johnggreen

It is a known fact that the adage "figures lie and liars figure" originated about the time that airplanes came into being in the early 1900's. The original adage was "pilots lie about the airspeed of their airplanes and rarely tell the truth about fuel burns". Yes, I know, there doesn't seem to be much connection, but accountants got a hold of it and bastardized it to their own purposes. Then, in the 60's pilots started flying Mooneys. At this point the lying became do outrageous (Mooney 201 !!!) that everyone else had to take it up just to stay in the ball game. Jgreen

Sreid, I assume you mean wasn't the prop control fully forward? No, it was set at 2200 rpm's and no where clsoe to full flat pitch. Jgreen

This morning I went out to shoot some approaches in the Bravo. As you fellows who have corresponded with me probably know, I fly my Bravo at relatively low power settings, even cross country. Once at "cruise" I usually set 2200 rpm simply because it is unbelievably quiet and smooth and well, it just feels good. When I am just flying around setting up for approaches, holding patterns etc. I usually set 2200 rpm and 26" MP. Today, I pulled the MP back to 22 or 23 where I can still indicate almost 130 knots and burn only 10-11 gallons per hour. At that manifold pressure, I had trouble maintaining 2200 rpm. It wanted to drop off a little. Everything was normal as far as temps, but the OAT was already at 90 F and climbing. I just pushed the power up to 25" and all was well. Just curious, has anyone else found that they can't maintain rpm's below 24"? I have no reason to think there is anything wrong. I just never noticed it as an issue. I routinely bring the power back to 22" for pattern and approach maneuvering, but never remember the rpm's falling off. Jgreen

GMCD, I too have always been of the school that most aircraft engines would "throw the first quart out". Somewhere, recently, I read a technical article on aircraft engines that says that is pure bunk, but aplogize that I don't remember where. I have and do keep my oil about one quart down from full on all the horozontally opposed engines I have owned. I never really thought about doing my own "experiement" by keeping it full and monitoring oil consumption. As I just had the oil changed in the Bravo, I think I will do so now. The interesting thing is that I don't use that practice in any of the other engines that I own and they certainly don't "throw the first quart out". All told, in my real estate managaement and ranch equipment, I probably own twenty plus pieces of equipment with water cooled engines, mostly diesel, not including small trucks and cars. If it is an old wive's tale, then we are losing some, probably not much, temp control and dillution of foreign bodies in our oil by running it low. At any rate, that's my observation. It will be a few weeks before I can accumulate enough hours on the Bravo to see if keeping it full affects the oil consumption. I'll report back. Jgreen

Jim, Thanks. My issue has not arrived yet, but I'm hoping tomorrow. Boy, thinking of that day really brings back memories. Mr. Ben, Mr. George and Bill are all gone now, but thank the Lord, they didn't die in that airplane that day. Jerry is still a buddy though I don't see him much. Good memories all!! Jgreen

Igorbly, I have had the privilege over most of my flying career of owning a business in which an airplane was a very, very valuable tool. Flying allowed me to conduct a heavy construction operation over four states and in twenty years, I spent four nights away from home. The parameters of that usage were specific and the time restraints of my trips were always flexible for weather. Lots and lots of things, uh factors, go into whether an airplane, any airplane can reasonably and reliably provide the utility a particular need dictates. Sometimes, I throw water, needed reality, onto situations without much explanation. I usually try to limit that to scenarios where there is little room for debate. As a life long pilot and with what I consider the moral obligation of my CFII certificate, I am somewhat and oftentimes over zealous in pointing out not the capabilities but the limitations of our small, single pilot, general aviation mounts. Unfortunately, I no longer fly because I "need" to. I'm a pilot, a real pilot, it's in my soul, and I savour every opportunity I get to put my J-3 or Bravo in the air. And oftentimes the Bravo is a real time saver and functional tool. The J-3 as well. More often, it is not. Anyway, had a moment this morning to opine and just don't want anyone to think I don't love it. That being said, I just made three trips, all doable with the Bravo, on Delta. It was, in those cases the wise and practical choice. Have a great day and fly safe, Jgreen

