231LV

hmmm....something not making sense....the 1980 model year was a 231 with the TSIO-360-GB engine. The 252 wasn't built until 1986 and had the TSIO-360-MB engine. My suggestion is you figure out what is going on....the price point is a 231, not a 252.

Lots of thread time devoted to this...possible only if your current serial number falls within a specified set

I'm sure he does

Yes it does BUT the valve doesn't pop until the engine is in the overboost zone...the engine can tolerate momentary mild overboosting but the deeper into overboost you go, the more likelihood of a head separation. Like flutter, overboost can have catastrophic consequences very quickly. The original GB engine with the fixed waste gate also had a pop off valve and still suffered a head separation in the early years according to the engine log books.

OK for those who are interested, M20Doc saved the day. I sent this info to my mechanic and he confirmed my serial number is among those authorized through an FAA/ PMA cable MacFarland can make so BINGO, new cable ordered for $708.00! My mechanic now feels comfortable installing it so we are golden.

well, I am flying the TSIO-360 so its really not apples to apples but I can tell you on a relative basis, the final cost of overhaul (Ly-Con Engine rebuilders) equaled a factory reman so hope for the low end but plan on the high end...

According to my mechanic, it requires a 337 since it is a field modification and FSDO's are not granting them anymore. There is approval for non-231's (J's and earlier with the Lycoming engines) and for the MB-engined 231's built from 1987 on but there is a gap for the 79-86 231's. This is the information I have and I am hoping I am wrong and someone with the correct information can straighten me out.

It was LASAR that said the vernier throttle cables are only for the 1987 231 models and newer but thanks for the suggestion...maybe Don will chime in...

My mechanic has searched high and low for a vernier throttle cable for my 1980 231. At engine overhaul when I upgraded the GB to an LB, I also put a Merlin Black Magic wastegate in. Anyone who has flown the merlin knows it is not an automatic wastegate like the MB engined K models and requires a delicate touch to avoid overboosting the engine. Hence, a vernier throttle would make management of a Merlin wastegate equipped TSIO 360 LB a lot easier. My mechanic discovered that the only vernier throttled 231 is the "newer" MB-engined 231's from 1987 on. I have a 1980 231. As I understand it, the old Modworks out of FL had an STC for a vernier throttle cable in their 262 upgrades. Of course, they went out of business and the owners disappeared after a hurricane destroyed the hangar and the planes that they ran their business out of. Apparently, nobody has ever found the lost STC's for the 262 mods. 337 field approvals are nearly impossible to secure anymore as FAA attorneys have advised FSDO's that every time an individual puts his/her name to a 337, they are effectively granting an STC with all the liability that follows. So, I am facing a situation where McFarland will make a vernier throttle (owner assisted) for 1AMU but I have no legal way to install it without a 337. The only STC that existed for early 231's to have a vernier throttle installed is lost. I guess I continue to fly my LB engined Merlin-equipped without a vernier throttle and occasionally overboost it since it is so easy to do...especially during a takeoff run when heavily loaded....unless my facts are wrong and somebody knows something I don't know...

thanks much! The layout took about 4 months working with Alicia at Scheme Designers. The design kind of evolved but we did want the checkerboard and bird head design to be incorporated. We used Master Aviation Services in Wickenberg AZ for the actual painting and they were very good.

nope

White is non-metalic...didn't reweigh as the weight was negligible according to the paint shop but we were told Matterhorn White is lighter than Cloud White and with the narrow balance envelope, apparently, that is a factor.

yes and yes

Charcoal Grey Metallic, Imperial Red metallic, Velvet Black metallic, Gold Metallic and the white is Cloud White....apparently, it is heavier than Matterhorn White which is what the shop will recommend to all future Mooney paint jobs.

I took the plane into the paint shop on Aug 1st and got it back today....It turned out beautifully but there were some hoops to jump through....let me first say that Scheme Designers was outstanding to work with. Highly recommended. The paint shop, Master Aircraft Services in Wickenburg, AZ, did the incredible paint job but we all learned some lessons. The Mooney control surfaces are engineered (according to the factory) to a fine balance and the planes leave the factory with a light coat of white paint on them (control surfaces). The original scheme had color on all the control surfaces. Only the elevators were not able to be balanced with these colors and required a revised scheme for the horizontal tail and elevators.

There is a hefty margin built into the boost margin BUT that doesn't mean you should routinely run a high boost. The intercooler calls for a reduction of 1 inch of boost for every ten degrees of temperature reduction. Typically, I see a 30 degree reduction in intercooler temp which translates into 3 inches reduction or no more than 37 inches of total boost. As I understand it, the boost can actually be run up to 50 inches in a test environment but my log book has an early entry of a "head separation" presumably due to an overboost so I take overboosting seriously.

Agree with Carusoam regarding data and info provided. I have the TurboPlus intercooler on my K. With it, over boosting can become a very real risk so watch your boost pressure carefully.

I have a JPI and monitored all temps...hottest was 340 and TIT was 1390....engine won't be harmed with those temps...just burned lots of gas

wasn't quite full throttle...95%....MP was 32.7 inches

Although I have owned my 231 for nearly 20 years, I almost always ran it LOP except during takeoff and climb where it was full forward on everything. Recently, I decided to start experimenting with the performance envelope. What I have discovered is the 231 is a pretty fast airplane even down low. On a flight earlier today in no wind conditions, I decided to see how fast I could push the plane. At 8500 ft and full tanks ( I had just fueled) with myself as the only passenger, I recorded the following; prop set at 2500 RPM, 95% power, full rich and cowl flaps closed, a 21.6 GPH burn yielded 177 knots in level flight. My TIT stabilized around 1390 and my hottest cylinder was 341. I'm wondering how this compares with other 231's? Oh, it has a Merlyn and an intercooler

Absolutely gorgeous airplane!

Thank you for the detailed info....this is what I was looking for to help make a "go/no go" decision. I really appreciate your post

Well, the Experimentals offer new technology, new materials and new designs. Many are faster than our beloved Mooneys and offer some pretty stunning designs. The materials allow remarkable shaping for better aerodynamics, lighter structure and much less costly maintenance. You are right about insurance, however. Getting it for an Experimental like a Lancair is impossible. I never buy a plane with borrowed money but I do have assets which I would like to protect including the airplane. Once I hit 70, I will have to assess the risk management....but back to Rockets...what is a typical UL?

ummm...only thinking about selling my 231 and buying a Rocket...nothing more...regarding an experimental, there are some really nice ones with great track records but La Patrona is opposed to flying something "someone built in their garage"....or something similar to that...she still may not go for the "swap" of our 231 to a Rocket...she kind of likes the 231 and we just did a new interior and a schedule for a new paint job but it still has a "franken panel" with some glass and some steam gauges....I would like to get an idea of the typical useful load on the Rocket...my 231 us about 900 lbs of UL..a bit on the light side.....certainly trying to carry 4 people, that is...

I need to correct my response...that WAS a Rocket assuming the conversion went to the big engine.