cujet

I certainly hope you replaced the oil cooler (they fill with metal particulates) and the oil lines are known to be clean.

I voted "bring back the J" and "invent a new airplane" However, none of the poll choices would be my answer. Note: I'm an aviation professional with 30+ years experience, I see the trend towards higher end products, equipped with every imaginable option as extremely limiting. First, I'd like to see Mooney update the looks of the airframe. Regardless of what actually matters, looks sell. Just ask me about the looks vs. performance ratio of our Eurocopter EC-135 if you don't believe that looks matter. "Looks" modernization can be done with relative ease and incorporated into aerodynamic tweaks. Second, Mooney should offer a high performance, low frills airframe. Fast, simple, cheap and light. A modern "J" with the IO-390 might be a great choice. Every effort should be made to keep it simple. This reduces the cost to affordable levels. Even manual gear is a viable option... Third, I'd like to see Mooney retain it's spot as "the fast one", with a more modern design retract. Something along the lines of the Pipistrel Panthera:

I don't want to speculate on what happened. What I do want to remind everybody of is that the "basics" are critical. Having enough fuel, runway and altitude. Ensuring flight controls are free, landing gear is where it should be, and pitot covers are off, engine has oil,,, are examples of what I'm talking about. A recent GIV crash seems to be related to the fact that the flight crew never bothered to "box" the flight controls (to ensure freedom/proper movement) . A local twin/piston fatal crash was due to a fuel selector being in the "OFF" position. All of us should study the accident reports. Then make every effort to avoid the mistakes others make. I look at it this way. Once the basics are covered fully and properly, risks are very significantly reduced. I can't predict when that exhaust valve will break off. I can predict that running out of fuel will result in a forced landing. We have serious safety issues in GA. Some of them can be fully addressed by the proper application of technology. Better training and education might help (statistically, it does not seem to help GA numbers) But, all of us can address the basics properly, thereby reducing our risk. 1) Pilots still run out of fuel. Some even take off with no fuel... 2) Pilots continue to depart hot, high and heavy 3) Pilots continue to avoid proper preflights 4) Our best pilots still fly into awful weather conditions (Scott Crossfield, Steve Fossett) 5) Pilots still fly low and buzz. The result is often a tangle with powerlines, trees, swamp, lakes, and more. and on and on. I don't have the answers. I do know that we can make an effort to avoid doing stupid things.

Carson speed is as slow as I care to go. It's the best blend of MPG, GPH and groundspeed. Many people get concerned about GPH, when MPG (as previously mentioned) is really what matters. I'd like to add a few points. The ever present headwind or headwind component (yes a crosswind can slow you down) (think about that for a minute, then consider the percentage of flights with some headwind component) takes a heavier toll as you slow down. 20Kts off of 160Kts is better than 20Kts off of 100Kts. 12% loss vs 20% loss. Your time has value. Saving $10 in fuel, while taking an hour longer makes zero sense to me. As mentioned above, consider the MPG and Time in your equation. And, the interesting thing about the time savings. It's cumulative. A full tank of going slow added a good bit of time to your engine too. Let's look at this another way, if your goal is to get somewhere, then do so as effectively as possible. You probably don't drive your car 45 in a 65 to save fuel. Why would you do it in an airplane?

I'd like to add my opinion as an aviation professional with 30 years experience. 1) I'm a huge fan of personal aircraft ownership. 2) It's incredibly important to purchase a good aircraft, one that's in good shape, well maintained and in need of very little. 3) It may be financially important to avoid that perfect airplane that costs 50% more than the rest of the fleet. Reason: Using it depreciates it's value rapidly. 4) I strongly encourage capable owner/pilots to really get to know their aircraft, right down to the last nut and bolt. They are not like modern cars, as aircraft require regular maintenance, servicing and inspection. Capable owner/pilots can and should perform oil changes, tire changes, and other servicing/maint as allowed by the FAR's. Again, owners do better when they actively and properly maintain their aircraft. So many owners bring their aircraft to a shop, drop it off, and get back a damaged aircraft and a huge bill. When ever I bring an aircraft to a shop, I remain with it, make decisions as necessary and keep close tabs on the work being performed. 5) While partnerships can work, and can dilute many expenses. Often, a partnership will necessitate that a shop perform all of the preventative maint. Driving up costs considerably. Sole owners can, and do, perform many money saving tasks. A local 4 party partnership has an hourly "fee" of $75/hr to cover yearly maint costs (not including fuel) . At that rate, might as well rent. And, as you might expect, one partner landed "gear up" last month. 6) Mooney's are not Cessna 172's. But that does not mean Mooney's are too much for a private pilot. They are single engine, low HP, piston engined, 4 seat, light aircraft. They handle well, fly well, are very safe and like any aircraft, require proper training. WW-II pilots went from 65HP Cubs to 1700+HP Mustangs in short order. And did so with proficiency. Proper training is key. 7) This is my opinion, and it's based on my needs and likes: Slower aircraft are impractical for cross country travel, especially when you factor in the ever-present headwind. Flying a C150 across the USA simply takes too long, uses too much fuel (by mile traveled) and is not really any better than driving. To travel, which is what I like to do with a light aircraft, my magic number is 182Kts True air speed. As you can fly 1/2 way across the continent and come very close to airline times, when other factors are included, such as TSA lines and showing up 1 hour early, etc. 100Kts TAS (or less) is competitive with driving, and truth be told, you might as well drive. It's the airspeed in the middle of those numbers that matter to me. The faster, the better. That's the reason for aircraft ownership! Edit: Certified aircraft are about 5x safer than experimental aircraft. Any way you view it. Edit: Justifying light aircraft ownership is often impossible. You have to want to own an aircraft. The fact that it is sometimes practical is a big bonus.