For reliable, safe, and economical travel twice a month on your budget, the choice is simple: Delta Airlines. Everything else is a pipe dream. Jgreen

To all. Someone asked the specific question of converting Dave Clarks's to ANR. That was my first step years ago. I still have them and use them in my Cub. They work well but obviously not like a new $500 ANR. BUT, I took mine to my avionics guy and let him do the conversion. I can't remember what it cost, but I still saved money. After that I bought a Stratus 50 and something else that I can't recall and everything works well. Got the Bose witht the Bravo so now I have a pile of ANR headsets at my hangar. I'll see what brand that other good set is, I just don't use them so I forget the name. On insulation. If you are going to the trouble of pulling interior, seriouly fellows, DO IT RIGHT. The labor is 90% of the job and your going to spray some snake oil on the interior of your airplane and think you'll solve a problem? I have refurbished several airplanes over the years and the first step was ALWAYS interior insulation. I redid a Beech 18 once and got the cabin so quiet that you could converse from the back seat to the front without shouting; the cockpit, well, that was a different matter. Two P&W 985's spinning props 24" from your ears isn't easy to quiet. On closing. It is not just the sound the insulation will help with. It is also vibration. You don't realize what the physical pounding of vibration does to you on a four hour flight. OK, that's enough. To work to work. Jgreen

I have never flown any Mooney but my Bravo and a couple of Ovations; all of which had Bose. In this day and age, flying without ANR's is like smoking unfiltered cigarettes, uh, dumb. On another note, my Bravo is one of the quietest airplanes I have ever flown; takeoff, climb, and cruise. At 15m, I wear the Bose but don't need them. It's like being at home in my bed. It is almost eerily quiet. Far quieter than a Skylane or Bonanza. You guys with older birds need to look into some good sound proofing. Actually, it is not that big a job taking out and replacing the interior, but I'm not going there. it would give you a far more enjoyable airplane. I have a sound meter and may take some readings in my plane and post them just for the unbelievers. Jgreen

This is an awful situation. Patrick obviously had made many friends here. It is almost irreverant to discuss the possible causes of this accident or any accident so soon, and among people to whom Patrick was more than just a name. So, I apologize in doing so. That being said, "we" are discussing the possible causes and in the interest of the safety of other readers, there are two points I would like to bring up while attention is focused on this accident scenario. First, a couple of weeks ago, I took to task some fellow MS members on tauting the safety virtues of the Mooney structure. I won't do so again in this thread. I will only respectfully remind all that if you don't come into contact witht the ground in a controlled configuration, the tube structure is of almost no value. I would also point out that on the Beechtalk site, the same argument about the superiority of the Beech structure is also being made; both with no engineering or statistical data to back it up. Secondly, I gather from previous posts that this takeoff was in rain. Rain significantly deteriorates the performance of the Mooney laminar flow wing. I notice it on the Bravo in cruise where the airplane slows down several knots in rain and more significantly on an instrument approach. My chosen seating position in the Bravo is low to give me lots of headroom. The glare shield is barely below my line of sight over the cowling in this position. On an instrument approach in rain, I always crank my seat up before the FAF. If I don't, when I break out, I will not be able to see the runway einvironment because of the higher than normal angle of attack during approach because of the rain. I forgot this on a low min approach in VA a few months back. When I broke out at 300 and less than one, with rain, I could barely get up high enough to see the runway. I don't know how much rain increases the ground run or reduces the initial climb, but it is significant. Guessing, and I'm only making an "educated" guess, but I would bet that the airplane simply did not have enough runway and insufficient speed for climb. it either stalled or just mushed into the trees. There has been no description of a mechanical failure that I believe is a probable cause of this accident. Jgreen

