pinerunner

I was checked out in my M20E by an Air National Guard pilot who flys large cargo planes as his main job. He had all the instructor ratings to take you to ATP if you wanted and had done his early carreer complex time in a Mooney. He was not a Mooney specialist and did not work for a "center". I think he was one of the better instructors I've had and have no complaints. I don't think of Mooneys as strange planes that require rarified,expert specialist training to fly. I find mine reasonably comparable to the Comanche that I got my first complex time in 35 years ago, but i like the Mooney much better. I'd lump it with other high performance singles and with the laminar-flow wing extra attention to stalls and speed control are required as for the others. Obviously, don't take the leap from a 172 to a Mooney lightly either. Dave

I'm with Immelman on this. With my M20E I was taught 90 MPH on downwind and slow to 80 MPH on final. That results in just a little float while flairing. If I slow it up a bit more to 75 MPH the float goes away and shorter strips (2000 + ft) are possible. Of course I add a extra speed it I have any reason to suspect gusty conditions. With some of the speeds I see talked about in KTS on final approach, I'm not surprised Mooneys get a rap for being hard to land and floating forever. At the website www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/m20e.html the pilot goes over this and recommends 1.2x stall speed at the configuration which gave him 73 MIAS in the M20E he was flying with full flap landing. I'm very careful about airspeed control at those lower speeds and use just under 80 MIAS in larger airports. I think staying over the centerline while floating 1000 ft is harder than making a good short field landing. Dave

Update; The folks at Auburn-Lewiston (KLEW) in Maine have responded positively to my initial inquiry " We would love to have you set a date of 26 October 2013 for the First Annual Great Falls Fly-in. We will have some local favorites on the grill, arrange for a tour of the Constellation project, and maybe even have a special fuel price for the day. I have started looking for things that are happening around that time, but I am new to the area so I getting some help there. " They also seem to have put the ball somewhat in my court. Hmm. I want a closer look at that Connie. Dave

Neffmeister I'm glad it turned out well in the end. If it doesn't turn out to be "infant mortality" as DAVIDWH discussed my first guess would be that the throttle slipped out quickly leading to the backfire. I've had my throttle slip out slowly back when I first got my M20E usually during takeoff when I was busy with the gear. Lucky for me it was the first thing I thought of and just pushed it back in. There's a whole thread on it and I'm beginning to think its common. Dave

Hi Mike, I think the thing he was worried about was nose-high angle needed to keep it down around 80-85 mph. He was probably worried about power-on stall. When we dropped the nose enough for him see over it I started worrying about exceeding the maximum flap extension speed of 100 mph on my old E model. That's very easy to do. Looking over the way those flaps are made, they don't look as robust as a Cessna so I take that number seriously. Things get interesting with a high performance plane and while I don't have the same top speed as the 201's I've got the same engine and a lighter airframe (I think) so it really bores a hole in the sky. It's certain I have to establish a positive rate of climb first so I don't think I can be as quick on the gear as on take-off. I'm going to be doing some special practice specificly to sort this out. I also don't want to even raise the eyebrows of the examiner I take my IFR check ride with. Dave Dave

Update; In my home state Maine one possibility that occurred to me was Auburn-Lewiston (KLEW) where they have a pretty good on-field restaurant. In addition, the most noteworthy attraction (in my opinion of course) is a Lockheed Constellation that is being restored to full airworthyness by Luthansa. Getting a close look at this would be better for me than any museum. I've spoken to the airport manager and he seemed positive and liked the second weekend in October as a target date. There might still be fall foliage at that time. How do you like them apples? Dave

I did look at the temperatures before start-up that had been recorded. All EGT's and CHT's were within a degree of each other at 84-85 degrees so there's one data point to feel comfortable about. Talked to the folks at EI and they explained that the spark-plug ring probe has the actual thermocouple outside the ring that doubles as a washer for the spark plug. Either cooling air or hot air from the exhaust manifold can change the temperature the thermocouple see's. All calibration is done at the factory and can't be changed. Basicly the response is strictly a function of the two disimilar metals used and thermocouple gauges either work or fail completely. I had one fail and it would drop out entirely and then come back and I replaced it. Since I bought the UBG-16 to upgrade my USB-8 I have a complete extra set of probes. I do have an extra ring probe so maybe I'll swap and report. I was behind schedule on a lot of things last weekend so the only thing I boiled was some hot dogs.

