M20J vs. M20R comparison

[donkaye, MCFI]

33 minutes ago, Danb said:

Wow! I lost about 25 lbs last year being sick, 80 nmiles extra....

Sounds like you're being sarcastic, but when added to the 6 lb gain from removal of the 3 strobe power supplies, you get a 30 lb increase, which puts the useful load at over 1,000 lb in my airplane.  Better performance, better climb rate...all good things when it comes to airplanes.

[gsxrpilot]

The back seats in my 252 are 13 lbs each. Of course the best thing I could do to increase the useful load in my 252 would be to take 50 lbs out of the front left seat. 

[Tx_Aggie]

7 minutes ago, donkaye said:

Sounds like you're being sarcastic, but when added to the 6 lb gain from removal of the 3 strobe power supplies, you get a 30 lb increase, which puts the useful load at over 1,000 lb in my airplane.  Better performance, better climb rate...all good things when it comes to airplanes.

Strobe power supplies - are you talking about replacing the strobes with LEDs?

[donkaye, MCFI]

4 minutes ago, Tx_Aggie said:

Strobe power supplies - are you talking about replacing the strobes with LEDs?

Yes. I already did that.

[StevenL757]

Same here.  Went with the OR650e pair, and the OR500 tail nav/anti-collision...all in sync.  Couldn't be happier...or more visible.  Usable load = 1003

[M016576]

7 hours ago, donkaye said:

I wasn't referring to FARs.   I was referring to what is prudent.  Many years ago a Bravo with TKS was sold with a prebuy at Top Gun in Stockton.  Tom recommended that the new purchaser, who had come out of a Cessna 414, get some transition  training with me.  The pilot declined and took off and flew to Truckee where he did a bounced landing so bad  that the wheels came up through the wing.  A new wing was required, and the pilot immediately sold the plane.  I have many more stories...

I'm sure you do.  As do I.  Stick around aviation... either as a "hobby", or a profession... long enough and seeing the effects first hand is inevitable.  

the biggest killers I've seen over the years?  Arrogance and complacency.  Doesn't matter what hardware a pilot is flying, what ratings they have, or how many hours they've accumulated.  We are our own worst enemies up there- and the moment a pilot deep down inside doesn't respect the craft, they will pay for it.

that doesn't change the regulations, though, and I'm honestly happy that they provide the flexibility that they do- and allow us, as pilots in command, to make the assessment of what must be, or mustn't be, accomplished in order to safely fly our aircraft.  Stay safe out there.

[Danb]

10 hours ago, donkaye said:

Sounds like you're being sarcastic, but when added to the 6 lb gain from removal of the 3 strobe power supplies, you get a 30 lb increase, which puts the useful load at over 1,000 lb in my airplane.  Better performance, better climb rate...all good things when it comes to airplanes.

Actually far from being sarcastic, making light of a illness I have and the benefit I got from it, extra load, never considered that could be construed as sarcasm? I'm rather nervous having my physical in three hours.

[Yooper Rocketman]

14 hours ago, Chupacabra said:

The info in this thread is fantastic. The M20 is such a versatile airframe with so many options. Thanks to those who answered my questions. For those out there with a turbo or long body, please don't offer me a ride. I'm truly afraid that I might catch something that requires a large amount of AMU's to heal. I still enjoy my "F" so much and she fits my mission so well I really could do without the temptation.

My first Mooney was an "F", so I can relate.  That said, I can't resist the temptation to share what I did on Friday, December 30th with my turbocharged Rocket.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1017L/history/20161230/1430Z/KIMT/7FL6

The funniest comment I received when I got back home for our EAA Chapter Christmas Party this past Saturday evening was from a fellow Mooniac who lamented "and that was in his SLOW plane".  The Lancair will do that with no wind.

Oh.....you're not far from my Spruce Creek home so I AM offering you a ride in the Rocket. PM me your contact info and we can meet up some time.   Maybe you will be it's next Rocket owner!!

Tom

[Mcstealth]

On January 9, 2017 at 10:32 AM, aviatoreb said:

Believe me - I am a math professor and so I am well qualified as I say a tad bit more or less all the time.

 

Mabel you can also use the word "smidge?"  

 

[aviatoreb]

1 minute ago, Mcstealth said:

Mabel you can also use the word "smidge?"  

 

What?!  Smidge?!  Do I look like Julia Child?  Or Chef Boyardee?!

[Mcstealth]

8 hours ago, Danb said:

Actually far from being sarcastic, making light of a illness I have and the benefit I got from it, extra load, never considered that could be construed as sarcasm? I'm rather nervous having my physical in three hours.

How was the physical?

[Mcstealth]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

What?!  Smidge?!  Do I look like Julia Child?  Or Chef Boyardee?!

Smidge is a highly technical culinary term, Chef.  

[XXX]

6 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

My first Mooney was an "F", so I can relate.  That said, I can't resist the temptation to share what I did on Friday, December 30th with my turbocharged Rocket.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1017L/history/20161230/1430Z/KIMT/7FL6

The funniest comment I received when I got back home for our EAA Chapter Christmas Party this past Saturday evening was from a fellow Mooniac who lamented "and that was in his SLOW plane".  The Lancair will do that with no wind.

Oh.....you're not far from my Spruce Creek home so I AM offering you a ride in the Rocket. PM me your contact info and we can meet up some time.   Maybe you will be it's next Rocket owner!!