I'm very sorry for this loss. I never posted to one of Patrick's threads or had him post to mine. Still, I know we had a lot in common and he died doing something we both loved; flying. We all share a risky hobby/avocation. Like it or not, that is the truth. There is never the opportunity for complacency or carelessness though those faults come naturally and without invitation. If there is any good to come from this, it will be that we all take a moment to realize that aviation is simply not a forgiving endeavor, and if the odds line up against you, the outcome will not be good. I'm sorry Patrick and I'm sorry for the loved ones you left behind. Fly safe people. Fly safe knowing that it is you, not the airplane or the systems that is your greatest asset. It is your judgement, your preparation, and yes, your skills no matter how limited they may be. Jgreen

Bill, That is very kind of you. I have been published in several venues, was a contributing columnist in a newspaper for about ten years, but honestly, FLYING! I still remember the first issue I ever read when I was about eleven. it had a flight test on a Cessna 310 in the issue and an ad for the airplane that showed a couch installed. I thought that was so cool. Now, I being published in it. No arrogance, just humility. Pretty cool. Thanks again,' Jgreen

Jolie, I think it is the nature of publication today. 99% is done from computers with little centralization either managerial or physical. The last time I tried to send a LTE, I just gave up! Fantom, I tried, I really tried. There was certainly a need. "Our friend" is a character. A team of wild horses couldn't keep him fully in line. I say that with a smile. I actually like the bastard and call him that regularly. Jgreen

Good morning, I'm not trying to start another debate, not that it is a bad thing, about the "impossible turn". What I am doing is giving all a heads up about the story of one and ask a favor. In 1974, while still a law student, I experienced an engine failure on takeoff in an over gross Cherokee Six. That story will be included in the June issue of Flying magazine due to come out in a couple of weeks. It will be under the the regular installment of "I LEARNED ABOUT FLYING FROM THAT", and thankfully, I did. When it comes out, you can all skew me for my stupidity; THAT SHOULD BE FUN! I hope you read and enjoy and the favor. There is no way, easy way, to get extra issues of the magazine from Flying. If a few of you would, after reading, mail me your issues, it would be much appreciated. John Green PO 2060 Grenada, MS 38902

Dave, The "cheapest" way, other than fly it of course, to haul an airplane is "yourself". Once you figure out the rigging with a properly set up trailer, it is really a piece of cake. The one good aspect is that weight is almost never an issue. One of the funniest events of my life came during the hauling of an old Stinson Gullwing. I was in law school and bought one that had been dead sticked into a nearby airport. Three friends and I dismanteled and hauled it home, two trips, on an old low-boy trailer and did it in one day. It was only 25 miles but quite a task for four guys who had never even dismantled an airplane before. A Stinson Gullwing is one BIG airplane. Anyway, just reminiscing, sorry. Jgreen

Nathan, I bought those from my Bravo from MAC and would assume you still can. If not, get another Acclaim owner to let you copy them or pay them to copy for you. Whatever you do, get them. Jgreen

Well, I see this thread is still going. Heck, I had almost forgotten about my post to it awhile back. In light of the title of the thread, "Getting A Little Discouraged", I thought of something that actually adds a little positive to our (Mooney owners) predicament. Several years ago, I bought a low time, 1963, H-18 Twin Beech. it was one of only 8 or 9 H models built with conventional gear. I refurbished it to the point that, well it may not have been the nicest, but I never saw one nicer in pics or in person. Other than the cost of fuel at 40 gph, it was not really any more expensisve to maintain than the Bravo. Why? Because parts were dirt cheap. A large percentage of Twin Beeches are in bone yards and they willing give themselves up, one part at a time, to keep the rest of the fleet flying. P & W 985's are a dime a dozen, as are accessory parts and you can overhaul two of them for the price of one Bravo engine. Well, maybe this is not exactly a "bright side", but you get the point. Mooneys going to non-flying status can keep the rest going for a long time. What does Ross say? Cheers? Jgreen

