Z W

Thank you for the suggestions on the fuel pump setup. Will look into that. We have a G500Txi with engine logging and a Savvy account. I can post whatever might be helpful. The first A&P who did the annual had all the proper Continental books/tools and seemed to know what he was doing. His departure in the middle of the problem has made things challenging. Apparently several planes were left in various states of stuck on the ground, ours being one of them. We were confused why everything was taking so long and nobody was responding, then found out he was leaving. New A&P is walking into a bit of a mess and has his hands full. Shop owner is great and responsive, not mad about anything, just hoping to find some help here to get our bird back in the air. Most recent log of MAP/FF demonstrating the problem. This was before the fuel pump was replaced:

Injectors were checked with the fuel lines. All supposed to be OK. Good thought though.

Hello friends, I could use some help from the braintrust. Plane has been in the shop essentially since annual in June. 1982 M20K 231 with the "262" conversion, so a TSIO-360-MB1 engine with fully automatic wastegate. Facts go like this: Plane goes into annual operating fine. Two cylinders (#3 and #5) showed low compressions. A&P recommended and we tried lapping the valves in place. Also did some tank re-sealing work. Annual completed and signed off. Valve lapping worked on the #5 cylinder, but first flights post-annual had abnormally high CHT's in the #3 cylinder. Could not keep it under 400 degrees at climb power, and the engine started to run rough as soon as we leaned it off of full rich. CHTs did decrease with reduced power. Other than those issues plane ran normally. Ordered a new #3 cylinder. After installation, CHTs were nice and cool and even. However, the engine will no longer make max power. It should produce 36" of MAP. Instead, it produced only 34" MAP on the first test flight. I did not notice that until I was already flying (shame on me), but came back around and landed no problem. Otherwise the plane ran normal. Since then the shop has been chasing this problem. Hooked up a shop vac to the intake to look for intake manifold leaks. Found some, replaced all old hoses, no change in MAP. Suspected fuel line contamination from the tank reseal job. Checked all lines, supposedly clear. Checked fuel pump. I was told it was not making proper pressures or flows. Just got a new one. The IA/A&P running this small shop left recently. We now have a new IA in charge. They are struggling with this. They put the new fuel pump on and supposedly it's set for pressures and flows (have not been down to double-check). He says today it will only make 2500 RPM and 32" MAP during runup. He said we probably need to go fly it to see if the engine makes full power while moving. I told him this engine always makes full power standing on the brakes. In fact, it will sometimes overboost to 38" or so MAP, then the wastegate will open and it settles at 36". He was going to go try a high-speed taxi test this afternoon to see if it will make full power on the runway. I do not think it will. What else should we check? Plane has been down for four months at this point. Would appreciate any ideas as to how a changed cylinder can result in loss of MAP. I suspect something else was removed and reinstalled incorrectly but don't know where to look. Thanks in advance.

Yeah I would buy low-octane ethanol-free gas if anyone sold it around here. Premium is just the only option without ethanol near me.

I buy ethanol-free premium gas and add fuel stabilizer to it for everything that doesn't run every day. Boat, jet ski, snow blower, chainsaws, old jeep. Necessary these days and way cheaper than replacing fuel system parts. The ethanol-flavored stuff is sold with the idea that it will be used shortly after sale and can turn to green goo in carburetors and other fuel systems if it's not. Fuel lines and other components manufactured prior to somewhere around the year 2000 may not even be compatible with ethanol and can dissolve. In a 2004 bike I doubt you'll have that problem though. 100LL works too by the way. No stabilizer required. Supposedly can lead to lead deposits on your plugs and in small engines but I've never seen it.

Our K was very out-of-rig when we got it. Would drop a wing pretty badly to the right when you released the yoke. Handled poorly in slow flight, requiring big corrections. Yaw was a half-ball to the left in level cruise. Had it re-done by a Mooney specialist shop in Florida. They fixed the rigging on the gear doors, flaps, and ailerons. Now it flies beautifully hands-off, ball centered, no wing drop and nice and solid in slow flight. I'm told this job requires special rigging boards not found in most shops. There are other threads on it here. After that, we gained maybe 1-2 knots in cruise, if any. Worth it but not for the speed gain. I would check (and share here) your power settings. You're missing 10-15 knots somewhere, and I would find it hard to believe it's your rigging or prop. At 10k MSL, 28" MP, 2500 RPM, and 13.5 GPH, I see about 165 KTAS. If you're using similar settings, I would suspect your pitot-static system or airspeed indicator gauge. The old analog gauges are notorious for being inaccurate. Easy to check that with a 3-way GPS speed check (fly three different headings opposite more or less from each other at the same altitude and power settings, record your speed once the plane settles in, then calculate the average of the three to remove the wind factor). We gained 5kts of indicated airspeed moving from an old analogue ASI to a digital panel. Groundspeed stayed the same though, unfortunately. I've never read anything to make me want to switch from our Hartzell aluminum 2-blade prop. Good luck.

