182 to m20f?

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, hmasing said:

How... How do you get 145 ktas on 8.5 gph?  What are your power settings?  What year and speed mods?

If I go 100 LOP I get 8.5 gph, but only about 130 ktas. (I will test again with my new engine monitor, but that's a close guess estimate.

There is no reason to ever run a normally aspirated engine 100LOP.  I have to believe your CHT’s are in the low 200s at that power setting. Not a reasonable mixture setting. If you have enough MP to run 8.5gph at 25-30LOP you’ll see much better numbers. 

[skydvrboy]

3 hours ago, hmasing said:

How... How do you get 145 ktas on 8.5 gph?  What are your power settings?  What year and speed mods?

If I go 100 LOP I get 8.5 gph, but only about 130 ktas. (I will test again with my new engine monitor, but that's a close guess estimate.

‘67 F, WOT, power boost, 25 LOP, 2500 RPM.  201 windshield, cowl closure, relocated oil cooler, rotated brakes, gap seals, fairings, all done before I bought it.

My first post on MS was due to concern by my flight instructor that I wasn’t burning enough fuel and had some kind of problem with the engine.  I was burning 8.0 gph block time, but part of that was due to some bad advice I got about leaning on climb.

[Shadrach]

On 4/30/2019 at 9:14 PM, TTaylor said:

Most are exaggerating unless they have major mods.   If you review the Mooney test articles standard is 135 knots for a C, about 139 for the F, 140 for the E and 150 for the J at 50 degrees rich.  I would love to see proof on a claim for a stock F that can go over 150 knots at 9 gph.  Mine is consistent at 139 knots at 9 gph.  

 People inflate speed numbers amd they deflate fuel numbers. It is human nature to be optimistic about whatever ride you’ve chosen. That being said MAPA has evaluated most of the models in the fleet. Certainly the tests were conducted on different days under differing conditions, but the results are a bit better than your claim of Mooney test articles. I have several vintage mags with mooney tests from the 60s and I think Mooney bribed them as they truly optimistic.

The MAPA numbers look like this:

Given that these tests were months if not years apart I think it’s safe to say that a well maintained stock versions of the J are 160kt airplanes, the E and F are 150kt airplanes and the C 145kt ariplane (the G is likely in the same ballpark).  The only one of those birds that has a chance of 150KTAS on 9gph is a J. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Shadrach
Talk to text does not speak English

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

My C runs ~147KTAS on 9 gph block time (no fuel flow installed). This is generally at 7500 msl and above, 2500 and the throttle backed away from Wide Open just enough to shut off the carbhretor enrichment circuit and make the MP needle wiggle. She will run smoothly about 25°LOP, but I won't cruise there without a monitor, and the speed drops off badly.

• 201 windshield
• Guppy mouth closure
• One piece belly
• 3-blade Hartzell prop
• 50°ROP
• Leaned using factory single EGT gauge with numbers 
• Original brake configuration
• Only factory gap seals
• Oh, fancy speed antennas mounted far back on the top; GPS puck is above the front seats
• Huge towel rack antenna on the vertical stab
• No huge OAT sticking out the windshield

I'd be willing to bet that there are few unmodified, original Vintage Mooneys left in the fleet. As a percentage, vanishingly small.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

My C runs ~147KTAS on 9 gph block time (no fuel flow installed). This is generally at 7500 msl and above, 2500 and the throttle backed away from Wide Open just enough to shut off the carbhretor enrichment circuit and make the MP needle wiggle. She will run smoothly about 25°LOP, but I won't cruise there without a monitor, and the speed drops off badly.

• 201 windshield
• Guppy mouth closure
• One piece belly
• 3-blade Hartzell prop
• 50°ROP
• Leaned using factory single EGT gauge with numbers 
• Original brake configuration
• Only factory gap seals
• Oh, fancy speed antennas mounted far back on the top; GPS puck is above the front seats
• Huge towel rack antenna on the vertical stab
• No huge OAT sticking out the windshield

I'd be willing to bet that there are few unmodified, original Vintage Mooneys left in the fleet. As a percentage, vanishingly small.

[MICKEY]

1 hour ago, TTaylor said:

Most are exaggerating unless they have major mods.   If you review the Mooney test articles standard is 135 knots for a C, about 139 for the F, 140 for the E and 150 for the J at 50 degrees rich.  I would love to see proof on a claim for a stock F that can go over 150 knots at 9 gph.  Mine is consistent at 139 knots at 9 gph.  

I agree it will be tough to get those numbers on a stock F. But here is the proof.  I have the J windshield, cowling mod (guppy) and some others.  I’m lightly loaded relatively  2350lbs and rearward cg. Also per POH, every hundred less gross is worth 1.1mph.  So I’m light 400 lbs. 

