Z W

You can reduce power to extend range. In my C model I could reduce power to about 6 GPH and still cruise about 110-120 kts. I used that setting for cross-country flights building foggle time for my IFR rating. Endurance at that setting, with 52 gallon tanks, was about 8.6 hours, with a theoretical range of 946 miles, no reserve, no wind. Your heavier G, with the same engine, will probably do just a little worse than that, on either speed or fuel burn (but with more legroom in the back). I would not even think about trying a trip like you are describing without a fuel flow gauge I trust, some very large margins for unexpected headwinds, a life raft, and a personal locator beacon. Even then, I think I would buy a removable ferry tank like Oscar did. Flying is no fun when you aren't 100% sure the flight will have a positive outcome. Most endurance fliers also wait for the right weather pattern, e.g. a nice tailwind, that may make it a non-event. But if you are going to do this flight more than once, you won't want to wait two weeks for weather, and you're going to want some more gas on board. The Monroy tanks are a nice feature, but for their cost, you could probably sell your G and buy a J or K that can easily do 1000 NM and would fit this mission better.

What power settings and altitudes are giving you 180 KTAS? Often by increasing fuel flow and manifold pressure you can eek out another 10 knots, usually at a cost of several gallons per hour of fuel burned. I have no experience flying Ovations or any long-body, but from what I've read on Mooneyspace, most Ovations cruise at 170-180 KTAS like your Eagle. They may be capable of 190, but the last 10 knots takes so much fuel, it greatly decreases your range and economy. Your best speed will probably be wide open throttle, around 10,000 feet, 150 degrees rich of peak EGT. You might try that setting and see how you like the fuel flow and cylinder head temperatures. "Book" numbers always give those unrealistic top speeds for marketing reasons. Many owners choose to trade that last 10 knots for 3 GPH and a cooler engine.

Here's the NTSB report. A good reminder to sump your tanks, although we don't know if the pilot did or not: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130819X52423&key=1 On August 18, 2013, about 1445 central daylight time, a Mooney M20J, N9201R, descended and impacted terrain after takeoff from Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport (MKC), Kansas City, Missouri. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The private pilot and a passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was registered to Air McRoyal LLC and operated by the pilot under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight that was not operating on a flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The flight was originating at the time of the accident and was en route to Youngstown, Ohio. The airplane arrived at MKC on August 15, 2013, and was parked on the ramp until the day of the accident when it was taxied to the airport self-serve fuel pump and 25.25 gallons of 100 low lead aviation fuel was obtained. A mechanic stated that he heard the airplane engine run-up and takeoff. The run-up was “short” and was “less than a minute.” He did not hear any engine power hesitations during the run-up, just a “quick” magneto check. He did not hear any power hesitation prior to the engine quitting during takeoff. The airplane departed runway 19 (6,827 feet by 150 feet, grooved concrete) and the pilot reported an unspecified problem during climb. The airplane descended to an estimated height of 10 feet above the runway surface with the landing gear retracted. The airplane was approximately no farther than half down the runway before a second climb began. The airplane attained an altitude of about 300-400 feet above ground level when it was observed to enter a turning stall. The airplane descended and impacted a field about 0.25 miles southwest of the departure end of runway 19. Examination of the airplane engine revealed the presence of a liquid consistent with water present in the fuel servo. There were no reports of fuel contamination and/or loss of engine power by airplanes fueled at the fuel pump where the accident airplane was fueled from. Examination of the airport fuel facility did not reveal any fuel contamination. The pilot bought the airplane in February 2013. He accumulated a total flight time of about 308.7 hours, of which 19.2 hours were in the accident airplane make and model.

My M20C climbed better than my M20K does. The C was a lot lighter on any given typical flight, with the short body and small engine. It only had 30 less HP (180 vs. 210). It also took off in less distance, landed shorter, and had a higher useful load. Climb is a function of extra horsepower per gross weight. The 310 HP planes (Rocket, Missile, some Ovations) are probably the best climbers, followed by the lightweight short-body E and C models. The rest fall somewhere in between.

The speed brakes do not seem to have much (or any) impact on the landing flare. As your airspeed lowers and your angle of attack increases, they become less effective. I've landed with them up and down, and once you get below about 100 or 90 knots, there does not seem to be a difference. They are a great tool for coming down from altitude. In the pattern, you just have to watch your speed on short final to shorten your landing distance. 5 knots too fast and you will float, regardless of speed brakes.

Oops - Double Post.