I don't. Although I never gave it much thought before. Since I run it a little first ( I think most of us do that) the inside of engine should be liberally coated with oil and the initial start-up shouldn't be a problem. Probably less start-up wear than if the plane had been sitting a month for instance. I run it to warm it and speed the draining and more importantly to thoughly mix anything that might have settled to the bottom and drain that out with the oil. I want the oil analysis sample to be thouroughly mixed and representative of the total. Dave

I like that idea. I have relatives nearby in RI so I could crash at their pad if you kept me up past my bedtime. Dave

Pittsfield, Maine 2B7

Hi All, I've been working on my instrument rating with my 1964 M20E and, while my instructor has complemented me on knowing my plane, we ran into a situation doing a missed approach that has me thinking over the details a bit more. Once he told me "missed approach" I gave it full power and lifted the nose, trying to get about 80 mph so I could get the gear up easily. Thus started a scirmish with my instructor, who wanted me to get the nose down to pick up speed and worried about a power on stall. As he worked on me to get the nose down I noticed airspeed approaching 100 mph, the maximum flap extended speed, so I asserted myself to protect them and get them up at least. Eventually we got things sorted out. I mostly like the Johnson bar but it can add an extra element in making things interesting. First flight with the same instructor he set his jazzy hand-held NAV/COM on the floor in front of the gear-up latching point just before take-off. After take-off I tried three times to latch, jamming the bar vigorously into the strange new obstruction, then gave up, left the gear dangling half-way, found the "funny old phone" and delivered it unto his hands, and finished cleaning up my plane. Good clean fun. For those out there who fly IFR with an older Johnson bar, could you share your SOP for managing the plane during approaches? My instructor and I will go over them decide the best sequence for me to minimize the "pucker factor".

I just tried out the Sanford restaurant and it's as great as they say. Maybe if you do your XC to New England we can coordinate and turn it into a mini-Mooney flyin. I visited there a year ago also and was treated to a spontaneous tour of the shop where they were rebuilding a PBY. Sanfords FBO looked to be better stocked with charts and stuff than many I've seen. Dave

I'm away from the plane until the weekend. Will post more data then.

Thanks Rob, Your numbers are very similar to mine. The folks at EI where I got my probes said they've seen this frequently on the front cylinders, in particular where the oil cooler shields the cylinder right behind it. On their spark plug ring probes the actual thermocouple is not in the ring but a attached a little ways away. It can be either cooled or heated depending on how close to the exhaust. Its comforting to see your numbers. I hope others chime in. Dave

I'm generaly running LOP with 8 gph 2500 rpm and 23 inches. My GAMI spread is about 0.9 gph which makes LOP possible but has me thinking about springing for GAMI injectors. This puts #1, my richest cylinder about 30 LOP on #1 and #3 and 80 LOP on #2 and #4. The resulting CHT's are 270,315,290,and 300 so the two front cylinders are both the lowest (right) and highest (left, pilot side). I've read about some funny airflow around that guppy-mouthed cowling with actual flow reversal and air gushing out.

Hello all, I've had a 1964 M20E for a year now and with UBG-16 (started out with USG-8). It's got the original "guppy mouth" cowling). The CHT's for cylinder #1 have always read about 30 degrees lower than the others. In general I think the CHT's overall are a little lower than I'd like (targeting 340 degrees on a hot day in normal cruise), I have work to get them into the low 300's and if I drop to lower power its down into the mid-200's. Special attention was given to the baffling at annual but no difference. Is this simply normal for these older Mooneys to have #1 lower and are they in general overcooled? My money's tight but I've considered getting that lower cowl closure mod. While cooler is generally better I'm aware the lead scavenger Mike Busch has talked about not doing as good a job at very low temperature. I thought it might be the ring gauge instead of bayonet on #1 but in one of Busch's webinars a question about that was asked and the answer was that the ring type should read a little higher, not a lot lower. I'm not very worried about this but I'd like to know more.

Hi all, I've had my M20E a year now in Maine and have tried to use Google find nearby Mooney fly-ins to no avail. Any other New England flyers have suggestions? Dave

Well ... One thing noone's mentioned is using lower RPMs. That would give more time between the carburator and points where the manifold divides the flow to the different cylinders. If the fuel were completely vaporized and the gaseous fuel/air mixture truly mixed, carburated engines ought to be the easiest to operate LOP instead of harder. Droplets going around corners are expected to be thown to the outside of the curve. Evaporation cools down the droplets and tends to slow down further evaporation. Along with a bit of carb heat and turbulence from the cracked throttle a bit more time might make the difference. The volume per unit time and linear velocity in the manifold will be primarily (perhaps even strickly) a function of RPM so that's the way to give the droplets a little more time to evaporate. I'd try it myself but I've got an M20E so it wouldn't be the same. Stay at lower powers of course; even Mike Busch says he uses 100 ROP if he wants to go fast.

It may not be just a matter of temperature. LOP by its nature has oxygen in the exhaust and so will subject the exhaust system to oxidizing conditions. ROP uses up all the oxygen and produces reducing conditions (yes I'm a chemist) in the exhaust. I don't have particular information on how tough our exhaust systems are but I'd expect it to be tougher LOP. I'm mostly an LOP fan though low time. I wonder if any of the long time LOPers could chime in on the longevity of their exhaust systems. Dave