The making of a super "c"

[Shadrach]

I will disagree with John on this one. The difference in climb is noticeable, in the neighborhood of 10%. The J is a more luxurious albeit fatter airplane which may account for the similar climb rates . An E model verses a C model with all other things being equal is noticeably better in climb and T/O performance. I also believe that an IO will make a higher percentage of power at a altitude due to intake and C/R. Per the POH @ 10,000ft, the injected engine at max available will make 77% of 200 while the carbed is good for 72% of 180. In an apples to apples 100 ROP comparison of POHs, both engines will make 130HP (72% for the carbed vs 64.5% for the injected) at 10,000ft, but the carbed engine will burn a gallon more an hour (10.6gph vs 9.6gph) to do it. The same FF in the injected engine will give you ~146hp or 16 more HP. It may not seem like much, but in the thin air, it is very noticeable...at 10,000ft it boils down to 130hp vs 154hp. Certainly enough to consider! The IO makes ~11% more HP at sea level but the gap opens to ~13.5% at 10K.

So the angle valve will make the same power on significantly less fuel. It will make significantly more power on the same fuel and it will also make both more total power and a higher percentage of its sea level power for a given attitude. It is a superior design for operating at altitude efficiently...

http://www.deltaaviationllc.com/Nav%20Page/POH/M20F%201968%20Executive%2021.pdf

http://www.deltaaviationllc.com/Nav%20Page/POH/M20C%201966%20Mark%2021.pdf

[John Pleisse]

We agree re; performance differences. The C's sweet spot is 6500. wasn't comparing a J to a C. I think the Powerflow would really help a C.

[Shadrach]

We agree re; performance differences. The C's sweet spot is 6500. wasn't comparing a J to a C. I think the Powerflow would really help a C.

Agreed! But it will also help out the angle valve as well. When it's time for a new exhaust, we'll likely go that route!

[John Pleisse]

Sorry I missed you guys for breakfast. Wife is out of town and I am strapped with all 3 kids.

[Shadrach]

I waited until about 8:45 for you Pleisse! I had to roll. It was good time! Tom's new ride is truly a personal airliner. Well equipped, well appointed and very easy on the eyes, if not the wallet (at the pumps)!  

 

,

[KSMooniac]

The Power Flow recommendation is a decent one... anecdotal reports seem to show noticeable improvement for the C and G Mooneys, but notsomuch for the fuel injected variants.  They do have a guarantee of sorts, although you'll eat a lot of labor costs if you return it to them.In any case, it is worthy of consideration IMO vs. a full IO-360 conversion.

 

Doing the conversion will be expensive and/or time consuming, or both!  There are some IO-360's on ebay from time to time, as well as barnstormers.  They may or may not be prop strike engines.  You would be wise to overhaul any of those options immediately, and make sure all of the components get fully inspected during the process.  You could try to find a salvage E/F/J that doesn't have a lot of damage to the front end, otherwise it wouldn't be worth the effort because you'll have significant cost and time in any salvage plane, especially with the recovery, transportation and storage.  In my observation, the large majority of salvaged Mooneys are due to bad landings/gear ups/etc. that smack the prop or more.  I think I saw one F in the last year or so that was totaled from hail, though.  Best case would be to find a J so you could get the full firewall-forward stuff and that would make a true Mooney hot rod!  I don't think I've seen a J with a completely intact front-end come up on the salvage scene in the last year.

 

The advantages that Ross mentioned are very strong points... the angle valve IO-360's are more efficient, and offer the opportunity to run LOP and that can reduce your operating costs noticeably.  If this is your forever plane and you're already upside down in it, then going further down that road might not be a terrible idea and you would be rewarded with better performance and lower fuel burns.  It just costs a lot to get there.  

 

As noted about the RV community with their FI conversions of the 180 HP engines... that would intrigue me sufficiently as an engineer to explore going down that road as a one-off STC project.  It would ultimately be tons cheaper and give you the chance to run LOP, but it would require a lot of work on your end or whoever you hire to do so.  It might be possible, might not, depending on your aptitude and willingness to try as well as the nature of your local ACO.  If I were you, I would see if this is a possibility first before trying to go down the conversion road or even the Power Flow option.

[John Pleisse]

Yeah.. I really wanted to see the plane and visit with you fellows....yes, in that order.

 

JP

[Hank]

 I also believe that an IO will make a higher percentage of power at a altitude due to intake and C/R. Per the POH @ 10,000ft, the injected engine at max available will make 77% of 200 while the carbed is good for 72% of 180. In an apples to apples 100 ROP comparison of POHs, both engines will make 130HP (72% for the carbed vs 64.5% for the injected) at 10,000ft, but the carbed engine will burn a gallon more an hour (10.6gph vs 9.6gph) to do it. The same FF in the injected engine will give you ~146hp or 16 more HP. It may not seem like much, but in the thin air, it is very noticeable...at 10,000ft it boils down to 130hp vs 154hp. Certainly enough to consider! The IO makes ~11% more HP at sea level but the gap opens to ~13.5% at 10K.

 

 

Ross,

 

Welcome back old buddy, but you should check your performance numbers before posting them. I'm attaching the 10,000 msl page from the Performance section for my 1970 C. At 2500, it will make 71% power on 9.0 gpd; at 2600, it will make 72% power at 9.1 gph. Where in the world did you get 10.6 gph from??? Note that both numbers are less than the E's 9.6 gph for the same HP.

 

Also note the true airspeeds shown, 160+ mph = 139-144 kts. Not too bad for 180 HP with extra "chin" drag.

