exM20K

https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/small-plane-crashes-on-a-street-in-carrollton/ looks like the fire is responsible for the skins. Is the oil access door in the right place for a rocket?

The filed airspeeds in the flightaware history look more 231-like than Rocket. Glad to read responders reported non-life-threatening injuries. -dan

They do very nice work. My Acclaim is on their website. Third model I e bought from them https://www.factorydirectmodels.com/gallery-details/7970-mooney-m20tn-model-airplane/

I believe the CMI Factory overhaul includes all accessories, drives, turbos, and exhausts. Quotes for field overhauls may not. in this environment, I’d be more concerned with down time than 10AMU, and I doubt the delta, apples to apples, is that much. Now, if you o/h the turbos and put a new exhaust on 100 hours ago, that’s a different calculation. I wouldn’t murder a working engine because of the time on the tach. -dan (1450 TT and fingers crossed)

Not for me. The excess power is for takeoff and climb. Power is great for that and not so great for going fast. I think the STC and governor work was something like $4.5 AMU’S. Bargain. you could fly around at 2700 and 80% power ROP, but why? For another 10-15 KTAS? 5% speed gain. 25% more fuel. Nah. -dan

This. Mine is a 310HP TKS Type S. I have flown it 800 hours during my six year ownership. If you’re ok with a piston single, aren’t fat and don’t have fat or many PAX, can deal with the nose hose (O2D2 with flared cannula or beam installed make O2 much more comfortable) there really is nothing that can compare. PA46, while pressurized, climbs like a wounded duck. Various TN Bonanzas are significantly slower. twins other than AEST are slower and gas hogs. For @the acclaim Mario here are my numbers with this preamble: TKS costs 10KTAS where I fly, mostly 16,000 and 17,000. Full power climb 33.5 x 2700. 35GPH and an astounding 1200-1500. FPM climb rate at 130 KTAS all the way up. 16.5 +/- 0.2 fuel flow with last-to-peak cylinder 50* LOP. 16.5 * 13.5 = 226 HP, which is about 70% of 310. CHT’s are all below 335 unless it is really hot out. cruise is around 205 KTAS. can operate comfortably at MTOW/ MLW in and out of a 2550’ strip with practice. Mostly. There are days….. I have found the fuel system to be finicky, much more so than the induction or exhaust systems. Make sure your fuel setup metered and unmetered pressure at full power as well as unmetered pressure at idle are set up right. A high idle, or a unstable idle which impels you to keep a hair of power in will really stretch the landing distances. I do recommend the 310 HP STC. It transforms the takeoff and climb for very small money. hang on to your Acclaim. They’re not making any more, and there is nothing that compares if it fits your mission. -dan

But not for the Mooney. I reached out to them via website, went to OSH specifically to speak with them, reached out to the contact whose card the booth people gave me, and nothing. It's a pity, since the long body planes have two batteries for balance, and the Kelley Aerospace A/C goes in the back, it's conceivable that the weight penalty for adding both Lithium ion batteries and the A/c would be minimal. The hit to the wallet, not so much. Also at OSH, I asked Walter if he could speak w/ True Blue Power as this would be a mutually beneficial installation. Dunno if they ever connected. @Kelly Aerospace, any interest in doing this? I'd be in. -dan

Posting a copyright and password protected article on the forum is not a great thing to do.

assuming you had a good pre-buy and have no big show-stopper issues, maybe it would be best to do it locally and have a mooney expert like DMAX, Oasis, Air Mods, etc get you on the schedule for next year. Short staffed is pretty much the norm right now. Next year is unlikely to be worse. -dan

Ditto. At the Mooney Summit in, i guess, 2020, they brought it to ECP. What was remarkable to me was the spread of hypoxia symptoms among the group in the chamber. I was playing with yarn very quickly while others were doing differential equations. No particular correlation with age/fitness was evident. eye opening for sure -dan

Yes - meant I'm reminded of CDK, which is on the bucket list for me. Carrabelle is a weird place now: tons of boats, but very little commercial activity. There was not a restaurant open earlier this year when we drove over there for lunch. Google says there are active restaurants there now, so maybe we need to try again. Panacea sounds great, but the strip is probably insufficient for the porky TN. Apalachicola has some great dining options and a fantastic fish market. It's worth at least a day trip, but the transportation options are probably limited to rental cars at KAAF. It's hard to imagine what you describe still existing in the panhandle. Outside of the Big Bend / Forgotten Coast region, most everything is developed or military.

Cedar Key. (KCDK). Supposed to be a really cool spot. Never been.