This thread is full of inaccurate statements about the law and some not-so-good advice. Source: I am an aviation and business lawyer, but not your lawyer. You should talk to a lawyer and likely a CPA of your own before proceeding in this fashion. Anyone considering a similar plan should do the same. The laws on sales tax, use tax, and piercing the corporate veil vary greatly from state to state. You cannot just Google this, or read about it on an internet forum. You get just enough half-truths to be dangerous, mixed in with a lot of inaccurate information. I'll give some big picture information below, but do not consider this as advice for your situation, because it is not. Purchasing someone's stock has implications for taxes. First, you inherit the company's depreciation schedule. If the plane is already 50% or 100% depreciated, you do not get the benefit of that for your purchase price, if you would otherwise be able to depreciate the aircraft. Second, it effects your tax basis, and that of the seller. They generally will pay capital gains (or losses) based on their basis in the stock compared to your purchase price, which is the lowest and best tax rate. A stock purchase favors the seller and punishes the buyer, tax-wise. If you sell the plane later, your corporation may have to re-pay some of the depreciation benefits the previous owner enjoyed and used to offset his or her income. So, you may pay $150k for the company, for example, and sell the plane (its sole asset) for the same $150k some years later, where you actually have no gain, but since the company previously fully depreciated the asset, you must repay some or all of that depreciation, and you owe taxes on the transaction to repay the depreciation the former owner enjoyed. On the plus side, purchasing stock is typically treated as the purchase of a security and is not taxable under sales or use tax, which applies to the purchase of assets. Your individual state laws may vary. Your company will however still have its liabilities. Unpaid maintenance bill for that last $10k annual? The company owes it, and now you own the company. A small risk in the context of a single airplane, but one to be considered. Piercing the corporate veil is usually much harder than people make it out to be, but again, it varies greatly from state to state. You never know what state you might crash in. It might help for claims of negligent maintenance or entrustment (letting someone unqualified fly the plane). Corporate structuring does little to help you if you are the one operating at the time of the crash. Corporate structuring does have additional benefits, the primary factor for most people who use it being privacy. It is also has useful features for shared ownership and use, including the ability to use a buy-sell agreement. No attorney I know sets up a C corporation these days unless it's intended to be publicly traded or otherwise does not qualify to be structured as an LLC or S-corporation. Seeing a closely-held C corporation is a big red flag that someone has been doing their own legal work and may have really screwed something up. If you don't know the difference between those three types of entities, you really should reconsider setting anything up yourself. This "buy the stock" technique to avoid the sales or use tax is not often used, in my experience, with people buying and selling turbine aircraft, where they could easily afford the attorney and tax consultant fees to do it right. I really only see the idea put out there by people trading piston singles and doing the legal work themselves. I believe it's because the lost depreciation quickly offsets the ability to avoid sales/use tax, and you're buying unknown liabilities. If the big players aren't using this "tax loophole" you can be sure there's a reason. Take all of the above for what it's worth, which may be less than you paid for it. Good luck with your purchase and welcome to Mooney ownership.

I could not find one a while back, so I printed one, laminated it, and stuck it to the panel with heavy-duty Gorilla-brand double-sided tape. It turned out surprisingly good and I would do it again. Far easier to read than the old ones. I got the file from an old post on Mooneyspace. I can't remember who posted it or I would give them credit, but here's the file attached. It has lots of useful placards. I did the fuel selector at the same time and in the same way, since the paint had scraped off the old one to where you couldn't read the "Off" marker. P.S. - I can't upload the file in Word format for easy editing, although that's how I downloaded it. I still have the Word version. Link here: https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjJPoJhv9yificlaEEVdN9zgkgZHCg?e=fRBSG0 Fuel Selector and Gear Placards .pdf

Can confirm - in a K model with the 252 engine, climbing at 120 KIAS at max power to cruise altitude gets you cooler engine temps, best rate of climb, and least overall fuel burn for your trip. The increased fuel flow during climb is offset by the decreased duration of climb and increased ground speed during climb. Plus you get out of the bumps and heat and up into the cooler, smooth air that much faster.