Believe it or not, there are capable mechanics that will overhaul your engine, provide a warranty and use the very best parts available. I've had engines built by BPE (Barret Precision Engines) (Monty and Alan Barret) with fantastic success. These guys really understand the issues with the original designs, know what the best parts are, and provide an incredibly high quality product. All, for less than a factory engine, assembled with care, quite unlike a factory engine.

Just a quick FYI. Whelen now has a "Parmetheus Plus" that is, I think, 40% brighter than the original Parmetheus. I almost purchased one at Sun N Fun (they did have them there) . It certainly looked to be well more than 40% brighter. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/el/landinglights_whelen/whelenparplus362.php

I'm finding this very interesting. Thanks for the additional data points. Although, your speeds still seem quite low. Is there something different about your aircraft? A large number of external antennas or tundra tires (just a little joke) , something creating additional drag. 80% power should produce around 170Kts from what I understand.

Thanks! I don't have a picture of how the baffle is done on the Extra 300L. It's exactly the same cylinder. But, Extra did it right. They lowered the baffle, to expose the deep fins. In my case, I can't do that due to the air filter assy being part of the baffle.

So, in light of this, what cruise speed and fuel flow would you expect at 10,000 feet, rated cruise power? Clearly, the OP wants to go fast, at lower altitudes. To me, it seems that his speed of 145Kts at 10K is way off the mark. I can understand wanting a Rocket, as it really is fast. I don't see the comparison of 145Kts to 200Kts as valid though. It's more like 170+Kts vs 200Kts from what I understand. Maybe the OP would run the Rocket LOP at reduced power. And, maybe we could compare speeds another way. What's a Rocket do at 10,000 ft, LOP at reduced power, compared to a well configured LB 231 at rated cruise power? I understand that running an engine near or against it's operational limits is uncomfortable for some. And, those that "baby" their engines may make the rated overhaul period without wearing it out. However, keeping speeds down to 145Kts results in considerably more time on the engine, per trip. Is the end result better? If I were to guess, I'd say the OP is gentle on his engine, and is unhappy with the low altitude speed provided by gentle operation. Plenty of engines run "as designed" make TBO.

That is incredible!

As an A+P, I've used both brands. I'm not at all sure you could say that one is better than the other. New is new, and old is old. I'd purchase on price.

