exM20K

You beat me to it! 50-60 gallons offers a lot of range. I've never been a fan of "Useful Load with Full Fuel " as a meaningful performance metric except when assessing long-distance ferry flights. I have found that with more than two adults and bags, landing fuel must be considered carefully especially with this particular configuration. M20TN MTOW=3368 M20TN MLW = 3200

yeah, there might be a few use cases where one small individual needs to fly really far, but that's a small market. As I work through loading on mine, it really is the landing weight that is the constraint most often. My understanding is that it's mostly a landing gear / drop test limitation, and if Mooney were to invest in new landing gear design, I'm confident that they'd sell a bunch more. MTOW Vso is well below the current 61KCAS maximum (currently 59), and when Cirrus went to the increased max gross weight, they got the Vso up to something like 64KCAS with a seat and chute redesign. It's probably not helpful for safety, but it sure is for utility. And if they could make it retrofittable, they could find willing buyers for this max gross weight increase among M20R and TN owners - maybe as much as 10% of airframe value?

Regarding Vref, and I state this as one of the largest-volume Diamond dealers for almost a decade, The dealer (more robust) version is usable principally as a checkbox for loan approvals. The valuations are naive. I do not know of a significant player in the Diamond dealer community that reports transactions to the company, and the valuation changes appear to be formulaic, not based on actual transactions. Moreover, the equipment valuation adjustments are incomplete or missing eg:FIKI vs STC TKS. They are different. There also is no consideration for how equipment plays together on a particular plane. I do not believe there are many FIKI / AC Acclaims out there, and that's for a good reason: useful load. Lastly, there simply are not very many good airplanes (diamond or mooney) for sale; nearly every Diamond I sold last year was sold privately - not on controller, and that's how I bought my acclaim in 2016. The best you can do as a buyer is to evaluate individual airplanes against each other and make what you believe are reasonable bids for the one you perceive best fits your mission and budget. The supply situation may loosen up in the near future since recapture is no longer such an issue on used aircraft trade-ups. With 100% expensing for business use aircraft, recapture on a sold aircraft is immediately offset by expensing on a more expensive trade-up plane. On paper, and without the benefit of looking for scary stuff in the logbooks, N79333 appears to me to be underpriced at $395,000. If you can live with the useful load and subject to a careful inspection, it would be a good choice, and I don't expect it would stay on the market for long.

Haven't tried LOP climb - might, but enjoying the big climb rate at full power. Did get to fly a TBM930 with a friend today - super impressive aircraft and short field capable. Now... to work out the CAPEX and the fuel situation.... Garmin NXi is mostly intuitive for me with thousands of G1000 hours. For someone coming from the new Garmin 650 / 750 panel mounts, it would probably be more so. -dan

I'm going to disagree with you on that point. I'm an APS acolyte, having drunk from the LOP cup many years ago when I owned a 231. If they are correct, then detonation is the primary operating wear factor. Full rich, high RPM, provided that the fuel flow is set properly, offers huge detonation margins. Further, they will tell you that "pulling it back" to a cruise climb power settings typically yields higher CHT's and internal cylinder pressures. Ditto 50* ROP, which is Mooney's recommended Best Power setting. Most continentals will require a mid-life top overhaul. You just bake that into the financial cake, and if yours doesn't: bonus! Go buy a bass boat. Mine made it to 850, though there was some early valve work by CMI. Since I've owned the plane for only 150 hours, I don't know much about how it was operated for most of its life. However, I plan to keep this plane (PA46 is too slow in climb and too big for what I have in my hangar), and the tuned induction TSIO550 runs beautifully as lean as you'd like. Interestingly, my top overhaul was done because of high oil consumption turns out the engine must have sat somewhere wet, as all six jugs were corroded Thankfully, the corrosion was limited to cylinders, and they were reusable. When we had it apart, the shop noticed wrist pins out of spec, and the con rod bushings had been pounded out of shape too. I'm glad we did the top. If I do overhaul at TBO 2200, and between now and then, it will be run 60-100* LOP and probably full power climb. I'll have a single datapoint to support or not th APS way -dan

Once we finally got the ff set up correctly, full rich get was unremarkably low. I'd have to pull the flight data to put a number on it. I flew in circles because my wanted to stay near the field while doing the first hour or two on the cylinders. This was a fairly extensive overhaul that took three attempts to get right (they said it was done, but it wasn't. ) will i I climb it this way all the time? I dunno. I'll talk to Walter and John at APS. From a wear and tear perspective, it's probably minimal. The engine runs at 2700 on the Cessna TTX and SR22T just fine. Mostly I did it to shorten summertime takeoff runs at our little 2500' strip. Mission accomplished on that matter. -Dan

wound up with a JPI Mini under the prop control. I'll post up a picture when I get back to the hangar. The verdict on 310HP: Totally Awesome. At approx 3100#, I was able to sustain 1700-2300 FPM @ 120 KIAS all the way to 16,000.

