schule

The cold air adjustments are not to be taken lightly. On a local check out in the frozen north my instructor purposefully allowed a practice approach without adjustment on a cold day. Things attached to the ground can be really close due to altimeter error. Although this NOTAM and AIM talks to approaches, be careful on enroute segments near the MEA as the same science applies. I have witnessed a level off at a known MEA around 7500' above the altimeter reporting station where I was much lower than 1000' AGL expected. Cumliogranite looks really big when the clouds part 300' AGL and you are expecting a minimum of 1000'.............

25 years of GA time averaging 21 hrs/yr in GA. Since starting to fly a Mooney I have averaged 82 hrs/yr. Since owning a Mooney I have averaged 120 hrs/yr. Owning a Mooney is good for the soul.

I had a similar altitude hunt issue with a King AP. It ended up being solved by a pitch servo rebuild. AP Central sent it out to a shop in the Dakotas to fix 30+ years of wear and corrosion. It was effectively hanging up do to corrosion and then over loading trying to move. It created some very creative pitch oscillations. Again, different system with a similar problem.

Maybe the best Mooney ABS system is proficiency. I've been into 1600' gravel strips and the portion of the event which braking is required is quite small compared to the approach and go around decision points. Landing on speed at an appropriate point on a long enough strip of runway is very important and usually less limiting than the take-off distance required for the low power Mooney fleet. Current POH shows a 960' landing ground roll vs 1000' T/O ground roll. Reduced friction surfaces could be a place to market and ABS, but I have seen ABS just continue to cycle on ice without actually bringing and aircraft or car to a stop until dry pavement was found. It could also make a difference at a rotation speed abort or emergency parking lot landing. $0 value to me over the current system.

Some really good advice here. Good research and look to protect yourself from the financial burden of issues which cost $$$$$. I have bought a couple Mooneys through AAA. Great experience. Traveled from AK for both to deal with Jimmy/David. They demanded a PPI for protection of both parties. Good luck.

I am thankful future generations will have a chance to get some hands on history lessons in aviation. Steam gauges are great if the operator knows how to keep from falling a sleep looking into monotony. Therefore HAL 9000 will save us from our bad habits.

When you, for example, set 11.5 gph and 30 MP at a particular LOP setting and then increase MP 34" does the FF increase? If so then HP has increased. Or does the FF stay the same and airspeed goes up? If FF is increasing faster than air mass the LOP setting is changing and HP may have increased. There are a plethora of variables affecting LOP operations. In a 100LL SI engine peak is right around 12.7 FA ratio. More air and/or less fuel from there will move you more LOP. Less air and/or more fuel will move you ROP. A turbo recovers energy from the exhaust air mass to generate air pressure used to generate exhaust air mass. ICP greatly effects the energy of the exhaust pressure wave. LOP in a turbo makes this a very delicate proposition to keep the turbo up to speed and thereby generating enough boost. FF can be used LOP to estimate HP, but only at an all is equal point LOP because Fuel it the limiting component. Because, as you move more and more LOP the actual flame front characteristic changes. Too LOP and the flame cannot ignite.....e.g idle cut-off. As you move from Peak EGT=fastest possible flame front, to LOP the flame front slows and peak ICP moves beyond its optimum design point and reducing HP even if MP and FF appear to be the same. Aircraft SI engines are designed to create peak ICP at a specific point beyond TDC. Mag timing is set unless you have an electronic ignition. Very little change in that ICP timing occurs at any given FF ROP or Peak, but LOP it rapidly slows to a point where HP is quickly reduced even if FF looks the same. FF is only one indicator of FA ratios. FA ratio matters. You can estimate air mass with MP and RPM, and the FA ratio by seeing how FF effects EGT. Also don't forget OAT, IAS (Ram Pressure), and Altimeter settings also effect air mass approaching the air filter.

Also high altitude use can cause issues for mags. Otherwise Part 91 on condition unless regs or ADs drive otherwise.

PM sent

Jlunseth has a very good point. It all depends on everything else, but you can get real close using the big pull to a known FF. However you must test you LOP setting once there and see that MP, RPM, FF, CHT, CDT, EGTs, TIT, and Oil Temps are within safe limits and the FA mixture is outside the RED BOX. I don't trust or use the JPI lean find because the actual EGTs lag by 10-15 seconds and it usually results in exceeding my comfort level/POH limits to get through to LOP unless I am low altitude and very low power settings. This mandates a big pull to avoid cooking everything. Once LOP you can test if you are safely outside the RED BOX by adding in FF toward peak. I typically can not find peak due to TIT, but I am able to ensure I am at least 70-80 deg LOP (60-70% HP) and sometimes more to keep all temps safe. An unexpected added benefit of my 231 setup is a reduction from my cruise settings to approach setting of 2100 RPM, 25" MP is the FF drops to 6.5 without adjusting mixture and I arrive at a nice approach speed (120 KTAS) still LOP. At this power setting I am now 20-50 LOP and can easily get to 150 ROP going to 7.5 GPH if heavy weight or need a little more power to climb/fly faster. Drop the gear & 1/2 flaps approaching the FAF and reduce MP to 17-19 makes for a nice stabilized 3 deg 90 KIAS approach with minimal engine tinkering during a high workload critical phase of flight. Much like on a NA engine where many variables can cause MP changes the 231 is easy to fly and make changes if you keep the turbo happily up to speed.

The 25 squared thing is a carry over from Cessna flying. At any thing above 25 squared a Cessna actually flies fast enough to kill bugs with the windscreen and wing leading edge which makes a mess for flight schools that don't have time to learn better technique/science let alone clean off the bugs.

