Z W

For a time I flew regularly with over 75 gallons on board. In my K 75 gallons is full mains. 105 gallons is full extended range tanks too. I figured fuel left at the pump is no use to me. May as well have a 5 hour reserve if the plane can carry it and be under gross. When solo I can fill the all the tanks and have just enough gross weight for me and a bag. That's about 8 hours of fuel. I have since decided the plane performs much better a couple hundred pounds under gross. Less runway used on takeoff and landing. Easier to grease landings. Better rate of climb. It feels safer with the extra performance than with the extra fuel. So now I keep just a 1.5 hour fuel reserve in the plane in the hangar. Before each trip I add just enough for the trip. Sometimes an extra hour of fuel for headwinds, ifr conditions, or if the load is light. Using this method I have had little or no use for the extended tanks in quite a while. I do plan stops every 3-4 hours for comfort. Your experience may vary.

I have long range tanks. They are rarely useful. I don't think I've used their capacity in about two years. I would not pay $6500 for them. I would bet this is a sunk cost for you for resale purposes. If I ever get around to flying to Alaska or thar British Virgin Islands, I'll be glad they're there.

I'm no physician, but I suspect that holding your breath results in your body continuing to process oxygen held in your lungs. When you continue to breath air that contains no oxygen, you are expelling that good oxygen. Compare it to breathing out all of your air, and then going underwater. I doubt you would make it 5 minutes. Pretty sure I wouldn't. I agree that 6 to 9 seconds sounds extreme. But what do I know? Maybe there are other factors. I also hope somebody with some medical knowledge can chime in.

Most piston single aircraft are not regularly flown over about FL200. I would bet that most are flown at FL180 or below almost all of the time. Above FL180 your useful time of consciousness declines sharply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness Altitude in Flight level Time of Useful Consciousness FL 150 30 min or more FL 180 20 to 30 min FL 220 5-10 min FL 250 3 to 6 min FL 280 2.5 to 3 mins FL 300 1 to 3 mins FL 350 30 sec to 60 sec FL 400 15 to 20 sec FL 430 9 to 15 sec FL 500 and above 6 to 9 sec As you can see, at FL220, you've only got 5 or 10 minutes of consciousness if you develop a problem with your O2, vs 20-30 minutes at FL180. It gets worse as you go up. In a GA single, you generally only have one O2 system and one pilot. No redundancy. In theory you could carry a back-up tank, but that's a lot of hassle, and there's no warning built in to tell you to switch to your backup, unlike loss of pressurization in a larger aircraft. One kinked line or problem with your O2 delivery and you can be lights out pretty quick. Also, in my experience, there isn't much weather that can't be topped at FL180 that you're going to top by going to FL200 or FL220. I think what many of us do is stop at FL180 and stick to the cannulas. They're more comfortable anyways.

Good points. I do understand it's hard to tell whether I should listen to you vs. some other random stranger on the internet. I've seen enough of your posts around that I actually give them great credit. However, I disagree that anything can't be learned in a forum, or that you have to attend a formal, structured educational course to learn these things. Data speaks for itself. The source is not important. Some people require a structured environment to learn, but not everyone. Again, not knocking the course here. Would like to take it someday, etc... I can understand the theory that high ICPs leads to increased failure rates, and that ICP's are highest at peak to 50 ROP. I remain unconvinced that higher ICPs actually result in a statistically measurable increase in failure rates. I don't care what my ICPs are, unless they result in the big fan going quiet in fewer hours than if I had lower ICPs. I am with you on believing that data is not available because there are too many other factors with cylinder and engine life. If you want to be realistic about these things, I bet gear-ups, A&P screw-ups, and zero-fuel off-airport landings destroy far more engines, statistically, than any mixture setting.

Don't be scared of the useful load. That 78 gallons of fuel at a 12 GPH (high speed cruise) setting will take you 6.5 hours of flight time at about 170 knots. In reality, you'll fly with half tanks most of the time, in my experience. 40-50 gallons is the sweet spot for fuel in a 252. 3.5 hours plus reserve, with 3 adults on board. Double-check the useful load math. My plane has the 105 gallon extended tanks and 875 useful load, which is one of the lowest useful loads I've seen. With the tanks full, it's still 266 lbs of people and baggage. Works for me and my bags. And that's about 9 hours of fuel... It looks like a very capable well-equipped aircraft. The price might be a little optimistic. But you can't blame him for trying. Before you plan to do paint and interior, consider the downtime associated with it. Plan on a month for each. Don't believe the shops when they tell you otherwise. Consider logistics of getting it to and from the shops. You'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong about how long it takes. If I were buying right now, I would take a hard look at Rocket conversions. I think they are a better value than the 252's. They are cheaper, climb better, and go faster. That's if you are comfortable with the stigma of a "mod" plane. Just my opinion.

The "unusual" comment comes from what my A&P told me, so take it with a grain of salt. We have a factory intercooler setup that was pretty much unheard-of at the time it came out in the 80's. It's one of the most modern turbo designs available in the older fleet. We also have the automatic wastegate, and a turbo controller that regulates MP separately from the wastegate. Basically it's a very complicated system that makes it to where you just push the black throttle knob all the way in and get the power you want without overboosting, up to wherever our critical altitude is in the 20's. I know because our turbo controller went bad and we replaced most of the rest of the system before we figured out what was causing the problem, which was MP fluctuations at any power setting that used the turbo for boost. I've also been told by two A&P's that the fuel delivery system on our engine is unusual. It's a very complicated spider. It's supposed to be very efficient at keeping fuel flow balanced, even without GAMI's. I do agree about the lack of small block information. I do have to crack the cowl flaps about 1/4 or 1/3 in cruise at 2500/28"/11.5 GPH. Sometimes as much as 1/2 on hot days down low. That puts them in the middle of where they're marked "cruise" on the indicator. I just crack them enough to keep my highest CHT under 380. I do not notice a significant speed loss from doing that, although I'm probably losing 1-2 knots. You are correct, it's a 75% power setting. I can keep the cowl flaps closed all the way (where it says "descent" on the indicator) running 20 degrees LOP, and still have CHT's under 350 usually. But I get the roughness. I'll have to look into Tempest Fine Wires.

Scott, No offense intended. Seriously. But some version of your post appears in every LOP/ROP thread on the internet. It adds zero useful information to the discussion, beyond the fact that there is a really good live course available. It's one of the things that I find frustrating about trying to find good information. If you attended the course, can you tell us why a lot of our engines are rough at 20-30 degrees LOP TIT? My EGTs all peak at almost exactly the same time. My engine has GAMI's. Can you tell us how many hours we can expect to lose on TBO, on average, if we run our engines at peak TIT, instead of 100+ ROP? Or how many hours we can expect to lose between overhaul/replacement of cylinders? Or how many hours we lose, on average, between catastrophic in-flight engine failures? Can you tell us, for certain, if we should base our ROP/LOP measurement off of peak TIT, or the last EGT to peak? I submit that's the kind of information we need to be able to make an informed decision about where to set the red knob. I don't mean to bash the APS course. I have not been able to attend it, and I would like to. I've read posts by the guys that put it on, and they seem knowledgeable. When life slows down a bit (ha ha) I plan to do it. Right after I've gotten my tailwheel endorsement, seaplane rating, glider rating, aerobatic course, etc. done... For now, I have to settle for what some people will post on internet forums.

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?