Normally aspirated vs turbo model?

[gsxrpilot]

5 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

I looked up your old C. seems like it didn't make it very long after the next owner took it. Thats a pity. was a really nice C.

Yeah it's unfortunate about 6XM. It's really a lesson in how to insure the vintage Mooneys. Engines cost what engines cost and the same goes for air frame repairs. It doesn't matter if it's a 1994 J or a 1964 C. The repair costs are similar, but the value of a C is so much less there just isn't much room for the cost of a repair. 

If you fly a vintage Mooney, specifically a C, D, E, or F... make sure you carry enough insurance to ensure it will get repaired after a simple prop strike and not totaled. They're not making any more of them, so let's try to keep the ones we have flying.

*BTW the accident with 6XM wasn't anyone's fault, just bad luck when evidently a weld failed on the gear handle. It was only 51 years old. It could have flown another 50 years. 

[jlunseth]

7 hours ago, SantosDumont said:

After flying my M20F VFR for a year I decided to try to climb up to 17,500.  I made it up to 16k and the climb was so anemic that I just went down to 15.5k and called it a day.  Then I sat there with an O2 hose in my nose for a few hours and decided I really didn't like flying around with a hose in my nose.  If I have to climb that high to go somewhere then I'll ride Southwest instead. 

Good lesson if anyone is thinking about overflying the Rockies at a 15k MEA.  Yes, an NA will get there in theory, eventually, with enough time.  Certainly the later models like the O will do better.  But in real life in the mountains you aren’t always issued plenty of time.  

If you fly at 18k or higher you don’t have a hose in your nose, you need to be on a mask.  Definitely helps with the dry nose, just makes it hard to eat or drink.  

[kmyfm20s]

2 hours ago, jlunseth said:

Good lesson if anyone is thinking about overflying the Rockies at a 15k MEA.  Yes, an NA will get there in theory, eventually, with enough time.  Certainly the later models like the O will do better.  But in real life in the mountains you aren’t always issued plenty of time.  

If you fly at 18k or higher you don’t have a hose in your nose, you need to be on a mask.  Definitely helps with the dry nose, just makes it hard to eat or drink.  

Holly smokes! NA gets you there in theory, enough time, eventually? I'm lucky to alive today and flying my NA engine up in the teens. Flying an airplane takes airmanship and flight planning, not power. Power in the hands are a good airman is great. If flying over the Rockies at night, ice, IMC, and being pushed down by mountain waves is the argument for single engine piston turbo, have at it! That is not in my comfort zone but that is determined by my personal minimums. Again looking at many peoples tail number on flight aware these flights are not happening. Paul is the exception and I bet he wouldn't fly with most of those conditions. I think the best argument for a turbo is taking off at high DA airports.  This is were a Turbo make a lot if since!  

[chrisk]

 

 

Paul isn't the only one.   I often fly high when going west to east.  Here is my flight on March 12th. It was at 17,000 to catch a good tail wind and stay over any potential icing.  792 nm in 4:31 hours, and a little shy of 50 gallons.  Going the other way, I was at the MEA to avoid headwinds.

[gsxrpilot]

3 hours ago, kmyfm20s said:

Holly smokes! NA gets you there in theory, enough time, eventually? I'm lucky to alive today and flying my NA engine up in the teens. Flying an airplane takes airmanship and flight planning, not power. Power in the hands are a good airman is great. If flying over the Rockies at night, ice, IMC, and being pushed down by mountain waves is the argument for single engine piston turbo, have at it! That is not in my comfort zone but that is determined by my personal minimums. Again looking at many peoples tail number on flight aware these flights are not happening. Paul is the exception and I bet he wouldn't fly with most of those conditions. I think the best argument for a turbo is taking off at high DA airports.  This is were a Turbo make a lot if since!  

You are correct that I have a healthy fear of icing and mountain waves. 

The turbo just gives me a much wider altitude range in which to operate and secondly, I can move within that altitude range with effectively, full HP.

You are correct that I wouldn't rely on my turbo to get my high through mountain wave or icing. But I also know that I can move up and down in the range between say 15,000 and 26,000 ft. with full power available to me. In a NA bird, I might be able to get to 18,000 or even 20,000 ft. but I'm running on very low power and will be slow to move if required.

[jlunseth]

3 hours ago, kmyfm20s said:

Holly smokes! NA gets you there in theory, enough time, eventually? I'm lucky to alive today and flying my NA engine up in the teens. Flying an airplane takes airmanship and flight planning, not power. Power in the hands are a good airman is great. If flying over the Rockies at night, ice, IMC, and being pushed down by mountain waves is the argument for single engine piston turbo, have at it! That is not in my comfort zone but that is determined by my personal minimums. Again looking at many peoples tail number on flight aware these flights are not happening. Paul is the exception and I bet he wouldn't fly with most of those conditions. I think the best argument for a turbo is taking off at high DA airports.  This is were a Turbo make a lot if since!  