1) I don't have any recent business experience with Firewall Forward. I did have them modify my camshaft back in 2008-9 timeframe. They did a fine job and the work was done in about 3 weeks (if I remember correctly) . Not exactly fast, but not 3 months either. It was a bit of an "odd" deal, as I had to purchase a specific brand of camshaft (genuine lyc or specific aftermarket brand that I can't recall) Then I had to send the camshaft to them for modification. Why they don't stock their own product, or provide one "as needed" is beyond me. 2) 10 to 1 compression: The 177RG guys have extensive experience with the 10 to 1 compression modification in the IO-360 A1B6 (d also) . I have experience with 10 to 1 in a Lyc AEIO 540 mounted in an Extra 300L. The Cessna guys universally like the additional power, better climb and better speeds. I believe most of them have experienced piston ring annealing at some point in the engine's life. This may be due to ring overheating and loss of ring tension. I'm not 100% sure the 10/1 "failures" are clearly understood by the operators of these engines. But, (I believe) ring annealing is the general consensus on the Cardinal forums. Some operators have made it 600 hours. Some operators have made it over 1000 hours before the "tell tale" loss of compression and high oil consumption. I've run 2 different AEIO 540 engines with 10 to 1, using the exact same helicopter pistons, stock angle valve cylinders, rods, cam timing and injectors as our IO360 FF engines do. The first engine failed within 30 hours. With complete loss of compression in the aft 4 cylinders. The 2 forward cylinders were fine. Here is EXACTLY what happened. The install shop ran the engine, without cowling, extensively on the ground. The forward cylinders had plenty of airflow. The center cyls got really hot. The aft cylinders turned blue! The resulting cylinder barrel warpage prevented the rings from sealing. It's as if the steel barrels went from round to waffle! We replaced the bad cylinders and installed new rings. Problem solved. Engine performed like a champ. Many years of abuse later, compression decreased and a re-ring/hone was required. The second engine was constructed similarly. With new ported angle valve cylinders, helicopter pistons, and plenty of other little tweaks. It is tuned to 2850 RPM. It is a MONSTER. With amazing throttle response, smooth operation and considerably more power than stock. It's holding up just fine, does not detonate and is slightly more efficient at cruise speed. Will it make it's 2000 hour TBO without cylinder removal? I don't know. However, after compression loss, a re-ring and hone job seems to be all that is required to keep a 10/1 cylinder healthy. As it does seem it's only a ring issue. Whether it's actually ring annealing (as the Cardinal guys think) or ring wear is not all that important to me. A simple re-ring solves the issue. Clearly, 10 to 1 engines need tight and well engineered baffling. Below are some pics. In particular, take a look at the Lyc cylinder baffle height issue on the forward side of the LH cylinders. OEM's often get this very wrong. And, if not fixed, 10/1 is not going to work for you. Notice the fin depth is nearly zero mid cylinder head. Exactly where OEM's put the baffle. The result is insufficient cooling, especially with 10/1 pistons. Below is my minor alteration to vastly improve this flaw.

As a mechanic, I still see a few Lycoming engines that are 40 years old, and seemingly airworthy (however, without disassembly, it's very difficult to know the actual internal condition) . My 200HP Lyc was installed in 1975 (or 74) and made it until 2007, when the camshaft finally failed. 1700+ hours since new. Upon disassembly of my engine, many parts were scrap due to corrosion. Including the cam, rods, gears and so on. If this is an aircraft for purchase, the engine needs to be considered "timed out" for pricing purposes. I'd bet a dollar that if the engine in question were disassembled, it would be in need of an overhaul. If only because there is internal corrosion on the connecting rods, crankshaft counterweights, camshaft bits, and possibly cylinder corrosion. Remember 12 years is the Lyc recommended overhaul period. 25 years is beyond double! Without proof the internals are perfect, the engine needs to be considered as timed out. Below is a pic of why time is a huge factor. Let's look at this another way. Our air cooled engines have plenty of combustion "blow by". This carries lead salts into the oil, as a byproduct of burning 100LL Avgas. Those lead salts are corrosive in nature. Couple that with the significant moisture created by combustion and the engines internals are bathed in a acidic corrosive mixture of water and lead salts. Oil change intervals and usage habits play a very large role in the corrosion equation. 25 years of low utilization significantly increases the possibility of internal corrosion.

"If" it provides accurate lightning data, it's a very worthwhile tool. Some of them are quite inaccurate, either due to installation errors, poor design or faulty equipment. When yours was functional, did it match what you saw? If so, repair it.

I'd like to understand why your engine won't tolerate it's rated cruise power at 10K. Is that simply the nature of the 231, even with intercooler? Certainly, the 252 had some cooling upgrades, and throttle body/tuned intake/intercooler "fixes". However, you have the intercooler and could upgrade the wastegate. From what I understand, the upgraded engine helps with temp issues too due to the larger throttle body. Or is it that you are cautious and don't want to risk higher temps on your current "old" engine? I'm looking into upgrading to a 231 and would like to know exactly what I am getting into. Thanks

It's as you say. From the TCDS: NOTE 17: A TSI0-360-GB series engine may be replaced with a TSI0-360-LB engine by complying with Mooney Aircraft Corporation Service Bulletin No. M20-228. What I have been led to believe is that an LB with the magic wastegate and intercooler performs much like the MB. Does this help any? : NOTE 21: M20K S/N’s 25-1000 thru 25-1230 and 25-2000 thru 25-2012 may be retrofitted to TSIO-360-SB2 engine and gross weight increase to 3130 Lbs. when complied with M20K Gross Weight Increase Retrofit Instructions. http://www.67m20e.com/Mooney%20TCDS%202A3%20Rev%2052%20dtd%209DEC10.pdf

I like to go as fast as practical in nearly any airplane I'm flying. My reason to fly is to go fast and not necessarily to sightsee. However, there are times were flying economically can get you there, avoiding a fuel stop. This is the only situation where I'd consider LOP or reduced power operations. I regularly fly from S. FL to Central TN. ROP operations on this trip may result in an Alabama fuel stop.