@Will.iam how smooth is your engine at higher power settings LOP? For example, 32/2500 and 11.5GPH? Or 28/2500 and 10.5GPH? Mine is smooth at the settings you describe (25/2500 and 9 GPH) but if I'm going somewhere I don't like the 15kt speed penalty compared to running peak TIT or ROP. When I run higher power settings LOP like I described, the plane will do it and the temps settle in nice and low but like Ethan says, I can feel the slightest bit of engine roughness and I can't stand to fly around like that. I have never tested the spread and should do that. For a good mix of economy, speed, and engine temperatures, I run our TSIO-360-MB at 27" or 28" MP, 2500 RPM, leaned to peak TIT, which is around 12 GPH. Yields 135-140 KIAS which is 160-185 KTAS from 9000-FL180. When it's hot out, reducing to 27" MP keeps the peak TIT under 1600, or alternatively, you can leave it at 28" MP and increase fuel flow to 13.5 GPH to accomplish the same thing and go a little faster ROP. At all of these settings the CHT's will be under 380 degrees, though you have to crack the cowl flaps to keep them there. My philosophy is CHT's under 380 and TIT under 1600 to take it easy on the engine and turbo.

On my last flight, doing a post-annual shake-down, I landed as normal, taxied off the runway, was headed back on the taxiway for another takeoff. Nose wheel just went flat, plane stopped dead. Got a compressor, but the tire wouldn't hold air long enough to taxi it anywhere. Got some help from our A&P who luckily was working on Saturday. Jacked the plane up, put the nose wheel on a dolly, towed it to the shop. The tube had two small holes on the inside, where it was against the rim. We were both scratching our heads about that. No idea how it happened. We've changed both main tires and tubes out over the years but never the nose. No idea how long it's been in there. Tire looks fine, almost new. I'm considering picking up a spare tube to carry around. Probably not a bad idea. Lucky I was at home when it happened and the A&P had a replacement sitting on his shelf.

A 252 will do about 165-185 knots at the altitudes you will fly it regularly, which are from 9k-17k feet. Fuel burn about 12.5 GPH, plus or minus one GPH based on your power settings. The higher you go, the faster you are. You can go faster in the flight levels but oxygen requirements and time of useful consciousness keep most below there. And headwinds, somehow more than half the time. I suspect someone will be along shortly to post better numbers, but the above is my experience. If I were shopping today I'd look hard at the Bravos. I would like the extra room of the long body and the extra power for heavily-loaded takeoffs. They burn a little more fuel, but go a little faster. Lots to like in both airframes. I would say buying the best particular plane you can find, at the right price with the right features, would be more important than choosing one model over the other.

Peak TIT is just the highest TIT reading you can get by moving the mixture knob from rich to lean. Peak TIT in the TSIO-360 is maximum efficiency for fuel burn and will result in the highest possible speeds at the lowest possible fuel burn. I personally believe that's why the POH recommends it, as that was the ultimate design of the M20K model and I believe it's marketing sales pitch. As an owner-operator some 40 years later, other concerns do arise. If I run POH-recommended 75% power, being 28" MP and 2500 RPM, leaned to peak TIT, I get best efficiency and good speeds, but peak TIT will be somewhere around 1625 degrees, which is 25 below redline and within limits, but running the turbocharger system that hot is likely not best for its longevity. Cylinder head temperatures are all fine and can be kept below 380 degrees by adjusting the cowl flaps. My current practice on most trips is to instead run 26.5"-27" MP and 2500 RPM and then lean to peak TIT. I lose about 5 knots, but on most days and altitudes, the TIT will peak somewhere below 1600. Fuel flow is also reduced, and CHT's are easier to keep under 380. Often you get to close the cowl flaps a little more, which makes the speed loss even less, more like 2-3 knots, compared to running the engine harder and hotter with them open. Alternate practice for engine care is to remain at 28" and 2500 MP, and lean only to 1575 TIT, which will be well rich of peak. You will be burning an extra 1 to 1.5 GPH of fuel, probably close to 13.5 GPH. You may pick up about 5 knots. This is high speed, low efficiency cruise and is fun if you're trying to set a ground speed record. The extra fuel keeps your CHT's nice and cool also. I have tried running lean of peak TIT lots of times at different power settings. The idea is to boost your MP up to get the same speeds and performance while LOP, with lower temperatures. My engine, at least, does not run as smoothly and does not seem to like it. That's unscientific and I wish I had better data, because the plane will do it, but I feel the roughness in my feet. It stays smooth at very low power settings where the engine temps are already good and fuel burn very low anyways, but when I push it hard, say at 28, 30, or 32" MP, I get the rough condition, so I just don't go there. Your experience may vary. Be careful reading posts about other engines and their power settings and LOP procedures. The TSIO-360 series is kind of an odd duck in the Mooney lineup. Great engine but a little complicated and it seems set up to run very differently than the earlier 4-cylinder Lycomings and the later, bigger engines they put in the Bravo and Acclaim. I do have a TSIO-360-MB as opposed to your TSIO-360-LB, but if you have an intercooler and automatic wastegate, supposedly the engines run about the same.