We had a tragedy and some of my partners knew the wife and remaining kids, J departing after a western ski trip and could not outclimb the weather.  You can do a lot with good skills and good planning.  What happens is that pilots read the specs on the plane.  Oooh, it goes to 16,000, or whatever the number is.  And having insufficient real world experience they just think their magic carpet will go there as fast as they wish it to and nothing will happen.  In short, it was not my intention to speak to pilots with experience and a basis to know what they are doing, and this is not a "my plane is better than your plane" discussion.  We get people on here who just really don't know, and don't have the judgment.  And we also had a nice kid on this board a few years ago who seemed to know his Mooney pretty well, then apparently overloaded it, stalled on takeoff and spun it in.  So no, I was not trying to disparage anyone's skill or anyone's aircraft.  There are a lot of ways you can get into serious trouble in a single engine turbo, they are just different ways than in an NA.

[Yooper Rocketman]

On 4/8/2018 at 12:41 PM, kmyfm20s said:

Go on flight aware for a week and look up all Mooney’s flying in the air each day by putting M20* in the aircraft type and see how people are flying them and what altitudes. Then go to every turbo thread on this forum and look up tail numbers of the pro turbo  and non turbo people. You will see most do not do the amount on IFR flying they say they do and the altitudes will rarley be above 12,000’. Just remember the hardest turn in aviation is the 180 and it needs to be practiced! Just food for thought from this NA pilot.

Don’t put me in this group either.  I’ve been flying in the FL’s for 17 years.  A check on Flight Aware would validate that.   I see a lot of turbo guys on FA up there too, so not sure how scientific your research is?

Tom

N1017L

 

 

.

[M016576]

5 minutes ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

Don’t put me in this group either.  I’ve been flying in the FL’s for 17 years.  A check on Flight Aware would validate that.   I see a lot of turbo guys on FA up there too, so not sure how scientific your research is?

Tom

N1017L

 

 

.

Over the past 20 years of being up in the FL’s, every once in a while I see a Mooney up in the FL’s.  For the past few years, I’ve been writing down the tail numbers to see if it’s anyone I recognize from mooneyspace.   I have yet to hear a Cessna or bonanza up in the FL’s... but maybe I’m just not paying attention to those “other guys.”

  Those of you that take your mooney’s up into the FL’s on a regular basis are the exception, not the rule... at least out here in eastern Oregon.

I flew the missile up to 15K today again, just to refresh myself on how long it takes.  Was about 15 minutes from wheels up (4100’msl) to 15K.  I had about 600fpm of climb left at 115kts IAS.  It was colder than standard today, and I was the only one on board- so it was climbing pretty well.  

I still maintain that if your MEA’s are in the teens (13+) on a regular basis, you most likely need a turbo for safety. Oh, and an oxygen tank.  Maybe two.

[Yooper Rocketman]

My flight on Thursday took me 22 minutes to climb 22,000’ (1,000’ msl to FL230), so about 1,000 FPM at 125 knots indicated (305 Rocket) at FULL GROSS.  The only time I’m not in the FL’s is when the trip is short or the winds are going to slow us down.

My buddy flew his Bonanza down to Florida yesterday, taking over an hour longer covering 125 less miles (1109 nm vs 1236 nm).

Tom

[kmyfm20s]

 

I am happy to to say I survived another fight over the Sierra Nevada’s tonight in my NA Eagle! I didn’t even have to hang it on the prop below Vy to get it up to 16.5’ while loaded to the max. I must say it was a pretty darn warm day in San Diego today. Next stop Paso Robles on Saturday for the west coast fly in. I’ll have to cross the Sierra’s again. Yikes!

 

[kmyfm20s]

9 hours ago, jlunseth said:

We had a tragedy and some of my partners knew the wife and remaining kids, J departing after a western ski trip and could not outclimb the weather.  You can do a lot with good skills and good planning.  What happens is that pilots read the specs on the plane.  Oooh, it goes to 16,000, or whatever the number is.  And having insufficient real world experience they just think their magic carpet will go there as fast as they wish it to and nothing will happen.  In short, it was not my intention to speak to pilots with experience and a basis to know what they are doing, and this is not a "my plane is better than your plane" discussion.  We get people on here who just really don't know, and don't have the judgment.  And we also had a nice kid on this board a few years ago who seemed to know his Mooney pretty well, then apparently overloaded it, stalled on takeoff and spun it in.  So no, I was not trying to disparage anyone's skill or anyone's aircraft.  There are a lot of ways you can get into serious trouble in a single engine turbo, they are just different ways than in an NA.

I am sorry for your friends loss and aviation accidents are always tragic. I lost my father in a midair collision and as result I reduce as much risk as possible with proper flight planning, airplane maintenance and airmanship.  I also had a friend that almost had a tragic accident but was lucky to have enough altitude to make the impossible turn and dead stick land when his turbo failed.

[kmyfm20s]

4 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

Don’t put me in this group either.  I’ve been flying in the FL’s for 17 years.  A check on Flight Aware would validate that.   I see a lot of turbo guys on FA up there too, so not sure how scientific your research is?

Tom

N1017L

 

 

.