I don't value the latest glass avionics for very much. Your iPad can do more. Even if you're not convinced it can, the next generation of tablets will. The G1000 in the Ovation 2 probably is not WAAS-capable. The radio/GPS stack in the Bravo, after you are done tuning frequencies, just connects your voice to ATC when you press the button on the yoke. Same function as a 30-year-old radio. The days of 50k glass panels are numbered. I wouldn't want to be one of the last guys to buy one. You can build a way cooler home theatre for the money. I would tell you to pick the engine and airframe you want. Encore is turbocharged and serves a different mission than the Ovation. The Bravo is also turbocharged. Do you want a turbo? Do you need one? Do you need efficiency or speed? The Encore is a mid-body length, and is the absolute king of efficiency. The Ovation and Bravo give more legroom for rear seat passengers, and more baggage area. They may go a little faster, but will burn 3-5 more GPH. Which do you want? Once you've picked your engine and airframe, you're just going to be watching your autopilot follow a magenta line across the country. Do you care if it's on a G1000 or a 430W? Just some items to think about.

Night IFR is hard to describe. It gets hard to tell when you're in clouds, and when you're not. You can't see buildups ahead of you to deviate and stay out of them. The flash of your strobes off the clouds can unexpectedly disorient you. It's tempting to keep looking out the window to try to figure out if you have a visual reference or not. Unexpected flight into clouds can be disorienting even to an experienced IFR pilot. Add in trying to hold the flashlight with one hand, read a chart or plate with the other, and talk on the radio to a controller, while a passenger is jabbering in your ear... It's like day IFR, but harder. The dangers of night VFR are also compounded. Some pilots won't do night VFR because an engine out landing will be challenging. An engine out in night IFR is like that, plus you can't even see hope to see the ground or find a road to land on until you break out the bottom of the clouds. Same thing with a vacuum or gyro failure. Bad enough during the day. At night, you might break out with a partial panel, but still not be able to find the horizon. Find your own comfort level, but for me, night IFR is to be avoided. I'd rather get a hotel room and fly another day. I'd suggest you work your way up to it, if you're going to do it. My opinion only.

Deciding whether to fly yourself or go by airline is always hard. Especially if you're going on a long cross-country, which increases the odds you have to cross a weather system. There are no hard and fast rules. Each weather system contains its own challenges (ice, thunderstorms, low ceilings / visibility). Each plane has its own challenges (no de-ice, no onboard Nexrad, no stormscope, no WAAS, no autopilot). Each pilot has their own challenges (proficiency, training, confidence). Each and every flight, you need to make sure you evaluate each and every challenge, and decide if you want to tackle it. Also, decide if you want to take passengers with you. A few tips, some of which I wish somebody had given me when I was in your position, which was not all that long ago: 1. Do not fly in clouds when the outside air temperature is between -5C and +2C (Ice) 2. Do not fly within 30 NM of anything shaded red on Nexrad (Thunderstorms) 3. Do not fly above widespread areas of low IFR conditions on the ground, meaning ceilings < 1000 ft (Engine out) 4. Do not fly IFR after sundown 5. Carry lots of extra fuel when IFR. Detours and rerouting are much more common, and you have plenty to worry about without adding fuel to the list. Add a fuel stop if necessary. Some people will disagree with some of these. I am just submitting they are a good start for a fresh IFR pilot. Even the airline pilots will say that single pilot IFR in a single engine Mooney takes some brass. It's a serious game we play. So leave yourself some margin for error. If I can accomplish the flight without breaking that list of rules, I generally will fly myself.

Hah, you're right, Hank, I don't really have "notches" anymore. Leftover mentality from the manual flaps on my last Mooney, which took 4 pumps from zero to full flaps, and take-off was at 2 pumps. I would use two pumps on downwind, 3rd pump on base, 4th pump on final, generally speaking. My K model has a "take-off" setting marked, and infinitely adjustable flaps, but I still think of "take-off" as 2 notches. Anything past the takeoff mark, as I understand it, adds drag but not lift.

Takeoff flaps result in a faster take-off, better obstacle clearance, and a lower-nose attitude during the initial climb-out, which improves forward visibility. They should be used as standard operating procedure, in my humble opinion. I've done plenty of takeoffs with and without them. The only time I do not use them is in an extremely gusty headwind on takeoff. I will do a no-flap takeoff to minimize the risk of a gust picking up the plane and then slamming it back down. Remember - the first two notches of flaps increase lift, while decreasing airspeed (obstacle clearance). The 3rd and 4th notches only increase drag. Lift is what you want on takeoff.

Took my son, who is 3. First movie he's seen in theater. He absolutely loved it. But then, he's already got an airplane obsession. Not sure where he picked that up... I found it entertaining, but yes, it's aimed at a 3 year old demographic. Do not expect realism or FAR compliance.

