bringing the throttle back? What is behind the whole don't go oversquare rule of thumb?

I read that before I posted. Really didn't answer my question about just how much over square it's ok to go and what happens if you go TOO much over square. Basically it said to consult the POH and the POH seems to be more restrictive for oversquare operations at higher than lower altitudes which seems odd.

I saw a post somewhere recently about oversquare operations which reminded me of my own confusion on the matter. I don't understand why at sea level, the POH allows a maximum of 27" MP at 2200RPM but at higher altitudes the max oversquare condition shrinks. For example at 4,000ft 24.4" MP is the max at 2200RPM even though higher MP may be available (26.2" at 2400RPM). If the plane can be flown at 26.2" to produce less than 75% power, why can't it be flown at 2200RPM instead at the same WOT to produce something between 62% and 74% power which are given by the POH at 2200 and 2400 RPM respectively? I don't understand why a greater condition of being oversquared is permitted at sea level and higher power but not at higher altitude and lower power? There have been many times in cruise where I wanted to begin a descent leaving throttle full and simply pulling back the prop to reduce drag, but decided to bring the power back to the maximum POH applicable MP for that lower RPM setting. Is this really necessary? How substantial is this concept of oversquare? I understand that even the POH allows it in certain configurations but are there examples where you really can be too far oversquare? Not that I would, but is 29" and 2000RPM bad for the engine? I have not yet found a useful power setting that exceeds the prop governor capability. Where would that be?

I flew to Toledo, Chicago, and Cleveland to keep it out of harms way. Made something interesting out of the evacuation. Weather was superb with high pressure everywhere but back home! If anything I was more worried about a ratty 152 barely tied down flipping into my plane from the tie down next to me. I get back and the thing is still there in as awful condition as ever but not one bit worse. I suppose she would have been alright had I not been so paranoid.

So in other words, the HSI would be completely unaffected by a vacuum failure but completely inop in an electrical failure?

I have a Kings KCS-55A HSI. It has a mark on the top that says DC and dedicated circuit breakers. What I am trying to find out for my instrument training is whether or not this isntrument is dependent on the vacuum system or is electronic and self contained? Anyone familiar with this?

Flew a 2 hour flight to Niagra falls and back today. At 6,500' MSL (guessing 7,500 DA) at WOT, 2500RPM, 25ROP, ~23" MP, I was managing a true airspeed of approximately 155ktas but only 140 on the gps. Fuel flow was 11gph on the instrument (not calibrated) and 10gph on the dipstick (not particularly accurate). From the POH, I would interpolate this to be about 68-72% power. So not quite 75% but over 65. Coming back was 5,500' MSL (guessing 6,500' DA) at WOT, 2500RPM, 25ROP, ~24" MP, I was managing a true airspeed of about 152ktas and 152-158 on the gps (bit of a quartering tailwind). 10.9GPH on the fuel flow. This is all in a stock '78 201. I gotta figure out how to squeeze a few more knots out of it. Not sure how the rigging is but it looks like there are gap seals in all the control surfaces. Any tips?

This site is messed up. I was trying to say it was interesting to find out about the second rise, etc. Anyway, saw my mech today. He did a complete oil analysis (sniff sniff) and said it's fine. He checked over the flaps and rudder and said they are fine, that I was dumb and shouldn't do that, but that the plane can handle all of that. The main reason I went was to have the fuel vents resealed cause one was leaking fuel again. I was supposed to see the avionics guy for a DME issue I was having but it magically went away on the way there.

I couldn't have been LOP. When pulling back on mixture EGTs were going up. It was taking a lot of leaning cause I was up to 7 or 8 thousand feet by that point in a 15+ minute climb. I didn't think the oil temp could get so high when the EGT/CHTs were at or below typical climb temps. Is it a good guess that the reason for this was because the high climb angle was providing inadequate cooling to the oil cooling system which over time in the climb became too hot and exceeded oil temp red line? What is oil temp red line anyway? What happens beyond that point? What is the max temperature related to?

Quote: jlunseth I agree. On behalf of your aircraft, you are forgiven. The only one that did not make sense to me is the oil temp if in fact the CHT's were not high. You don't say what they were, just that they were "in line." I am guessing they were "in line" but too high, or you were low on oil, or you oil pump is not working right. CHT's should not exceed 380 dF. Check your oil, or better yet get it changed. When you get it changed, get an extra quart. Once you run the engine after the oil change and the oil spreads around through the engine, it will probably want that extra quart.

