Z W

You can see the pages attached. The first two are from my plane's original POH with the TSIO-360-GB engine. It says lean to peak TIT for economy cruise, or 125 ROP TIT for best power. The third page is from my POH supplement that came with the 262 conversion, when a TSIO-360-MB engine was bolted on. It says "Lean to peak" for cruise power settings. M20K 262 Leaning Instructions.pdf

Well, if you go by TIT, I am at peak. Using EGT is actually usually almost the same, within a few degrees. I know everybody who has gone to APS says that is high ICP territory and the worst place to run your engine. None of those guys have our engine in my experience. And our engine has an unusual turbocharger configuration. Using the APS guidelines you describe leads to the roughness I described on my engine. Peak TIT is where the POH says to run the engine. That's where it's smooth, cool, and efficient. Some engineer and test pilot got together and figured that out. So that's where I've been running it. There may be better ways, but there's a lot of bad information on the Internet in my experience. I find 100+ ROP unacceptable. It's always 13.5 gph like you stated, for the same speed I get at 11.5 gph. Over a 2000 hour engine life, that's 4000 wasted gallons of fuel. At a conservative $5 per gallon, that's $20,000.00. Almost half the cost of an overhaul, even before you consider wasted useful load and extra fuel stops. Even if it costs some hours between overhaul, going leaner makes sense. And I'm not at all convinced going leaner is going to cost hours between overhaul. I also find 60% power unacceptable. Just because I like to go fast. Thanks for sharing. It's good to compare what others are doing. Did you go to APS, and did they tell you anything specific about the 252 engine?

Remember the C model has a 180 HP carb'd engine. The E, F, and J all have 200 HP fuel injected engines. I don't know if carb vs. fuel injection makes a big difference, or if 20 extra HP makes a big difference. It's probably a combination of the two. But I do know that over 12,000 ft the climb performance in my C model was not great. I've heard repeatedly on this site that the other models do much better in the mountains and in the teens.

I have read a lot on the internet to try to learn about running my TSIO-360-MB in the LOP realm. I've found it very difficult or impossible to find good information. Some lean by the TIT gauge, and some by last EGT to peak. Some swear their engines are always smooth; Some claim a lot of roughness. I've decided it's probably very subjective. Also, that engine is very rare. Most of the things you read are for Continental IO-550's or Lycoming 540's, which really does not apply to us. Myself, I've settled on using the TIT gauge to lean, after some very knowledgeable people on beechtalk.com said that's what you do for a turbo engine. Our TSIO-360-MB LOP fuel flow is 11.5 GPH for 75% power. I flew for quite some time at 2500 RPM, 32" MP, and 11.5 GPH, which is right around 20-30 degrees LOP. I found this gave me about 140 knots of indicated airspeed, which is a good cruise speed. It kept CHTs at 350 or below, which was good. However, it always came with a very slight, almost imperceptible, roughness. That same roughness persists all the way to 100 degrees LOP. I don't feel it in the pedals or yoke, but I can hear it, and feel it in my knee against the center console. It's slight enough that I would bet plenty of guys would just fly with it, and passengers would never notice. Some pilots probably wouldn't notice. I decided I don't like it, so I went back to book power settings, which is 2500 RPM, 28" MP, lean to peak TIT, which is 11.5 GPH very consistently. I get the same indicated airspeed. CHT's run about 350-370, which is a little higher, but very acceptable. And the engine is buttery smooth and happy. TIT is usually 1600-1615. Sometimes as high as 1625 if I'm over 15,000 ft. But everything I've read says turbo's can be run right up to redline TIT (1650 in our case) without damaging them or decreasing their life, so I find that acceptable. I'm also interested to hear anybody else with the TSIO-360-MB engine's perspective, and to compare notes.