On our IO-360 A3B6 it was 18+ gph with the hottest EGT around 1225 at full rich. When leaned to the 1250 EGT method for climb it was mid-17s. I guess turbos like the lucky number of 13% FF to generate 210 HP.

Our 231 LB has a Merlyn and GAMIs, but no intercooler. I start the big pull at 28" and then add back in to around 30-31" with 2500-2550 RPM. FF between 9.5-10.8 gph. RPM, MP, and FF can be a limiting factor based upon altitude, TAS, and OAT. MP quickly affects TIT and CDT, RPM quickly affects CHT, and FF can affect all three simultaneously. It usually takes a bit of experimentation each flight to tweak MP and RPM to allow a LOP FF equal to good HP/TAS while keeping CHTs around 380, TIT between 1580-1630, and CDT below 280. MP and RPM determine a HP possibility based on FF relative to temp limits. More MP may help cool the TITs a bit, but in my LB it quickly causes CDT issues which should not be a problem with intercooler. I also find the airflow across the engine can make a 20 deg change in CDT and TIT. I can make small tweaks with cowl flaps or IAS. Warning. Your results may vary.

If you need the part LASAR most likely has it and they are great to work with.

Will all the crappy drone traffic on short final be required to be ADS-B compliant? Or is it too fashionable to worry about such detail? I wonder how many kids in NYC will get an RC drone gift for Christmas, and have no idea they are creating a hazard to real aviation.........

When the UK leaves the EU will the price drop?

Every flying/worthwhile life event has an element of danger....the key is identifying it and then trapping it with a set of well thought out back up plans. Operational Risk Management I believe it is called. Night flying definitely adds an element or two into the equation, but is not in itself a point of no return. Several have mentioned their mitigating techniques, but just like daytime flying you cannot eliminate it. Night flying also reduces some of the risks associated with daytime flying. Unless someone is violating FARs it is much easier to see traffic, and there is less of it to hit in the big sky theory. The sleeping cow does create a unique risk. At the end of the day risk is a personal choice unless you have passengers and that itself adds significantly to the ORM. An argument can be made that flying a Mooney at night over the mountains is safer than living in California, flying the Fighting Falcon, or flying your Mooney ROP.....or is it LOP, ah I can't remember which one is better maybe I will just compromise an fly at peak........; if you plan it well enough and have exit ramps available. Fly safe is an attitude based on experiences of dumb decisions we lived through, experiences we lived through because of good prior planning with the proficiency to make it happen, and knowing when not to continue to press forward. Fly safe ya'll.

Also, it might be nice to make the trip in the airplane to whom ever you use to see how she flies/test all the buttons. Based on personal experience, some very expensive pre-existing avionics issues are not easy to identify without actual flight time in the aeroplane.

If Maxwell has done the last several annuals it might not be a bad idea to get a second opinion from a different set of eyes. Maxwell is one of the top, but not the only MSC in TX. Has anyone worked with the guy who bought out Dugosh in Kerrville? TX has a lot of options....maybe more Mooneys per capita than any other state. Welcome to turbo Mooney club.

Happy Thanksgiving to all here. I hope you all have something special enough to be thankful for this next year.

Pretty certain none of the causes of death were "minuscule" to the person dying.

My wife drove our transition from N/A without O2 to a turbo with O2 because she hates the chop caused by summer heating. It is also great to quickly get above the scud layers hanging around normal N/A altitudes. Highly recommend an altitude chamber ride if you plan to go high. Don't forget to give a couple of days after any Key West scuba before flying home regardless of the model you decide on. Good luck with the search.

In our 231 LB engine, 17K' with LOP at approx 10 gph, I see around 1625 TIT and 380 CHTs. I have a Merlyn and GAMIs, but no intercooler. Turbo speed seems to make a big difference as CDT goes up. Low altitude around 12K' the TIT, CDT, and CHTs are down 10% with similar FF and LOP settings. I am looking forward to cooler temps up high as the available power/speed goes up without busting the 1650 TIT limit or 280 CDT limit.

+1 for All American. I have bought both my Mooneys through them. An original N/A and then turbo. Right now they have a well equipped 1985 J and a couple of 252s along with a flavor of all the rest. Airplanes move when the right buyer finds what they want and the banker tells them they can afford it.......so even good planes may be on the market for a while. Good luck!

For Mooney experience; I have flown around 50 hrs in a C, 150 hrs in a highly modified F, and around 150 hrs in a 231. I have flown from the 4 corners of America with about 1/2 my Mooney time getting to/from/around Alaska. All three models have been a great experience. Each has its virtues based on your tastes. Your mission and operations budget to ensure safe/current training are most critical for you to define as George mentioned. I like a turbo for flat land flying to get above/around low altitude scud and turbulence. Plus there is very little traffic from 12K-24K. All three are capable of flying west coast missions, they just do it a bit differently. A C model is lethargic above 8K density altitude, a N/A F or J will struggle above 14K DA, and the K has to go high to make it pay off. The C I flew got around 135 kts on 8 gph, the F got 145 kts on 8.5 gph, and the K gets 165-170 kts on 9.5-10 gph. Ice and IFR weather make your risk tolerance and training more of a consideration than the actual terrain as there are routes open to all three airframes. I started cautiously and spent a lot of of "new to me" airplane annual costs moving between models. The cost of operations far exceeds the cost of purchase. Gross order of magnitude total operations estimates of 3-4x fuel cost have been close. Do not forget to budget for 10% of purchase price to fix delayed maintenance on the first annual. Good luck in your search! It has been worth the cost for me.