And in closing. "Big smile". This has truly been an educational thread. That being said, I won't be making any further effort to run the Bravo LOP. I simply have no motivation. My engine doesn't like it and performs beautifully the way I manage it ROP. Byron, to be exact, I have owned 32 airplanes and flown a lot more. Remember, I've been doing this since I was eleven years old. The point of saying that is that in all those airplanes and all those engines, turboed, superchared, radials, etc. I can without hesitation say that my Bravo's engine is the smoothest, best running engine I have ever owned and that includes, several other O-540's and IO-540's. Wires? Plugs? If this engine had Western Auto Wizard lawn mower plugs and #8 romex house wiring for spark plug wires, I wouldn't change it. IT WORKS. That being said, I am truly a proponent of LOP where it works. In fact, I lean the O-200 in my J-3 LOP almost all the time because if I don't it will start screwing up valves within hours because of the high lead content of aviation fuel. (Low octane is complete bull shit, it ain't so). Again, though thanks for the input. In fact, I'm probably going to go back and read all your posts. Truly good info. Jgreen

Byron, When I have tried LOP in the Bravo, there is an incredibly fine line between getting my richest cylinder at least 50 degrees past peak and a rough running engine as well as the point where the power falls off the table. I've recorded the "peaks" spread, talked to AP and GAMI and they say it is well within tolerance. Also, my CHT's and EGT's seem to take quite a while to stabilize between each adjustment. In short, it is a tedious pain in the ass. I'm sitting there monkeying with mixture when I need to be flying the airplane. 10% fuel savings? Not a chance! I don't want to seem pompous, I am not, but that is such a minor fraction of the cost of flying my Bravo that I won't give it a second thought. As I said in my previous post, once you are well within the operating parameters of the engine, I don't believe it makes any difference. I have read nothing or seen anything in the AP seminar that would make me think otherwise. To make a very simple comparison; If I take a four foot long piece of 10" steel H pile and start hitting it with a ball pean hammer, I would probably have to hit it for a hundred years to bend it. If I used a 22 oz. claw hammer, I would probably see no significant difference. A 2000# pile driver drop hammer, yea two drops. Now you might know where my life's experiences have centered. OK, at 50 LOP, I get lower cylinder pressures than at 100 ROP. So? At 75% power in my Bravo engine does it make ANY difference? Perhaps, but other than a comparison of relative pressures and the charts showing the incredible rise in pressures that detonation causes, I've seen nothing to indicate that a properly managed engine will ever be damaged by the cylinder pressures caused by 100 ROP. I'm all for LOP when it works and when it shows reasonable returns for the effort. At this point, I don't think that applies to my engine. If there is anyone out there who is getting good, predictable results on the TSIO-540, I would love to hear about it. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but I'm not exactly a virgin to pilotage or engine management of any kind. Not arguing, not saying that what you or Scott say is incorrect; it isn't. I'm just saying that LOP isn't quite the all circumstance magical formula some profess it to be. I will be quite happy to be proven wrong and that I can somehow SIGNIFICANTLY improve the efficiency and durability of the Bravo engine in any measurable way; opinions aside. Jgreen

Scott, Again, I just don't see much room for us to disagree. I suppose if LOP worked on my Bravo, I would use it. I've tried it, multiple times, played with different approaches and it simply does nothing. As for APS and GAMI, neither has to be sold to me. I would not consider having an airplane without GAMI's whether I wanted to use LOP or not. Now, if you really want to peak my interest, tell me why LOP works so well on a TN Continental and not worth a flip on a turbo Lycoming. I will repeat my experience briefly. LOP can be used on the Bravo, but the fall off in airspeed matches the fall off in fuel burn, maybe more and little difference in EGT's or CHT's. Jgreen