My C model's performance was not very good above 10,000 ft. I took it to 12,500 a few times. Hot or heavy it would be lucky to get 250 FPM climb at that altitude. I would not want to be in the mountains with it on a windy day. E and F models do much better with their fuel injected engines. You also have to watch the engine temps very closely taking off from density altitudes over 8,000 ft. I did that once on a hot day in Sante Fe and had to lower the nose and climb out at about 100 FPM for a while to keep the CHT's out of the red. The thin air really hurts the cooling, and the C model engine runs a little hot all the time.

Welcome. The Mooney cabin is actually fairly wide. It is shorter (less headroom) than most GA planes. Only way to tell if you'll like it is to sit in one and see. It fits tall pilots pretty well actually. You sit low like in a sports car. Your budget may be a little optimistic, but you're probably in the ball park. As best I can tell, any piston single in good condition is going to cost you $10,000.00 per year in fixed costs on average. That covers hangar, insurance, annual inspection, and average routine maintenance costs. Gas and oil changes are extra. So are loan payments, and so is an engine reserve, if you plan to do one. That's my experience through two Mooneys, a 1968 and a 1983, in an area where hangars are $250/month. That's an average. Repairs are the biggest unknown. You'll have years where you have to replace mags, gear motors, starters, etc, and you'll spend $5k on maintenance alone. Other years, none (or probably less) of those types of items will break, and you won't spend much. Try to buy a regularly flying plane with a good maintenance record to minimize those unknowns. But they will happen anyways. Some years may be $7k, some will be $15k. If you have to replace the engine, it will be a lot more. Owning your own plane is great, and so are Mooneys. Happy shopping. If you post your location, a member near you will usually offer to let you sit in the cockpit, if not take you up for a flight.

I think I remember hearing Bob Meier was working with Island Aircraft Sales in Sarasota, FL. http://islandaircraftsales.com/ There's a link on their page that seems to point to a "Mooney Mod Squad" that lists Bob as a founder / technical advisor. http://www.mooneymodsquad.com/ You might call Island Aircraft Sales and see if they know how to get in touch with Bob, if the Mod Squad numbers have all gone dead.

You should be able to beat 145 KTAS at 10,000 feet by using a higher power setting. My 262 will do 165 KTAS on 11.5 GPH there, which is my standard headwind altitude. I know you have a different engine and you have to make your temps work, but I think you can beat 145, especially if you are willing to run a higher MP and ROP. If you go far enough ROP, you should not have temp issues. You'll be wasting some gas, but way less than you would be wasting in a Rocket at those altitudes, comparatively speaking. If you're worried about fuel burn difference in your 231, you've answered you own question about the Rocket. I would bet if you can get 160 KTAS at 10,000 ft, you won't be dreaming of going 170 or 180 in a Rocket burning 5 more GPH. I would love a Rocket and if I were shopping again one would be on the top of my list. But they are less efficient than a 231/252/262, no question. I find my O2 tank lasts a pretty long time. I always get headwinds, so I'm usually at 10,000 ft doing 165 knots and not on O2...

I've done that before. Came up with this cool picture of me on my long instrument cross-country in my former plane. I know because that's the only time I went to the Joplin airport in that plane.

I think at $325k I'm buying a cheap Acclaim, or a G3/G5 Cirrus, before a "remanufactured" 252. And I like my 252 conversion. I would say that whatever you do needs to come out at a price significantly below a G3 Cirrus, Ovation, or Acclaim. Otherwise your buyers are going to head for the newer technology and model year. Mooney quit building the K model for a reason. Piston single buyers with lots of money want bigger, faster, roomier planes with 310 HP out front. Preferably with a parachute attached, these days. That isn't to say you couldn't sell a "remanufactured" 252 for a price between a normal 252 and those planes. You might get $200k or maybe even $250k out of one, from the right buyer. But your buyer pool is going to be pretty small. Go much above that and they'll buy something else. Maybe even a late model Encore. I hope you find a way to make it work out.