Comparable, how? AS with aircraft ownership, use cases differ, and some are more suitable than others for particular use cases. Same car, different drive train, and the EV is heavier. Substantially so because the EV powertrain adds weight. I responded to your question of "How can anyone seriously think an EV that travels over 250 miles on 50KW of electricity doesn’t pollute less than an ICE vehicle that burns 10 gallons of gasoline or Diesel to do the same?" By asking if your definition of pollution isn't a bit narrow, and a broader look at "pollution" casts doubt for me on the "pollution" mitigation possibilities of current EV's. YMMV.

Apples vs potatoes. Real world example… F150 Lightning is 1600# heavier than ICE version Mustang Mach E is approx 1000# heavier than ICE versions.

It won’t hurt the power plant, but the prop may pick up more pebbles and twigs. Fewer, though, than would hit the prop if you don’t clear the trees at the end. there is a bit of lag, mechanical and pilot-induced, to attaining full power, so holding the brakes and running up full-ish power does make a difference. Try it both ways and report back. -dan

Cars are scrapped about every 15 years, and thing break. Technology improves and obsoletes old tech. Maybe the right number is 20 years. Who knows? It’s not zero. Do you disagree that pollution is broader than emissions per mile or just being pedantic? -dan

Define pollution. The majority of automobile pollution is tire “dust.” EV’s are typically heavier than comparable ICE autos, and tire wear is a function of vehicle weight. Maybe an EV has marginally less break pad wear, but it’s not even a rounding error. The petroleum exploration production, refining, and distribution system is mature, safe, regulated, and clean. The same cannot be said of the metals-for-batteries producers. 276 million cars in the US. If batteries are discarded every 10 years, how and where will 27.6 million batteries be disposed of safely every year? I am not hating on EV’s. But the pollution, efficiency, and economic impacts of a mass changeover are not as simple as $ per mile or fuel-at-the-end of the production cycle pollution per mile -dan

I think I understand what you’re trying to do: LOP, power is a function of fuel flow only(ish), so is there efficiency to be gained by spinning stuff slower. Do I have that about right? I choose to target lower TIT and acceptably smooth operation. I flew my 231 the same way I do the acclaim: set power, lean to richest cylinder is 50* LOP, then add back throttle for the desired fuel flow. I run 2400 rather than 2500 because it gives me much lower TIT, which I believe to be a result of fewer combustion events per unit of time. Lower RPM advances the timing a bit, so setting aside friction losses, higher rpm at the same fuel flow should produce more power. But at the end of the day, it just doesn’t make a big difference in fuel burn when choosing what setting for a given fuel flow LOP. I choose lower TIT vs smooth operating when I select 2400 vs 2500 rpm. A good dynamic balance will cure the vibes pretty well, and maybe my exhaust system lasts a bit longer at 2400. @carusoam speed and efficiency are for sure not mutually exclusive. My 90% trip is about 750 NM. 16.5 GPH LOP is easy. 21GPH ROP, even with the extra 10-15 knots, is cutting it pretty close. Fuel stops suck, which is part of the reason a low end turboprop is unsuitable for my trip. -dan

I don’t see an actual stall anywhere in this procedure. It is worthwhile to put the plane in landing configuration and take it to a stall or incipient stall to see what *your* plane’s IAS is. @K.Kammer told me once the weight/CG that the test pilots use is, 3000 and 46” IIRC. Mine, with TKS, was right on the book number, but I’ve owned planes with airspeed indicators that were significantly off. -dan

Great early call on the adverse weather, Scott. This is very interesting stuff. -dan

Looks like Tesla might be buying a Cirrus Jet soon.

I like them, but they are a bit big to maneuver around in the cockpit of the Mooney. They are definitely an improvement over the stock visors. It would also be a better product if Rosen would round off the corners of the bracket where the arm attaches to the visor. It has a tendency to cut into the headliner leather covering. I keep meaning to grind mine down.... but me, the dremel, and the plane never seem to be in the same place and time together. Don's are probably better-suited to our cockpits. -dan

If Rosen cuts the size down by 30% or so, they will have a better product for Mooneys -dan

Not correct. Garmin supports the many thousands of G1000 -equipped planes in the fleet. I recently had an MFD replaced under warranty in one day. G1000and GFC700 is all I’ve flown for the last 14 years, and it is an excellent combination that lacks nothing I’d spend big money on. -dan

+1 for Hot Springs. We stayed at https://lookoutpointinn.com/ and it was superb. Good eats nearby. Wife had to check Arkansas off her list, too. -dan