Mcstealth Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 Pecos Tx for anyone wanting to know, has winds that can change direction at the drop of a hat. The town is located where the weather patterns churn. Watch the wind sock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 And we're back in Phoenix! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 (edited) 20+ hours in 7 days. Phoenix to San Antonio to New Orleans. It was awesome! I definitely learned a lot along the way. Weather is something I've never really had to deal with, being in AZ. Here, pretty much, if it isn't severe clear - it's icing or bad thunderstorms. This was the first time I've had to choose VFR over the top or flying underneath. And make the decision in the air. I'd check METARs or ATIS and get an idea of what the ceilings were like ahead of us. In some cases, the field we wanted to land at was under an overcast at 3000', but the cloud tops were only 5000'. So, I had to decide when it was time to 'duck under' to get to my destination VFR. I almost had to fly to an alternate on the way from DVT-PEQ. PEQ was reporting OVC at 3000', but was forecast to clear up. So, I planned an alternate to Marfa, which was clear. We went over the top from about El Paso til we were about 30nm from PEQ before the clouds started breaking. I found a big hole and descended through. Worked out pretty good, but I was sure glad I had a couple alternates within fuel range. Speaking of fuel.... My C burns a lot less than I thought it would. I flight planned for 10.5GPH, but I was burning more like 7.9-8.4gph at 19" and 2500 RPM, with my hottest CHT always held at 380 or under. TAS of 155-160mph. I could have gone faster, but I don't think it would have been more than 5 or 10 mph for a lot more fuel burn. I had calculated that I could fly for about 4 hours, with 1 hour reserve. After this, with those cruise settings, I'd say I could fly for 4.5 with 1 hour reserve. However, by the 4 hour mark, I'm REALLY ready to land and empty the bladder and walk around for a bit... Mostly, I learned that I need my instrument rating... It sure would have made life a lot easier. Edited July 8, 2017 by ragedracer1977 9 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 I also think I might have a slight rigging issue. The ball is centered, but the left aileron is up about 1/2, maybe 3/4 inch above the flap while the right aileron is maybe 1/4" above if not flush. However, if I fly hands off, the plane seems to want to drift to the right. This seems counter-intuitive, right? And when I engage the autopilot, it wanders a little. The plane drifts right of course a little, the autopilot corrects back to the left (well slightly over corrects) then comes back to the right again. If the rudder trim tab is bent incorrectly, would that cause it? In my head, that makes sense, it's sort of flying in a very slight slip, even though the ball is centered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 Hard to burn a lot of fuel using 19" MP. At full throttle, the air resistance is pretty low compared to being at seal level... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 7 minutes ago, carusoam said: Hard to burn a lot of fuel using 19" MP. At full throttle, the air resistance is pretty low compared to being at seal level... Best regards, -a- I'm not sure I understand the part in bold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 FT full throttle above 10k' produces about 19" of MP... When you are above 10k' the air density is so low the drag resistance on things has been cut in half. Parasite drag is being reduced by the thin air... unfortunately, power production in a normally aspirated plane is getting thinned as well. If you stayed low, and cut the MP back to 19", you were flying slowly, and the wind resistance is going to be lower as well... Does that help any? Best regard, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 Well, I was at 10,500 and just about full throttle. Still don't really understand what you meant though? Are you saying I should be using less throttle? Keep in mind, I'm pretty new at this, I literally doubled my time in a Mooney (or a complex aircraft for that matter!) over the past 7 days. I'm still trying to figure out how best to operate the extra knob... In brand C with just 2 knobs, I was always at 'full rental power' (full throttle and the mixture set to whatever got the fastest speed, since fuel was 'free') so this leaning for economy and engine longevity is all new to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 See if I can restate things... Nearly full throttle at that altitude does two things... 1) cuts off the extra fuel nozzle in the carburetor. (Good) 2) Power is limited by the available MP at that altitude. (Bummer). 3) if dissapointed... A Turbo normalizer can help this. Somebody was selling one recently for an M20C. 4) The FF is automatically adjusted in relation to MP. 5) Essentially, you were flying pretty fast on pretty low FF. There is some fuel efficiency with that, and some wind resistance efficiency with that. 6) For time efficiency, NA planes do a little better producing more power and getting more speed slightly lower around 7k'. Unfortunately, the FF and CHTs will be higher... 7) All you need now is a tail wind to improve on those numbers.... 8) I got the performance numbers from memory of my M20C... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 Gotcha! I was pretty happy with my speed today... Very nice tailwind had my ground speed around 150kts. It was also very smooth for 99% of the flight. I was listening to the big boys upstairs complain about turbulence and asking for different altitudes for 2 hours. ha! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted July 9, 2017 Report Share Posted July 9, 2017 Sounds like you had a good trip! Our Cs are pretty versatile, have less expensive engines than our fuel injected brethren and don't need to worry about LOP operations. Did you notice much speed difference between Eastbound and Westbound? I made a similar trip in my C a little further north and mostly 8500-9500 msl, 1320 nm each way with stops for ground-based touring, and averaged 127 knots westbound and 151 eastbound over and talk of ~25 hours. I'd say you did pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted July 9, 2017 Report Share Posted July 9, 2017 Just now, Hank said: Sounds like you had a good trip! Our Cs are pretty versatile, have less expensive engines than our fuel injected brethren and don't need to worry about LOP operations. Did you notice much speed difference between Eastbound and Westbound? I made a similar trip in my C a little further north and mostly 8500-9500 msl, 1320 nm each way with stops for ground-based touring, and averaged 127 knots westbound and 151 eastbound over a total of ~25 hours. I'd say you did pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsxrpilot Posted July 9, 2017 Report Share Posted July 9, 2017 In my experience, the best throttle position for a C is wide open all the way to the cruise altitude. Then pull it back as far as you can, without reducing Manifold Pressure. In other words, you're just going to reduce the throttle a very little bit. Pull it back until you see the MP needle just start to move. Then leave it there the rest of the trip. Now adjust prop and mixture as required. That little throttle adjustment will close the enrichment circuit in the carb, will save a little fuel, and make your mixture adjustments more precise. Enjoy that C, it's one of the best models of Mooneys ever made. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2017 58 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said: In my experience, the best throttle position for a C is wide open all the way to the cruise altitude. Then pull it back as far as you can, without reducing Manifold Pressure. In other words, you're just going to reduce the throttle a very little bit. Pull it back until you see the MP needle just start to move. Then leave it there the rest of the trip. Now adjust prop and mixture as required. That little throttle adjustment will close the enrichment circuit in the carb, will save a little fuel, and make your mixture adjustments more precise. Enjoy that C, it's one of the best models of Mooneys ever made. This is exactly how I did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Hank said: Sounds like you had a good trip! Our Cs are pretty versatile, have less expensive engines than our fuel injected brethren and don't need to worry about LOP operations. Did you notice much speed difference between Eastbound and Westbound? I made a similar trip in my C a little further north and mostly 8500-9500 msl, 1320 nm each way with stops for ground-based touring, and averaged 127 knots westbound and 151 eastbound over and talk of ~25 hours. I'd say you did pretty well. Sort of. KSSF-KNEW was 3.8 each way. Pretty much identical times. The way back from San Antonio was about .5 faster, but I had a pretty good tailwind. 10-15kts at 10500. Out to San Antonio, I had maybe a little headwind, 1-2kts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted July 9, 2017 Report Share Posted July 9, 2017 I've got 1700+ hrs in my C. You done good! I get 155 -160 statute at @10,000 full throttle and 2550 rpm at @ 9-9.5 / hr. I can get the burn lower if I want to go peak EGT. Also remember the airplane is flying at Density Altitude and indicated altitude. Can be several thousands difference. Your body is at density altitude also for O2 saturation. Just something to think about. I'm using my new O2 Sat meter tomorrow just to see how things go with high density altitudes. You might pick up a few MPH with a proper rigging of the airplane but don't let anyone tell you they can do it right without rigging boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2017 Just now, cliffy said: I've got 1700+ hrs in my C. You done good! I get 155 -160 statute at @10,000 full throttle and 2550 rpm at @ 9-9.5 / hr. I can get the burn lower if I want to go peak EGT. Also remember the airplane is flying at Density Altitude and indicated altitude. Can be several thousands difference. Your body is at density altitude also for O2 saturation. Just something to think about. I'm using my new O2 Sat meter tomorrow just to see how things go with high density altitudes. You might pick up a few MPH with a proper rigging of the airplane but don't let anyone tell you they can do it right without rigging boards. I actually picked up a couple of the pulse/ox finger meters for this trip as I knew we would be up high-ish for extended periods. At home, we all were in the 95-97% saturation range. At 10.5, the lowest I saw on any of us was 92. I brought along a couple cans of boost oxygen, and we all tried it, but no one felt any different. On the density altitude vs. o2 thing. I keep hearing that repeated (even being asked by DPE's in oral exams) but to the best of my research, it's not true. Density altitude has no bearing on o2 in the air. It's only pressure altitude that matters. If you are at a field of 8000' elevation, the o2 in the air is the same whether it's 0c or 50c even though the density altitude would swing thousands of feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted July 9, 2017 Report Share Posted July 9, 2017 OK I'll go back to school for a few days and check out the situation. Haven't ever heard it explained that way (not to say its not correct) but back to school for a few days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2017 Just now, cliffy said: OK I'll go back to school for a few days and check out the situation. Haven't ever heard it explained that way (not to say its not correct) but back to school for a few days. I'm researching it more myself right now. I've heard it so much lately that I'm truly questioning myself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2017 (edited) Thread drift! The way I'm understanding it is that only pressure altitude matters, because inside your lungs, the "density altitude" is always the same. It's always 100% humidity and 98.6 degrees. All that matters to your lungs is how 'hard' the atmosphere is pushing. No matter where you are, no matter the elevation (as long as you're still in the atmosphere!) there is roughly 20% o2 in the air you breathe. Edited July 9, 2017 by ragedracer1977 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted July 10, 2017 Report Share Posted July 10, 2017 Had to fly today (KPGA-KVGT-KPGA) so I'm still going to school. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Ellis Posted July 10, 2017 Report Share Posted July 10, 2017 On 7/2/2017 at 8:21 AM, ragedracer1977 said: Are those speed brakes I see...On a C model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Greg Ellis said: Are those speed brakes I see...On a C model? Yes, they are! And they work pretty great. I had to duck under a layer and it made it a lot easier doing it at 1500fpm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Posted July 29, 2017 Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 On 7/10/2017 at 7:08 PM, ragedracer1977 said: Yes, they are! And they work pretty great. I had to duck under a layer and it made it a lot easier doing it at 1500fpm. Must be a Phoenix thing, my 69 F came with them as well and the owner who installed them was based at chandler as I recall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted July 29, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 53 minutes ago, Stephen said: Must be a Phoenix thing, my 69 F came with them as well and the owner who installed them was based at chandler as I recall My plane was based in southern California for most of it's life before I bought it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.