I didn't mean to say I wasn't satisfied. Like Scott says, they require a lot of work to install. Painting, cutting, sanding, prepping, drilling, etc. That's not a problem. But, they are very basic plastic panels. Much nicer than the 1982 vintage currently in the plane, but they do not have custom hand-stitched padded leather inserts like Tim's. They also don't have any holes or spots in them for headset jacks, as you receive them from the factory.

Paint is done. Seats are done and turned out great. New plastic panels from Plane Plastics are sitting in the hangar. We have the entry and baggage door panels on, waiting for time to do the rest. Got busy. I'll try to snap some photos this weekend. Flying to Indy if weather permits. Our interior panels don't look anything like yours. Those are fantastic, truly great craftsmanship. With the new engine you are going to have an amazing machine when you are done, TKS and avionics issues aside.

Looks great Tim. Hope you are back in the air soon.

A 262 is a 231 that somebody put a 252 engine on by STC. Originally developed by ModWorks. Carries the same "mod" stigma as the Rocket. Maybe a worse stigma, because Modworks went under. Luckily they use all the same parts as the 252s, except for I think the voltage regulators, so parts are not an issue. They are cheaper than a 252, partly because many people don't want to buy a plane that has a new engine STC'd onto it. I fly one. I find it somewhat interesting that while this is a major concern with Mooneys, and reflected in price, the opposite seems to be true for Bonanzas and Cessnas. Old models that rolled out of the factory with small engines get an IO-550 put on the front and everybody wants the plane, suddenly it's priced like the newer models with 300 HP. Personally I don't have a problem with a modded plane (obviously). I would also fly a Rocket or an experimental, after giving it a careful look over. Others prefer factory engineering. The market prices accordingly.

I do not think the operating / maintenance costs are really much different. The Bravo burns more fuel than the 252, but goes faster, so cost per mile is pretty similar. The 252 is more efficient by a bit. I suspect the price difference you note has more to do with the ages of the airframe than anything else. Bravos are much newer than any Rocket or 252. The Rocket also seems to take a slight price hit because of the stigma of being a modded plane, even though its reputation is great. I personally think that makes them a great value. Your cost of ownership is going to vary more between individual planes than it does between models. A good pre buy is essential.

I went from a 172 at 50 hours total time to a M20C, and about 50 hours after that to a M20K. I had two instructors, neither of which had much Mooney time. I think I had to have 10 hours dual and 5 hours solo before carrying passengers, for insurance. I survived this reckless and irresponsible maneuver somehow, despite all of the hallowed advice you get on the internet that says it should not be done that way. Mooneys are less forgiving than some other models for carrying too much speed, but they really do not require superhuman piloting skills or specialized training. Get one and fly it.

CBP would like to claim the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply within 100 miles of the border. To my knowledge, no judge has ever ruled on the issue in the context of a private GA aircraft on a domestic flight. You will note that the officer that stopped Rockydoc tried very hard to get consent to search. He also went to all the trouble of using a dog to get a "hit" which removes the requirement to get a warrant. He did not just walk up and start searching without probable cause. If CBP was relying on the "100 mile" exception, they would not need any kind of warrant or probable cause. They could just walk down the line of aircraft on the ramp at any airport within the 100 mile ring, tearing them apart, without the owner's consent or any kind of judicial oversight. They could do the same with any car parked on any street in any city in America within 100 miles of the border. Possibly any house too. Do you think a judge is going to approve that interpretation of the law?

Yes. There are two claims here (which could be brought in the same lawsuit). The claim against the DHS agent, since he is a federal agent, is called a "Bivens Action," named after the case that created the cause of action. The claim against the New Orleans PD would be an action under 42 USC 1983. Both Bivens actions and 1983 actions provide for punitive damages if the violations are proved to be egregious enough. 1983 actions also provide the injured party with his attorneys fees, by statute. If not for punitive damages and statutory attorneys fees, these cases would never be viable. But they are.

