Mooney Stigmas

[Shadrach]

On 3/8/2017 at 8:57 PM, carusoam said:

Since you are stating FAA rules... use the 200hp rating to avoid needing the additional high power training.

On the other hand, on the really cold days when the density altitude is below SL, you are producing a lot more than 201 hp...

I agree. This is why I have a hard time reconciling how PowerFlow is approved to increase performance but not exceed rated HP. PowerFlow seems to claim that GA engines do not make anywhere close to "rated" horsepower.  They use an IO320 (160hp) that dynos at 133hp as an example on their website and improves to 157hp with the PowerFlow exhaust. My limited experience with dynamometers is that they are excellent for showing increases and decreases in power relative to that engine's base line, but that 3 different dynos might (in fact likely) give 3 different horsepower readings. So one man's 133 could be another's 145.   Also, I recall APS's own Walter Atkinson stating that Continental intentionally ran an IO550 without rings and it made rated horsepower (for a short while, phenomenal oil consumption).  I agree that on -8C day from say my 706' airport with the DA around -2500, any healthy aircraft engine is exceeding rated power. With a tuned exhaust, it will be doing so to a greater degree.  I think there may be a bit of "wink and nod" going on here given that no engine internals are changed and a the fact that a tuned exhaust typically lowers engine temperatures.  I have no experience with PowerFlow beyond an old 172 I used to rent. It was the ugliest on th rental line with faded Orange and brown paint, but it was usually the first to rent due to climb performance; it bettered the rest of the fleet by 200FPM or more.

[gsengle]

I owned a Piper Arrow (T tailed and normally aspirated)... liked it a great deal and it was a nice one. 1981 vintage, updated interior... and it was to my engineering eye a smart, economical to build design - but it was just too slow to travel far.

Granted I upgraded to a 1996 Ovation, but there is just no comparison. The arrow was sloppy, cut like a butter knife, the Mooney like a scalpel.

Flying an Arrow now, I feel like I'm in slow flight - literally, given the mush. The Mooney in smooth air feels like it's on rails.

The arrow feels a little like a toy after flying the much heavier and solid feeling Mooney.

There are def things I wish I could fix about the Mooney... how bout some stronger trailing link gear? Just a smidge wider and taller would be great. And a chute might sell some new ones. But Arrow and Mooney are in different leagues...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark Pavinich]

What about the K&N air filter claim of 5% more power. 

Power flow claim is something like up to 15+ horse power. 

You put these together you are taking 210 - 215HP 

Overall, I think bluehighwayflyer nailed it on the end.

Hmmm it would be a easy way to log HP and Complex time all with the gas sipping 200HP engine in our Mooneys

More bang for the buck if that was possible. 

 

[mooniac15u]

5 minutes ago, Mark Pavinich said:

What about the K&N air filter claim of 5% more power. 

Power flow claim is something like up to 15+ horse power. 

You put these together you are taking 210 - 215HP 

Overall, I think bluehighwayflyer nailed it on the end.

Hmmm it would be a easy way to log HP and Complex time all with the gas sipping 200HP engine in our Mooneys

More bang for the buck if that was possible. 

 

Those HP increases are over what is actually produced with a stock Mooney exhaust and air filter.  They do not increase HP above the rated value.  Remember the engine was certified at 200 HP independent of the airframe.  It did not have the Mooney induction system and exhaust to contend with.  Both of those things you list just reduce the effects of the airframe-specific limitations and get you closer to the rated HP.  They do not allow the IO-360 to produce over 200 HP.

[gsxrpilot]

Isn't a NA engine only producing rated HP at sea level and standard conditions? And hopefully your Mooney is never at sea level...

Unless you're landing/departing L06

[ArtVandelay]

Isn't a NA engine only producing rated HP at sea level and standard conditions? And hopefully your Mooney is never at sea level...
Unless you're landing/departing L06

You are assuming standard atmospheric conditions, and when a cold high moves in, 3052 barometer, -10° on the thermometer, how much horsepower then?

[gsxrpilot]

2 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

You are assuming standard atmospheric conditions, and when a cold high moves in, 3052 barometer, -10° on the thermometer, how much horsepower then?

I live in Texas... I don't understand 3052 at -10 degrees. 

[Shadrach]

On March 9, 2017 at 11:51 AM, gsxrpilot said:

I live in Texas... I don't understand 3052 at -10 degrees. 

I think you've spent enough time in DC to know better.  

Several days this past winter HGR where the DA at pattern altitude (1,700msl) was -2000'.

I remember the morning of Sun 01/08 because I blew off the last day of deer season because of 15-20mph winds. My hunting partners decided to tough it out. The deer were smart enough to stay in bed as well.

7:53 AM  12.9°F,  54%RH, 30.49in DA at field elevation -2967'...

A 200HP Mooney with the pilot and half fuel will touch 1800'FPM on climb out in conditions like that.

It gives you an appreciation for why the state of Alaska allows a 10% MGW increase.

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Shadrach

[Raptor05121]

On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 11:00 AM, Mark Pavinich said:

What about the K&N air filter claim of 5% more power. 

Power flow claim is something like up to 15+ horse power. 

You put these together you are taking 210 - 215HP 

Overall, I think bluehighwayflyer nailed it on the end.

Hmmm it would be a easy way to log HP and Complex time all with the gas sipping 200HP engine in our Mooneys

More bang for the buck if that was possible. 

 

As far as the FAA cares (and your logbook), the power has to be certificated. If you have an STC for an IO-390 210hp, your J model is now High Performance. If it were somehow possible, even putting a nitrous on your plane, still doesn't make it High Performance as its not an Supplement to the Type Certificate.

K&N's claim of 5% more power with their filters is pure Kool-Aid. These are known as high-flow or "cold air intakes" in the modded car community and myself along with many others know the true Dyno test show this as a blatant lie. I was supposed to make 12RWHP gain with my K&N intake, I dyno'ed it 15 minutes apart from a stock intake and I lost 0.58rwhp.

However, an oil lab has shown results that K&N filters let up to 8x more silicon bypass their elements compared to other stock filters. In a truck, that may be fine, but for .0005" or so MP my -C model might gain, I'll keep lower silicon levels.

[Mark Pavinich]

On 3/11/2017 at 2:09 PM, Raptor05121 said:

As far as the FAA cares (and your logbook), the power has to be certificated. If you have an STC for an IO-390 210hp, your J model is now High Performance. If it were somehow possible, even putting a nitrous on your plane, still doesn't make it High Performance as its not an Supplement to the Type Certificate.

K&N's claim of 5% more power with their filters is pure Kool-Aid. These are known as high-flow or "cold air intakes" in the modded car community and myself along with many others know the true Dyno test show this as a blatant lie. I was supposed to make 12RWHP gain with my K&N intake, I dyno'ed it 15 minutes apart from a stock intake and I lost 0.58rwhp.

However, an oil lab has shown results that K&N filters let up to 8x more silicon bypass their elements compared to other stock filters. In a truck, that may be fine, but for .0005" or so MP my -C model might gain, I'll keep lower silicon levels.

So far best answer. 

Thanks for explaining.

[DAVIDWH]

In the for what's it's worth dept:

Once saw a frustrated A&I kick a Piper spar across the hangar into the opposing wall.

Try that with a Mooney spar.

[jetdriven]

Push it far enough, wings comes off the PIper Cherokees and Senecas.  Not so likely for a Mooney.