I don't think so. In the Mooney you must get your speed right, which is not true in the 172. To keep your speed within 5 knots of your target, while hitting your target altitudes, requires throttle movement, at least for me. Mine varies between 17 and 13 " on most landings, adjusted slowly one way or the other. As far as I can tell this is true of all the Mooneys. Staying ahead of the plane requires constant small adjustments of both throttle and pitch.

So I made it, and got parked about two rows down. When does the bbq start?

I just had the main tanks filled for my flight to OSH tomorrow morning. I would like to know as well. I presume they will be swamped with planes and just filling up the spaces first-come-first-serve, but I've never been before.

I have several hundred hours flying a 262 conversion. The engine is really great. Set the power you want, at any altitude. Adjust the cowl flaps for the temperature you want, and it just flies. Just overhauled the wastegate and pressure relief valve, otherwise it's been trouble-free. Can't overboost it and it's easy to keep it cool. Dual alternators, standby vacuum system. About as redundant as you can get without adding another engine. $80k is a big chunk of change. It makes no financial sense. You're going to have a plane that's worth $125k tops, as far as I can tell in today's market, when you're done. Maybe less if your plane does not have speed brakes, hot prop (maybe the quote is for a hot prop, thus the expense?), split folding rear seats, long range tanks, and all the other goodies people are looking for in the 252 market. But then again, owning and flying a Mooney makes no financial sense anyways. It looks like maybe you're really paying the same price as an LB engine conversion, plus $10k for dual alternators, a better turbo and wastegate system, and the improved cowl flaps. That would be worth it, to me.

My C model would barely climb at 10,000 with full fuel and 2 adults on board. I took it to 12,000 a few times, but climb rates would be about 200 FPM at Vy above 10k. Any faster or slower and virtually no climb at all. The carb'd 180-HP O-360 is not a high altitude performer. It would be very easy, taking off at 10k DA, to pull back a little too hard and lose your climb. A little harder, staring at trees getting big in the windshield, and a stall could occur. No idea if that happened to this pilot, but be careful out there. Fly early and fly light if you're flying high.

When my gauge did it on the M20K, it was a faulty gauge. Rebuilt for a couple hundred bucks, works great.

So, I can probably go to Oshkosh the first weekend, and no other time during the event. Looking at the schedule, it appears the only thing on the first Saturday / Sunday are the B2OSH, Cessna, and Mooney caravans. I do not have the flexibility or training to join the caravan (wish I did). Is it worth it to show up Saturday? There appears to not be any activities really until Monday. Will somebody have a grill? I can bring beer. Trying to decide if it will be worth the trip.

I wish. From the ad: "Built in 1986, converted to the latest FA2 standard in 1997 and last flown in 2001, this aircraft will require several parts before it can be flown again and is being sold as not airworthy – for display purposes only." Pretty cool though. I saw one last fall on the deck of the USS Intrepid in New York City. It looked airworthy, but I remember thinking, it's a miracle if that thing can actually do VTOL. It looks like it would just tip over when you turned on the thrusters. Very impressive feat of engineering.

There may someday be a personal vehicle that can take off vertically like this and fly. It will look nothing like the TF-X. This is just somebody's pipe dream. It's like a miniature Osprey on wheels, with magic 600-HP electric engines that run on pixie dust. Not even all that imaginative, in my opinion. By the way, on my bucket list: Fly an Osprey. I need to figure out how to make that happen...

In my opinion, the best reading is various threads on Mooneyspace. It's all been discussed here, at length, by people with hundreds or thousands of hours of Mooney time and a serious love for Mooney aircraft. I've looked for Mooney books in publication and really found almost none. Those that have been written are out of print and hard to find. Some good examples of threads to browse: http://mooneyspace.com/topic/8971-4-bounced-landings-in-a-row/ http://mooneyspace.com/topic/8291-landings/ http://mooneyspace.com/topic/8340-crosswind/ http://mooneyspace.com/topic/8316-typical-m20c-speeds-tas/ http://mooneyspace.com/topic/5934-mooney-most-bang-for-your-buck/ Think of what you want to know, put it in the "search" box, and I guarantee you'll find your answers. Welcome to the Mooney family.

I for one suggest everybody post under their real name, first and last. If you are flaming somebody for their political views, LOP habits, hyphenated last name, or parachute desires, at least have the courage to put your name behind it.

I have also wondered why more small planes are not pressurized. I mean, it seems like with some industrial caulk and some elbow grease, plus a pressurization pump and a release valve, it would be possible. Easy, maybe not, but we see people spending 20k+ all the time on glass panels, and spending 800k on new airplanes that are not pressurized... I have no engineering qualifications. Can somebody who knows more than me explain this? I bet there is a good reason.

Awesome. Thanks.