Tom

Tom,

I saw that post of yours, very impressive. As for taking a ride in the Rocket, well I should "just say no", but I would love to. PM sent.

Thanks,

Steve Corun

[Danb]

46 minutes ago, Mcstealth said:

How was the physical?

Great I passed even I was surprised, couldn't wait for the reform now I have a two yr reprieve, I told him I was trying to lose the weight for a couple yrs, he did mention the big loss from two yrs  ago 

[Brandontwalker]

8 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

My first Mooney was an "F", so I can relate.  That said, I can't resist the temptation to share what I did on Friday, December 30th with my turbocharged Rocket.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1017L/history/20161230/1430Z/KIMT/7FL6

The funniest comment I received when I got back home for our EAA Chapter Christmas Party this past Saturday evening was from a fellow Mooniac who lamented "and that was in his SLOW plane".  The Lancair will do that with no wind.

Oh.....you're not far from my Spruce Creek home so I AM offering you a ride in the Rocket. PM me your contact info and we can meet up some time.   Maybe you will be it's next Rocket owner!!

Tom

Jet speeds on Avgas.  Nice.

[KLRDMD]

On 1/9/2017 at 7:18 AM, Tx_Aggie said:

Also at 11,000' my EDM830 shows a typical 59% power with full manifold pressure and 2400 RPM. That equals about 165 hp. If I am thinking correctly, a turbo K can get 75% power at the same altitude with a resulting 158 hp. Similar performance at those altitudes, however more consistent for the turbo as altitudes increase. Lesser available power for the N/A Ovation as altitude increases. 

Actually, a K model can get 100% power at 11,000 ft if desired. 210 HP. But my recommendation is to not cruise the TSIO-360 series engine over 65% power. I'm managing my 5th TSIO-360 series engine in my 231 now so I have a bit of experience with those engines. My airplane seems to really like 59% power, LOP in cruise. That's 124 HP and gives me a smidge over 160 KTAS at 11,000 ft on 9.0 GPH.

[Tx_Aggie]

On 1/10/2017 at 6:34 PM, KLRDMD said:

Actually, a K model can get 100% power at 11,000 ft if desired. 210 HP. But my recommendation is to not cruise the TSIO-360 series engine over 65% power. I'm managing my 5th TSIO-360 series engine in my 231 now so I have a bit of experience with those engines. My airplane seems to really like 59% power, LOP in cruise. That's 124 HP and gives me a smidge over 160 KTAS at 11,000 ft on 9.0 GPH.

What are the drawbacks of running the TSIO-360 at 75% in cruise, other than more fuel consumption? I can't imagine that would be seen as "overworking" the engine. 

[KLRDMD]

Just now, Tx_Aggie said:

What are the drawbacks of running the TSIO-360 at 75% in cruise, other than more fuel consumption? I can't imagine that would be seen as "overworking" the engine. 

Yes it is stressing that engine. 75% power will require at least one and possibly two top overhauls before TBO on this engine. Flying at 65% power I doubt you'll do a top before TBO. Most people run them at 75% power and therefore most TSIO-360s have had a top overhaul . . .  or two.

[gsxrpilot]

11 minutes ago, Tx_Aggie said:

What are the drawbacks of running the TSIO-360 at 75% in cruise, other than more fuel consumption? I can't imagine that would be seen as "overworking" the engine. 

Advanced Pilot Seminar - Ada,OK... worth the money if you own an airplane with an expensive to replace, engine.

[ArtVandelay]

Is it power or high RPMs that's tough on the engine? With the IO360 it seems to my ears that it's screaming at 2700, and humming at 2600. I always back it down at 1000'

[kmyfm20s]

5 hours ago, teejayevans said:

Is it power or high RPMs that's tough on the engine? With the IO360 it seems to my ears that it's screaming at 2700, and humming at 2600. I always back it down at 1000'

Power is harder on an engine. In a NA engine the only way to increase power is to increase RPMin higher altitudes. I really don't think a engine cares if it's at 75% power at a high or low RPM. There is a slight bit of power that is lost to overcome friction at higher RPM and with friction there is more wear.

[gsxrpilot]

Technically it's internal cylinder pressure along with heat, that kills engines. But since we don't have a way to monitor ICP in flight, we do it with a proper combination of power/mixture/rpm.

[mike_elliott]

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 10:57 PM, Jeff_S said:

I can't wait to ride in it!

I have! it is one sweet Acclaim, as was his J

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, kmyfm20s said:

Power is harder on an engine. In a NA engine the only way to increase power is to increase RPMin higher altitudes. I really don't think a engine cares if it's at 75% power at a high or low RPM. There is a slight bit of power that is lost to overcome friction at higher RPM and with friction there is more wear.

I believe what is said at APS - that ICP is key, but also heat.  My intuition tells me therefore - but I don't know for sure, meaning independent confirmation experimentally - that as long as temperatures don't get "interesting" that the same power at higher rpm is better since that same power is distributed over more cylinder strokes, so less pressure in each individual combustion event.

[kmyfm20s]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

I believe what is said at APS - that ICP is key, but also heat.  My intuition tells me therefore - but I don't know for sure, meaning independent confirmation experimentally - that as long as temperatures don't get "interesting" that the same power at higher rpm is better since that same power is distributed over more cylinder strokes, so less pressure in each individual combustion event.

With fixed timing you will have higher CHT's at lower RPM and can more susceptible to detonation at high power settings. I should have added to my previous statements as long as your not in the red box.