A couple of us at the Diamond booth bought these @ OSH in 2016. Shockingly, as of OSH2017, none of us had lost, sat on, or otherwise ruined these very expensive glasses. The manufacturer came by with a tool to measure the wavelengths of the light penetrating the canopy, and obviously they'd thought a great deal about this. They are really excellent sunglasses. Survey size of three gives three thumbs up. -dan

Thanks, Dan. Rosen sent me this from an Ovation (99 model). I think i'll give it a whirl but keep the protective plastic on just in case.

A non-Mooney-sized service person broke my pilot side visor. I find both the visor and the power chart useless, so rather than replace with an expensive Mooney part, I'm considring an expensive after-market Rosen system. I did search the archives, and can't find the answers to these questions: Do the Rosen visors cover the overhead lighting switches? Do the visors interfere with the cabin door? Does their size/bulk impinge on interior space? Any pictures of a G1000/DX installation available? None found via google image search. Thanks in advance. -dan

True. Also, the horizontal stabilizer is the last surface to wet (and the first to accumulate ice). I'd fly around with the system blasting away on high for at least a full tank or until the panel got wet. It can take some time.

Ditto the TSIO 550 G. 80* LOP is what I generally run.

It's in the chart I copied: 34"

You usethe same dull pencil as I do for assessing TCO! Reality includes $50-60 for engine reserve, something for props, brakes, etc, but you're probably not too far off the rental piston single price. -dan

ok - but these are not the same engine. Attached is a screen shot of the the operator manual. 210# is 36GPH, and that is the high limit

280HP runs 30.5GPH in the TSIO550 / M20TN. I haven't flown with the 310HP yet, and I don't have the POH supplement with me, but I believe it's set up for 33 or 34 -36 GPH at full power.

For sure. That's part of the STC. Sadly, there's no free lunch available: more HP=more fuel.

I didn't want to clog up the Springfield, OH off-field landing thread with this, and I think it's an important topic. I climb at full power in the Acclaim, and as an APS attendee and reader of the engine manual, I'm convinced that there is no additional engine wear or increased likelihood of catastrophic failure from climbing at full power. Higher detonation margins and better cooling at full power are undeniably "good" for the engine. What there is: increased safety. This incident has been widely written about, and it's a testament to the pilot's airmanship and the importance of climbing at a rate > engine out sink rate. The prop departed a Malibu on climbout from Aspen. It doesn't get much worse than that except for maybe being IMC instead of visual. This pilot was able to maintain control at best glide and return to Aspen. Amazing. My Acclaim is just now getting the 310HP STC, and even with only a puny 280HP, this plane will climb, at typical weights, at 1200-1400 FPM. Class B restrictions notwithstanding, I can well out-climb my glide, meaning passing a safe altitude for the impossible turn happens very quickly. To me, this is a really important safety of flight feature and well worth a couple AMU's to bump the power and climb rate. -dan

before you replace it, try whacking it a few times with a rubber mallet. The old-style pumps had a habit of seizing after a summer's disuse. You may be able to free it. -dan

news reports: http://www.whio.com/news/local/plane-lands-field-near-springfield-beckley-airport-osp-scene/uBTSIS1FeTV8pj1QTDPq1L/ Photo looks like gear down - hopefully it's a non-event.

The TKS panels really save the paint on a Mooney. Many M20's flown in the rain at high TAS frequently will have the paint eroded from the leading edge of the wings. It looks terrible and is not easy to patch. The TKS panel completely cures this cosmetic mess.

My guess would be that it fell off and you have no piston problems, but I'd want to know for sure. Compression test is useless. The shop should have or be able to borrow an oil cap fitted with an airspeed indicator. Refill the oil and run it up with this cap in place. It's the best way to know for sure if you've got a pressurized crankcase problem.. there's a CMI S/B that talks to this diagnosis. Your a&p should be familiar. Good lick

Meh: you can fly an ovation at "C" model fuel flows if you so choose. 55% is 10.2GPH for 170 KTAS at 10,000 according to the book. That's about 50 gallons with reserves for your hypothetical trip. The long bodies offer more room and more options for how fast/far you want to fly. -dan

There is an excellent knowledge course in the wings program advanced phase 1 IIRC. https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/CourseLanding.aspx?cId=33 -dan

GFC700 and G1000/WAAS and FIKI are the reasons I bought an acclaim in stead of Bravo. You're looking at it right - or at least the same as I did :-)