[Shadrach]

Ross,

 

Welcome back old buddy, but you should check your performance numbers before posting them. I'm attaching the 10,000 msl page from the Performance section for my 1970 C. At 2500, it will make 71% power on 9.0 gpd; at 2600, it will make 72% power at 9.1 gph. Where in the world did you get 10.6 gph from??? Note that both numbers are less than the E's 9.6 gph for the same HP.

 

Also note the true airspeeds shown, 160+ mph = 139-144 kts. Not too bad for 180 HP with extra "chin" drag. 

 

Howdy Hank,

 

Uh, I rarely post out of my a$$... I save that for verbal exchanges that are not posted on the internets... 

 

I did check my numbers and linked the 1966 C model and 68 F model POH in my post... Perhaps the marketing dept was in charge of the FF numbers in the POH for 1970!     Apparently the 66! model is also faster...

Something I did not notice is that the 66 POH has no numbers for 2700rpm operations... I guess the factory did not want it run that way...

 

The truth is the data in all of the POHs is likely questionable.  The other truth is that if you have 2 similarly configured engines of the same displacement, but one has port injection, a higher C/R and an air-flow tuned induction. It is going to perform better in terms of power and BSFC. 

[rbridges]

Howdy Hank,

 

Uh, I rarely post out of my a$$... I save that for verbal exchanges that are not posted on the internets... 

 

I did check my numbers and linked the 1966 C model and 68 F model POH in my post... Perhaps the marketing dept was in charge of the FF numbers in the POH for 1970!     Apparently the 66! model is also faster...

Something I did not notice is that the 66 POH has no numbers for 2700rpm operations... I guess the factory did not want it run that way...

 

The truth is the data in all of the POHs is likely questionable.  The other truth is that if you have 2 similarly configured engines of the same displacement, but one has port injection, a higher C/R and an air-flow tuned induction. It is going to perform better in terms of power and BSFC. 

 

I'm going to have to agree with Hank since his argument works in my favor.

[Hank]

Ross--

 

There's no doubt in my mind that the E & F are faster; I've never flown an E but have some F time, and it's a completely different experience. But as you can see, there's no 10 gph fuel flow in my Owner's Manual. As for optimistic Marketing writing, with my 201 windshield and 3-blade prop, I'm generally pretty close to book numbers. Maybe the speeds were corrected? Every now and then, things change.

 

Over the years, many tweaks were made to each model. Was the rudder lengthened and rear flap spar added in 66 or 67? Can't imagine that either of those would affect fuel flow, but at some point both gear and flap operating speeds were increased, as was redline speed. Maybe the prop was changed, the induction was reworked or the extra structure somehow changed a harmonic? I'm restricted against continuous operation from 2000-2250 RPM, but some planes go up to 2300 or even 2350.

 

The F easily outclimbs my C, but how much of that is simply the higher-powered engine? The same would hold true for an E; but after all these years, modifications and installed equipment makes a difference, too, in empty weight and parasitic drag. [How much does that god-awful towel bar antenna on the vertical stabilizer slow me down? My step is fixed; my cowl flaps are fixed; etc.]

 

So relax, I didn't mean to imply that you were posting from your hindquarters. I do, however, stand by the well-verified numbers that I posted, even though most of my flight time is 9000 msl and below. Wanna see the Table for 7500'? 

[Shadrach]

Hank, I'm not ruffled in the least.  The F and E easily out climb the C as you say but I would submit that it is entirely because of the engine. This whole thread is about engines... The air-frames are the same. I've not read any disparaging comments about any of these configurations!  Regarding the Angle valve, the small bump in C/R as well as the other small tweaks make a notable difference. I've never trusted any of the POH speed numbers. Now I have little to no faith in POH FF numbers.

 

I do know that the angle has better BFSC  and power numbers than the parallel valve. It's just common sense. All other things being equal, higher C/R equals better BSFC.  

 

The RV guys don't like the extra weight of the angle valve so they put FI on the parallel valve.  It's all compromise. All Mooneys do well at altitude. It's just the IO 4 bangers do a bit better than the carbed ones...on a bit less gas.

[Mooneyjet]

At 4100 per jug for the io-390, they can shove it where the sun don't shine. I be very happy with keeping my parallel valve engine. however I'm trying to see if there is a way of just converting it to fuel injected. It would give me a big piece of mind when flying imc in visible moisture, like I said my engine is due for an overhaul and I figure it would be worth all the positives points of fuel injections. I'll do some research in how the RV guys convert their engines.

[MB65E]

If you really want a paralle valve engine with FI. Could try the same setup as a Decathlon engine. Granted it an AEIO engine, but the set up is the same and the data is out there. Field approval wise, it could be just another way to get your FI. The approved data would be in the proven fuel system part only. And not require an engine change.

[N9453V]

At 4100 per jug for the io-390, they can shove it where the sun don't shine. I be very happy with keeping my parallel valve engine. however I'm trying to see if there is a way of just converting it to fuel injected. It would give me a big piece of mind when flying imc in visible moisture, like I said my engine is due for an overhaul and I figure it would be worth all the positives points of fuel injections. I'll do some research in how the RV guys convert their engines.

 

Mooneyjet, due to the location of the carb, carb icing is really rare on C and G Mooneys. I've flown in lots of IMC in visible moisture and experienced carb ice only twice and carb heat took care of it. A less expensive option than fuel injection is to install a carb heat probe along with an EDM-700.

 

-Andrew

[Jerry 5TJ]

I've owned both "E" and "C" models and with about 1100 hours total between those two I'd say they perform about the same in real world flying around the USA.   Both are a lot of fun. 

 

I think a real "Super C" would be one that's maintained / refurbished to about how a 2013 M20C would look, if only Kerrville still made them.     

[pirate]

I flew my C for 10years, then several years ago I installed a Millenium engine, Power Flow, challenge filter.

The take off was dramatically better.

At altitude my buddy in his E cannot out run me.