Agree with this 100%. You can fly a Mooney in a 3 degree or shallower approach at proper speeds and land short. Some of my worst landings have been high and steep approaches, on the back side of the power curve, all the way to the runway. It's very easy to get behind the plane and land very abruptly, with not enough energy to properly flare. Would also be easy to misjudge it and land short of the numbers, though I've never done that. This is a neat STOL trick in a Cessna 172 but does not work well in a Mooney. I'll get behind the power curve, intentionally, if I'm high and fast, to get back on glideslope and speed, but the plan is always to add significant power and lower the nose to get out of that condition once back on the standard 3 degree glide path. If there's not enough time to do that, then it's time to go around.

When I flew a C model with a 3-bladed prop, after learning proper speeds, it seemed able to land in about the same distance as the 172 trainers I came out of. I bet if we got the manuals out the 172's were capable of shorter, but the C could stop short pretty easy. You really got a lot of drag out of the 3-blade when you put the engine to idle. I never really did much short field work before we sold it but didn't give it that much thought either. Our current K model with a 2-bladed prop is not that way. It's harder to slow it down, and it just wants to keep going, especially when lightly loaded. I've always thought it's a combination of higher weights and aerodynamic cleanups. Being on speed is critical and it will absolutely land and stop in 2,000 feet, but I'm not sure I would try it where that's all the runway there is. I was based at a 2,800 ft field with very large trees at each end for three months and while the plane would do it, even at max gross per the POH, I was paying extra attention to the speed for every landing, and going around if I was a little fast. I made the turnoff at 2,000 feet down the runway every time (it was the only turnoff). I never did go try that with a significant crosswind. Shorter than 2,000 feet would be an absolute no-go for me in the K.

Hot start that works for me: For a very short stop (fuel or passenger loading only), just mixture in and turn the key. Leave the throttle cracked a half turn, or wherever it was to idle before shutdown. Usually fires up right away. For slightly longer stops, 30 minutes or so, mixture to idle cut-off, low boost on, let it run up to build pressure and flush the lines, then low boost off. Crank to start. If it doesn't immediately start, use short periods of prime pump (2-3 seconds each) between cranks until it catches. These are the hardest starts. Sometimes it floods. If it does, go to flooded start procedure: Mixture full rich, throttle full forward. Prime pump 8-10 seconds (intentionally making sure the engine is flooded). Mixture to idle cut off. Crank until it catches, then quickly go full rich mixture and throttle to idle, simultaneously if possible. This will start it every time. Same process you use to start a weedeater, just on a bigger scale. This one has saved me from several dead batteries on the ramp. It does result in fuel dripping out from the bottom of the cowling. It will also save you if you over-prime for a cold start, and I've been told it works in every model of airplane. Before every start - Warn any nervous passengers that it's not like a car engine and can be hard to start, but once it's started, it stays running really well. GA has a bad enough reputation and I think it's things like this that add to it.

Been running a mid-time TSIO-360-MB for about 10 years and several hundred hours now. We keep the engine cool, under 380, using a full engine monitor, cowl flaps, and several techniques, including full power climbs to altitude and careful cowl flap management in cruise, neither of which are recommended in the POH, but can be found on Mooneyspace and other places I'm sure. It takes work and management. Without the full monitor and those techniques, we'd be running closer to 400 degree CHTs very easily, which I expect is how the engines got that reputation in this plane. But it sure does run nice. With that, we've had to do some cylinder work. Replaced several of them at this point. Don't know how it was run before we got it. It's in right now for annual. #3 and #5 were both a little low on compression, 58/80 and 60/80. Inspection showed some corrosion on the valves, but still crosshatching on the cylinder walls. Current plan is to replace the valves and keep flying. Cost is some, but not too much, and we'll be up and flying again soon. Far below the cost of a "top overhaul" which involves unbolting several perfectly good cylinders and replacing them with "new" or overhauled ones of unknown quality, with a higher risk of infant mortality. So to answer your question, "top overhauls" are optional and not really required on this engine, or any other as far as I know. Careful management will extend your cylinder life. We do oil analysis and are watching for signs that it's time to do the major overhaul, which could come any time. When it does, we'll have a brand new powerplant on a great airframe, ready to go for a long time. No reason to be scared of a mid-time TSIO-360-MB in my opinion. 252's are great planes. Good luck shopping.

