201er

Flying isn't dangerous, crashing is!

That's why I switch based on gallons used (fuel totalizer) and not time. I make the first switch after 10 gallons used but subsequent switches are every 20 gallons. It's kind of a big deal to keep track of this with 100 gallons. When I'm at a point where running on a certain tank will leave anything less than 10 gallons, I prefer to run it dry in flight and then work on a single tank for landing and go around if need be. I much rather have 20 gallons left in one tank than to have 10 in each not knowing when exactly it will cut out. The low fuel indicator light is nice but I can usually run a good 30-60 minutes before the engine quits so I almost forget about it and by the time it does quit I'm a little surprised at first. All it takes is switching the tanks though to keep it going. If not, first instinct would be to throw the fuel pump on.

Rbridges, it's a space restriction. Mooney is like that. FlyDave, wouldn't hurt to hear your perspective. From the manual and my discussion with mech, I am starting it right. He admits its a tough engine to start. Tell me, how much cranking does it take to get a start on a flooded IO360? Not enough to burn out the starter I hope.

Ok, never mind. I found out that no other starter will fit the Mooney anyway so I ordered the same one again. I'd delete this topic if I could find how.

I burnt out my Skytec 149NL starter. I gotta decide by tomorrow if I replace it with the same thing or something else (possibly B&C BC315-100-2). I welcome all suggestions and feedback. I'm still a mooney newb and lousy at starting it so I need something that will live with my handicap. Suggestions?

Gas, gas, gas.... the more you pull the blue knob back the less money you're blowing out the exhaust. Mooney's are just as fuel efficient as they are fast. Local sightseeing, logging flight time, holding patterns, etc.... no need to hurry to go nowhere so you may as well reduce rpm (and possibly throttle but not necessarily at higher altitude) to reduce power and fuel flow. Don't forget to properly set the mixture.

Because Mooneys are efficient airplanes. You can fly a Mooney fast or you can fly it very economically. That's what makes it such an excellent aircraft, that you can choose extreme speed or extreme fuel economy.

Have you looked at the POH power setting table??

One of these days I'm planning to get out there and practice idling the engine and working on my glide control for landing. The question I have is where can I put the prop during the gliding portion? Naturally if the engne were failed I would pull the blue knob all the way back. During my initial complex instruction I was told that this is bad for the engine and not to actually do it during simulation. I see nothing wrong with putting the prop back to 2000RPM, prefer to stay out of the 1500-1900 yellow arc range, never flew with the prop below that. So how much can I reduce prop to simulate failed engine glide?

So it's not just me?? I used to fly an arrow before the Mooney and the takeoffs/landings became much longer and far more challenging in the Mooney. Also I don't know if it's just my Mooney but the brakes on the arrow allowed me to land and stop witihn 1000ft but in the Mooney I end up overshooting taxiways I want to get off at. I don't think I can land and stop the Mooney in anything less than 1500ft even with perfect power management. This is where the shortness of runway becomes an issue. You know you can land in that much but your margin of error goes way down.

I've landed at Andover-Aeroflex as well. It's not the landing but the takeoff that has me sweating! I take off and then turn left 30 degrees to go diagonal across the lake and aim for shorter trees to climb over it all. But with no obstacles, the landing is very reasonable.

What is the ideal place to be able to set the trim during cruise for minimal elevator/stabilizer drag for cruise? Approximately where would this be on the trim indicator (takeoff, full down, etc)? One thing I don't understand is how people are recommending back CG when it is foreward trim (relative to takeoff setting) that we are using to keep the plane level during cruise. Lastly I've noticed that the elevator can be up or down on the ground depending on the trim setting, I was wondering if it stays rigitdly in that position during cruise or if that pressure is offset by moving air? Because it seems impractical to have the entire elevator move during trimming operations if you are going to move the stabilizer too.

I'm curious if there is anything stopping a stray hand from accidentally retracting the gear while on the ground in the older Mooneys with manual gear? Some equivalent to a squat switch of speed probe.

1,900ft runway (no obstacles) at about 2,500' DA, got gas, and then took back off that runway at gross weight. Wheels left the ground at about 1700ft into the runway. No going back!

Did you make sure cowl flaps were closed? Ram air open? Did you check if the MP you were actually getting matched book values? If you didn't open ram air, prehaps a clogged intake filter? Also I wanted to mention that in my '78 20J I typically get 10ktas less than book values. They seem overly optimistic (brand new, no antennas, no step, etc). For example at 4000ft the POH says 2400RPM 26.2" MP should yield 161ktas. No way! I'd be lucky to get 150ktas in that configuration. But 143ktas sounds really slow and almost 20ktas under book value.

You know what I think it is... on fields with multiple FBOs, some of them are focused on executive jets while others on pistons and singles. The FBOs dealing with jets make so much on a fill up of Jet A that they just don't want to deal with us and make the fees absurd. Meanwhile one FBO picks up the slack and has reasonable fees and avgas for us. I've noticed this (not to the insane extent you mentioned though) by calling the competing FBOs on a field finding that one is significantly cheaper for small planes than the others.

Not sure if this helps but when my trim was working in one direction and not the other it turned out to be the trim switch failure and not the motor itself. Just something to consider if you haven't already confirmed that it is definitely the motor.

No no. Mid time engine. Mechanic was just talking about general practice. He said engine is better off running 65/75% than at lower power settings.

POH states a maximum CHT and a CHT operating range but no minimum. The max is 475F and the oparting range is 300-475F. I'm kind of surprised that 280F could be considered worse than 460F.

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?