You may generally video police officers conducting an investigation in a public place as long as you do not interfere with the investigation. Juries get mad about these cases. Do not assume you would lose your case. We value our freedoms here and our jurors hold the government accountable. If you do not sue, they got away with it. The courts have decided civil lawsuits are the check and balance for illegal search and seizures. I would take your case in a heartbeat if it did not have to be filed in Louisiana. I would take it on contingency where you never had to pay me out of pocket. And I would try to blow the lid off this CPB illegal search epidemic. With Louisiana being 3 hours away by Mooney,and me not practicing there, I can't do it. But please at least talk to a lawyer there. Otherwise we have to wait until they pull this on someone like me. And by then it may be too late for a lot of pilots.

On those facts, assuming you were not landing back in the US for the first time from an international flight, you have a strong case for suing the government for wrongfully arresting you and searching your aircraft without a warrant. As soon as he says you are not free to go, you are under arrest, handcuffs or no. If it was done without probable cause, your only remedy is to sue the government for money damages. Check with an attorney in the state where it happened. You need a civil rights attorney. I am one, by the way.

Yes on the internal GPS. It seems to work better than the iPad's. Just a very subjective, non-scientific observation. It would be fine for VFR navigation. I have a 430W in the dash and a 496 on the yoke with XM weather so I really just use the tablet for flight planning and charts. I may add the GDL and ditch the XM weather now.

I just replaced my iPad/Foreflight setup with a Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 android tablet and Garmin Pilot. I never got a Stratus, and have not purchased the GDL 39 for Garmin Pilot to add ADS-B and synthetic vision. I have no complaints. It's different, but I had it figured out in about an afternoon. Equally capable. It's missing a few minor features I liked - there is no "Imagery" tab to look at prognostic charts and winds aloft. Also, it does not have the "altitude finder" that gives you head and tail wind numbers at each altitude. You have to plug in each altitude and compare your estimated time in route to get the best height. It has some other features I like better. The TAF/Winds Aloft displays, I find are better. It is very easy to reference approach charts for your current flight plan, which is nice. I've been an Android convert for a long time and had only kept the iPad for Foreflight. Now that Garmin Pilot exists, there is no reason not to switch over. It's about $175 per year with geo-referenced approach plates. The tablet is cheap ($250.00 with a 2-year data plan contract), well built, and very powerful. Battery life is great. The on-board GPS seems to work better than my iPad's. Nobody has to "approve" my apps, and I can finally uninstall iTunes. The iPad is nice if that's your thing, but the other options today are pretty good.

TBM 850 for me. If money were no object...

As a general rule of thumb, keeping your power settings the same, you will gain 2 KTAS per thousand feet you climb in a turbo'd plane. So, take the # of feet in thousands you are thinking of climbing, x 2, and you know how much airspeed you will gain going up. Compare that to the forecast winds aloft to decide if it's worth climbing higher. Example: My plane does 170 KTAS at 10k feet. It does about 186 KTAS at FL180. That's a gain of 16 KTAS. If the winds at FL180 are more than 16 KTAS worse, I don't go up. Also, because of the time spent climbing and descending, and the need to put me and all the passengers on oxygen, it has to be significantly better up high before I will go up. I won't climb 8k feet and use up my O2 for a 5 knot gain in groundspeed. As a practical matter, above 10k, it seems like the winds almost always gain strength faster than I gain KTAS. I almost never climb into a strengthening headwind, and only go up for a tailwind. But I really love those tailwind days...

It took 4 pages to get to the "frivolous lawsuits are destroying the world" post. I'm actually proud of the group for that, as a lawyer. Jkhirsch, please talk to a qualified aviation lawyer before you make any more statements to the FAA, if you have not already. Some advised you to do that, several pages ago, but I can't tell if you did. You can PM me for my phone number and I will talk to you, no charge. You are swimming in dangerous waters here, and posting far more information online in a public forum than any lawyer would tell you is wise. I'm all for freedom of information and transparency of government, but this is a story that should be posted after you're done with the FAA's enforcement action, not before or during.