I fly a mid-body with a family of 4, boys ages 11 and 6 (and growing fast). We all fit just fine for now. Their growing size has me eyeing upgrades. It really takes a 6-seat twin to do much better than the Mooney for hauling us around. The 6-seat singles (36 Bonanza, Saratoga, Lance, 210, etc.) have more useful load on paper, but it comes with a much higher fuel burn, so you have to carry a lot more fuel with the higher useful load, and often a lower cruise speed to match. I'm not saying the Mooney is the best load hauler, because it's not, but the useful load number is just one factor in moving people across miles. Efficiency helps a lot. I've also read here that by the time the kids are teenagers too large to haul, they're in sports, have significant others, and generally otherwise aren't going on very many family vacations with mom and dad. And it's only a few years before they're out of the house. And then you might regret selling that Mooney that was perfect for you and your spouse and buying a 6-seat, gas-guzzling, high-maintenance airplane. So maybe it's best to pack carefully and just fly the Mooney on shorter legs. Just sharing my thoughts. Good luck with your search.

I had the same experience dealing with a lot of old, bad, and maybe questionably legal panel work. Just about every flight, some gauge or another in the panel would fail, light up a warning light, or otherwise de-rail the flight. AI, HSI, turn coordinator, autopilot, JPI engine monitor, transponder, all took turns failing in flight. It never impacted safety of the flight, exactly, but I started to not want to fly because of it, was not comfortable in IMC, and did not want to plan trips with others for fear that it would ruin GA for them. Finally had a good shop rip it all out and put in a new panel. After about two years, that feeling has pretty much gone away and it's great. Took some time. I hope that happens for you.

When this topic comes up, there's always a great discussion of pros vs. cons. What I like to pay attention to, is how many chime in that they bought a turbo, but then got tired of the cost and sold it to go back to a naturally-aspirated plane to save on maintenance and expense. Very few people say that. Those advising against the turbo seem to have limited experience with them. On the other hand, lots of people chime in that one they have had the turbo, they don't want to ever go without one. I'm in that category, except maybe I could live with a 300+ HP naturally aspirated engine. Having plenty of horsepower to cruise at any altitude is great for comfort, safety, and in a distant third place, speed. The turbo parts cost some to buy, overhaul, and maintain, but in the grand scheme of plane ownership, it's not much, and the benefits are significant.

Post your TAS and GPH on Mooneyspace, and within a few hours, someone will be along to post better numbers. It's the way of things.

$80k will barely buy you a tricked-out half-ton pickup truck from the dealer in today's dollars. For the same money, you can be going 140 knots direct destination on 10 GPH in a C model Mooney. A few years ago, when C models were topping out at $50k or so, the same was true.

Interesting thoughts. I'm not sure I agree with them. I would want to learn on the instruments I'll be flying. I would think training to do approaches on a modern Garmin panel with full autopilot, then being thrown into an older Mooney with vintage avionics, would make for a steep learning curve and require a lot of additional training. I learned to do approaches in an older Mooney with vintage avionics and a 2-axis wing leveler, and then later had to learn Garmin. I think doing it that way would be far easier than the opposite. Best option would be learn on glass and then buy a plane with a glass panel. We're far better off without vintage avionics for IFR flight. But that's budget-permitting.

Just keep going. Transition from a 172 to a M20C or J is no big deal. High vs. low wing, other than a little more float in ground effect, only matters when you're getting in and out of the plane. Complex endorsement, you'll have to remember to put the gear down. In the Mooney that's easy, it's the easiest way to slow down. I would suggest buying the M20 and using it to get your instrument rating. You want to end up owning anyways, and that way you'll be very familiar with instrument flying in your plane. It doesn't make sense to pay to rent a trainer for all those hours, then turn around and buy another plane, then have to learn the new plane. The M20C remains one of the best values in GA if you ask me, especially in today's hot market. Good luck.

I have done both. I prefer KBJC over KAPA, but either is fine, really. KAPA has more traffic. KBJC has more IFR routing issues. Another option is KFTG, formerly Frontrange, now called Colorado Air and Space Port, which can be faster all things considered coming from the east. You're a little farther from the mountain weather, and if you're picking up / dropping off people at Denver International with your rental car, it's very convenient, which is why I used it. It's right on I-70 and the drive time to Breckenridge is not significantly longer, maybe even faster with traffic. Not as much plane traffic as KAPA. If you go VFR, or maybe even IFR, be ready for some strange pattern instructions to keep you out of the class bravo.