Your mission profile dictacts a turbo maybe even a turbo prop;) and that is great! I don’t hate turbo’s at all and I have stated in many post I have turbo envy! The performance in fantastic. My personal opinion is your plane should fit the majority of your flying profile. A lot of people post on the what if’s! If someone is up for the task of flying in nasty conditions up high, great turbo is your plane! If you want the extra turbo system that is also great. My scientific observation is most people don’t use their turbo charged planes benifically by following flightaware. Today in Southern California departing at 4:30pm I was the only person in a piston aircraft above 8500’ with plenty of airplanes on frequency. I will say most of that the piston planes I hear on frequency on real cross country travel are Mooney’s! 

[Yooper Rocketman]

I almost always end up talking to “high altitude” controllers in the FL’s.  When dropping my Lancair off for final body work and paint my best friend was flying my Rocket down at 12k the bring me back home.   We were never on the same frequency the whole trip except take off and landing.   

I DO feel much safer in the pressurized Lancair with a low cabin pressure alert in the FL’s than in the Mooney on O2.  If I wasn’t near the end of my Mooney flying days I would research an affordable option for continuous O2 sat’s monitoring.  We are clearly more at risk up high without some type of continuous monitoring of our safety up there.

Tom

[carusoam]

Intersting idea, Tom.  Continuous O2 monitoring...

Sounds like an I-watch kind of sensor w/ BT connection to the ship’s audio panel...

Best regards,

-a-

[PaulM]

an O2 monitor integrated with the headset (ear lobe) would be interesting. 

All of the other continuous o2 monitors would seem to be too bulky for flying.

https://www.amazon.com/Contec-Wrist-worn-Oximeter-Software-Download/dp/B00LN4LCMC

https://www.favoriteplus.com/reusable-ear-clip-spo2-sensor-probe-fp200ear.php

 

[M016576]

On 4/9/2018 at 10:05 PM, kmyfm20s said:

 

I am happy to to say I survived another fight over the Sierra Nevada’s tonight in my NA Eagle! I didn’t even have to hang it on the prop below Vy to get it up to 16.5’ while loaded to the max. I must say it was a pretty darn warm day in San Diego today. Next stop Paso Robles on Saturday for the west coast fly in. I’ll have to cross the Sierra’s again. Yikes!

 

Nice- I used to make similar trips to that in my stock J when I was flying out of IYK (tended to go north though). The sierras are beautiful with some snow on top!

[aviatoreb]

On 4/10/2018 at 8:33 AM, Yooper Rocketman said:

I almost always end up talking to “high altitude” controllers in the FL’s.  When dropping my Lancair off for final body work and paint my best friend was flying my Rocket down at 12k the bring me back home.   We were never on the same frequency the whole trip except take off and landing.   

I DO feel much safer in the pressurized Lancair with a low cabin pressure alert in the FL’s than in the Mooney on O2.  If I wasn’t near the end of my Mooney flying days I would research an affordable option for continuous O2 sat’s monitoring.  We are clearly more at risk up high without some type of continuous monitoring of our safety up there.

Tom

Heya - I hear you on that.  But you feel that the alarm is the thing that makes for the safety in the lancair? Or at least I do - since a depressurization of any sort is also a risk but then you have that alarm.

I agree on the alarm and checking my pulse ox every 3 minutes is somehow not quite the same.

I use the O2D2 for alarm-like reasons besides the fact that it saves O2.  

1) It has an alarm that is pretty good to hear through a headset (but I wish there was a way to pipe it in) if it is not receiving O2.

2) The nature of pulse delivery is that you hear it and feel it.  When in the nose, I can feel the pulse of O2 into my nose every single breath.  When in my mask - which has a built in mic, I hear it every single breath and I sound like Darth Vadar.  I am your father Luke!

Tell me more about continuous sat monitoring....

[jlunseth]

Knock on wood, I just haven’t had a problem with the O2 system and don’t foresee that there will be.  I do have a continous monitoring system, actually two of them.  The first one is simple, I have a ball gauge that sits in my lap.  As long as the ball is up, there is O2 flowing.  And I know that it is O2 and is good because I have already been on it for several thousand feet and at least ten minutes before I get to altitidue, not to mention that I watched the line guy load it from the green tank.  The ball valve is simple and such a good indicator that I rarely use the pulse oximeter anymore.  Second is me.  I know my symptoms very well, even the early mild symptoms.  If I feel any of them I do something about it, check the valve for flow, increase the flow, check the oximeter.  Up to FL220 there is time to do that and get to safety.  Higher than that and a spare is called for because there is not enough time.

[CoffeeCan]

On 4/11/2018 at 5:21 PM, PaulM said:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Contec-Wrist-worn-Oximeter-Software-Download/dp/B00LN4LCMC

 

This quoted page displays a different device lower down the page that has a much less bulky finger monitor that links to your smartphone by Bluetooth. I think this might be a viable in- flight option.  

[PaulM]

14 hours ago, CoffeeCan said:

This quoted page displays a different device lower down the page that has a much less bulky finger monitor that links to your smartphone by Bluetooth. I think this might be a viable in- flight option.  

That device is the same size as the o2 monitors we already use.. they are too bulky for continuous use.  2.5"x1.2".x1.2"