Scott, I intentionally did not mention pressures as the discussion was getting pretty complicated already. I don't necessarily disagree or agree with your point on internal pressures for the following rational. The engine is designed to run within a range of temps and pressures. Without getting into the actual pressures that are acceptable (largely because I don't have the techinical expertise to define or discuss them) if you are operating your engine within conservative parameters, I doubt seriously that it makes any difference. Using temps as an example, you can operate the Bravo engine at over 400 CHT and be well within its operating "limits". Mine operates at 330 and less. Does that necessarily mean that 320 or 290 is "better" or that the engine will last longer at those lower temps? There are all kinds of wear taking place in the engine not related to cylinder temps or pressures that will require a TBO of 2,000 hours so if operating at 280 would indeed give you a 3,000 hour cylinder (which I doubt) what would be the point? I'm certainly not disparaging anything you said and frankly, I may be wrong. I will say that I think you can take this LOP business to extremes. Well managed and maintained engines have been running TBO and longer way before anyone ever came up with the LOP concept. I respect the guys at AP seminars, but I know that they make their living selling seminars and making a "critical" issue of every aspect of engine operation and tying that to a need for LOP is good for business. I took the online course, and felt I got my money's worth. That being said, I'm not going to get my diapers in a wad over every fractional tidbit of temps or combustion pressure that can be measured. My engine just had a 6 month (semi-annual annual) compression check and all were 78 and 79 or 80. Something is working quite well. Jgreen

Richard, I've been really busy lately and not spending much time on Mooneyspace. I did not read all these posts quickly so I may repeat some things that have been said. Still, here are a few brief comments. 1. The Bravo POH is very complete with endurance, speed, and other charts, and I find it to be very accurate. It will show that you get extra speed with altitude but very little additional range. 2. I have taken the AP course and have this to say on LOP. First, the only issue with where you run your engine from a durability standpoint is temperatures. I have very good baffling, which is the key I think. I simply don't have any problems with CHT's which raretly go over 330 at any setting. 3. I have GAMI's and still LOP is a waste of time on my engine. The lower fuel burns are matched with lower speeds. Flying my engine LOP is a pain in the ass. 4. I use three settings for cruise 2400/30" and 2200/30", 2200/28". I lean to 1650TIT or peak, which may come first at the lower settings. At 2200'28" @ 15,000 I get 185 knots at 14-14.5 gallons depending on temp. My CHT's will barely break 300 at that setting. So, how do I improve on that? 5. If I'm low and battling a head wind, I use the 2400/30 and still lean to 1650. Again, in my dumb ass opinion, LOP or ROP makes little difference if you have acceptable temps. Jgreen

I wish that I could find solace in the optimism of Allsmiles. I find none. I will repeat myself, and then, probably repeat again. I expressed my concern to MAPA by Letter To The Editor of the looming issue of parts and was met with nothing up unbridled and unjustified optimism about the future of MAC. Truth is, it is rare that things "get better" by themselves. Mooney owners need an organization that is concerned about keeping Mooneys flying, not one that is little more than an old men's club whose idea of planning is the location for the next ice cream social. That organization will not come from MAPA or the defunct MOA. It must have as its genesis some one or some group with a business organization structure that can efficiently function and a profit motive as the impetus. My wife, who is herself a very astute business oriented individual, gave me her unbridled permission to sell the Bravo the minute that MAC shut down production. It is another time when I regret not following her advice. Mooney owners, are, in my opinion, "whistling past the graveyard." We have a growing problem, and, to date, little concrete evidence of improvement. I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong. I just haven't seeen any reason for optimism. Jgreen

Brett, The offer is real. Jgreen

Brett, And that, my friend, is what it is all about. I can remember standing in my back yard when I was four years old, waving at the National Guard Bird Dog that was circling above and waving madly at the pilot. They waved back and I knew that someday, I would be there. Stop by Mississippi some day and I'll put you in the pilot's seat and we'll open both windows (Stc modification), let the wind blow around us, and just be glad that we are there. Be safe, Jgreen