Sounds like you are unwilling to use the power you have to achieve good speeds at modest altitudes. I'd guess that a 252 will achieve close to the book value 171 Kts true at 10,000, at 78% power. An upgrade to 252 engine and a willingness to burn more fuel may be in order. http://mooneyspace.com/files/download/16-mooney-model-altitude-vs-speed/

I'd love to get an update. I found this thread quite interesting. I feel for the owner and his battles with the various entities involved. At a casual glance, it seems some of those items are repairable, and some require parts replacement. It would be interesting to see how it all works out. Damage of any sort can be quite expensive to repair.

Rotax cams are located on the bottom. I believe they also have a 8 lobes (but I've never seen a Rotax cam) . The Lycoming has 6 lobes. In other words, the Lycoming has 2 lifters on a single lobe (the opposing left and right cylinders share an intake cam lobe) .

Yes, you can eventually get to all the cam lobes. However, the sump and the crankcase are separated by a narrow slit formed by both case halves. You need a 5mm or smaller borescope to do this. And, it's exceedingly difficult to position the borescope, the crank and the viewing angle properly. Looking at all 6 lobes is an all day affair for me. Look at the picture of the case half. Look where the sump bolts on (on the upper right of the picture) . Imagine that when both case halves are together, there is precious little room to work a borescope up through what are narrow passageways.

Both pilots were in the front on the Canyon event. The Canyon PIC was dropped off at LAX, so the other guy was flyin at LAX. Neither said anything much to me afterwards. The LAX event did involve some heated discussion with the tower (as if they had any control over the situation) . Both pilots are alive and well. Oh, I forgot to add, Pilot #2 did fly under a famous bridge on the last leg of the delivery flight. Ugh. I was not happy about that either. Thinking back, it's no wonder I operate aircraft the way I do. I absolutely refuse to fly low, do stunts, buzz people or other stupid stuff. I'm not good enough to do such things and live. Heck, I won't fly to the Keys or Bahamas due to water...

An old thread, but I thought I'd add my "terror" experiences to the list. Happened twice on the same trip. Aircraft: Eurocopter EC-135 Location 1: Grand Canyon Location 1: LAX I was in the back of our brand new heli, looking forward, as we were flying about 1000 feet below the rim of the Grand Canyon, at midnight. We turned down a box canyon (one that abruptly ends) and were heading straight for the canyon wall at 140Kts, illuminated only by moonlight! Once our pathetic landing light was showing a spot on the canyon wall, I "knew" we were dead, as the pilot took no action. I started screaming to the pilot to "pull up", which he did,,, hard! Narrowly missing the rocks on the slope. I'd guess we were within a few feet of the rocky slope, at 135-140Kts. Pulled about 4Gs on that one. Later the next day, we were cleared to cross perpendicular to the runways at LAX at 1500 feet. From the terminal on one side (dropping off the canyon pilot, thank God) and over to the FBO. So, straight up we went, and across we go, normal procedure for a helicopter at LAX. As we crossed, an Embraer Brasilia did a "Space Shuttle" departure (pulled up sharply and climbed rapidly) right into our flight path. Once again, I was in the back, screaming like a little girl. The pilot saw the Embraer at the last second and took evasive action. About 4Gs, which seems to be the practical limit of the EC-135. We ended up inverted and pulled out near ground level in a "half loop" maneuver. That was a horrible and somewhat violent event. I ended up mildly injured as I was leaning out of my seatbelt watching the oncoming traffic. I'm 50, flying since 17, (both private and corporate) and these two incidents were the absolute worst I've ever experienced. Nothing else comes close.

Another interesting point. I noticed that my Centrilube camshaft retained oil inside the bore after "pre oiling" during assembly. When rotated, the oil dripped and oozed out of the holes. I'm fairly certain that after a week of sitting, simple rotation of the engine spreads that oil on to the cam's exterior surface. I'd also guess that at least some of the cam lobes get instant oiling upon startup due to this.