BTW, the oil pressure was ok, just the oil temp went too high. The oil had just been changed a few hours prior to this happening. W100 SAE 50 is the kind of oil. My guess it's a good thing it was this kind because it is better suited for hotter temperatures? On a good note, I've had a couple of my best engine starts and landings recently as well.

I made a few stupid mistakes in my 201 on recent flights. I wanted to check with you guys just how bad these were and if any action needs to be taken since I'm going by my mechanic tomorrow anyway. Let me just point out I realized my folly in all cases as I was doing it but didn't occur soon enough to prevent it: 1) Exceeded oil temp red line for up to 5 minutes during climb. I was climbing to a higher altitude than I ever fly at (9,500'). I was leaning heavily because EGTs were staying pretty low and CHTs were in line. All seemed good until I realized oil temp was over red line. I'm kind of surprised and don't understand how oil temp can be so high when EGT/CHT are relatively low. Anyway, when I realized this, I threw the mixture forward and put the nose lower. Cowl flaps were already open. 2) In the pattern at a towered airport the tower wanted me to slow up, 360, and extend for spacing. So I had the gear and half flaps to fly around 80kts. Then on final tower told me to keep the speed up with a jet behind me on final. I gave it a lot of power (with the gear being down) and tried to go faster. I kind of forgot the flaps were already extended. I forget the max speed I hit because the flaps wouldn't let me go all that fast. So I'm not sure if I actually exceeded Vfe or not but I was somewhere up around there. This was dumb, should have retracted the flaps to go faster, was more focused on speeding up and forgot I was already in landing configuration. This is not a frequent occurance for me since I normally fly in/out of non-towered airports. 3) During cruise flight (4500ft, 145ktas, ? kias) my passenger was asking me about the rudder and what would happen if you just push the rudder pedals without stick, etc. So I pushed hard left and then hard right rudder to demonstrate. I've done this before in gliders and slow flying airplanes no problem. But I forgot I was in a fast plane, in cruise, and over maneuvering speed. I don't think this would exceed the load on the wings which maneuvering speed is mainly about (like pulling hard on the elevator) but could this hurt the rudder, stabilizer, or anything else? Once again a stupid mistake that I only realized as it was going on. The plane has been flying since and I have learned from it but need to know just how bad this is? Don't kill me I hope.

Just to balance the discussion a little, some of the pitfalls and reasons why high time air frames may be lower in value: -Repair screw ups get compounded over time. -Paperwork becomes more difficult or impossible to trace -More time, more chances of missing paperwork -More time most likely means more owners or different people (renters) flying the plane with different levels of experience, standards, and care -The plane has been through more overhauls, maintenance, and repairs. This makes things more worn out like connections, cowlings (being taken on and off more times), etc. -When trading hands, a prebuy to trace all the logbooks, 337s, etc will take (and cost) more -The longer it's been flying, the more time/chance for having accident history (and inadequate repairs/paperwork) There was a paperwork nightmare buying my 4200TTAF 201 so I can only imagine what it could be on something a lot more than that. I know there will be exception cases of a 10000 hour plane that only had two owners in prisitine conditions, but my point is that higher time airframes are lower in price for a reason. Just some stuff to keep in mind.

KC2HMU, '78 201

Charlie at Airport Radio at N43 does good work. Not sure about the owner assist but give him a call, very reasonable guy.

'78. Wonder how she got a number that comes after yours? It's not so bad flying around Linden. You expect traffic and you look for it. What I don't like is getting complacent because you don't see a plane for hours in the middle of nowhere.

The Bose is by far the best headset I have ever come across. It's one of those things where everything about it is better and there are no tradeoffs. I'll admit I haven't tried that many different ones but it's mostly because the Bose suited me off the bat when I did try it. I wear glasses so I hated the lightspeed because it squeezed my glasses into my face and did not make a proper seal. After the Bose my second favorite is David Clark. These two definitely work well with glasses, are comfortable, and provide good audio. But the Bose is lighter, more comfortable, and the ANR is outstanding. At the click of a button, the noise just shuts off. I bought two at the same time as I got my plane and we can comfortably listen to music over the intercom with them. I've flown 50 hours since getting the plane so that's how long the Bose headset has been in use and still haven't had to change the battery. They have a "financing" program where you can take a year to pay for the headset in monthly installments, interest free.