 

My point is.. it matters that you know your airplane, and you tweak it like you want it.  The cost in time and money is great.  IMO The change to a different aircraft must exceed this value, otherwise you’re losing money and a sense of safety on the deal.

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by MICKEY

[carusoam]

For the coolest descriptions of Mooney comparison using real world data...

Find the MAPA articles written around the turn of the century... by a Mooney pilot, engineer, writer, presenter.... named Bob Kromer...

I bought my M20C after reading the M20C article written by Bob....

Finally met Bob at the Mooney Summit 18years later.

I bought a different Mooney in the middle some time...

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

Just now, carusoam said:

For the coolest descriptions of Mooney comparison using real world data...

Find the MAPA articles written around the turn of the century... by a Mooney pilot, engineer, writer, presenter.... named Bob Kromer...

I bought my M20C after reading the M20C article written by Bob....

Finally met Bob at the Mooney Summit 18years later.

I bought a different Mooney in the middle some time...

Best regards,

-a-

 Many of these are available free on the MAPA website. Interesting reading! I read them all before & after buying mine in '07.

[KLRDMD]

16 hours ago, MICKEY said:

I agree it will be tough to get those numbers on a stock F. But here is the proof.  I have the J windshield, cowling mod (guppy) and some others.  I’m lightly loaded relatively  2350lbs and rearward cg. Also per POH, every hundred less gross is worth 1.1mph.  So I’m light 400 lbs. 

 

My point is.. it matters that you know your airplane, and you tweak it like you want it.  The cost in time and money is great.  IMO The change to a different aircraft must exceed this value, otherwise you’re losing money and a sense of safety on the deal.

 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, MICKEY said:

I regularly get 147-150 KTAS 8.8gph 15 deg LOP at 65% power WOT+Ram Air and 2500rpm at 9000 ft.  I can get 155+ at same altitude WOT+ RAm Air 2500rpm and 150deg ROP @ 11gph. These are real numbers.

You realize that your G5 set up as an AI is set to MPH, not knots. For some reason your GS on both G5s is in knots. Strange.

[MICKEY]

2 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

 

You realize that your G5 set up as an AI is set to MPH, not knots. For some reason your GS on both G5s is in knots. Strange.

Good Catch.  And yes, per STC the G5 speed tape is required to be in the same unit of measure as that the POH.  Which for my airplane is MPH.  as for the Left lower GS box I have this in KTS, because everything else in the aviation world is in knots. 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Shadrach said:

 People inflate speed numbers in the deflate fuel numbers. It is human nature to be optimistic about whatever ride you’ve chosen.

Not me!  Mine burns a lot of fuel and goes pretty fast for a long time, carrying a good load.  The saving grace is that it doesn’t burn all of the fuel in one spot.

Clarence

[Hank]

5 hours ago, MICKEY said:

Good Catch.  And yes, per STC the G5 speed tape is required to be in the same unit of measure as that the POH.  Which for my airplane is MPH.  as for the Left lower GS box I have this in KTS, because everything else in the aviation world is in knots. 

Yes, his IAS is in moh, with GS just below in knots. But in the middle, he has Cal AS = 130 knots, which is 149.6 mph, vs. IAS = 151 mph. May be a slightly larger delta there, mkte like 4-5 mph vs 2, but not a significant change.

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

Yes, his IAS is in moh, with GS just below in knots. But in the middle, he has Cal AS = 130 knots, which is 149.6 mph, vs. IAS = 151 mph. May be a slightly larger delta there, mkte like 4-5 mph vs 2, but not a significant change.

 

The importantant numbers are then ones I’ve pointed out below.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Shadrach

[MICKEY]

13 hours ago, Shadrach said:

 

The importantant numbers are then ones I’ve pointed out below.

just an fyi the data on the aera 660 is user defined. so i put them in.  I know 150 mph is about 130 Knots so thats what I put in.  Its rough figures right. so I get about 150kts at 8.8gph. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by MICKEY

[F1WAH]

On 4/30/2019 at 6:37 PM, hmasing said:

How... How do you get 145 ktas on 8.5 gph?  What are your power settings?  What year and speed mods?

If I go 100 LOP I get 8.5 gph, but only about 130 ktas. (I will test again with my new engine monitor, but that's a close guess estimate.

I’m based out of ARB, fly a 172 (N8541U in K row of NW T’s), have a lead on a M20F and am going through the 182 v Mooney analysis. Never flown in a Mooney. If willing would like to meet up and get your opinion. 

[carusoam]

Welcome aboard F1!

If you like speed and efficiency...

Go Mooney!

Best regards,

-a-

[MBDiagMan]

Hyper tech had a little nugget buried in his post that I hope you didn’t miss.

He spoke about moving from a well sorted plane, whatever it is, to another plane that is an unknown will probably require time and money to sort it out. The first two planes I bought were so well sorted that I took that value for granted.  I was just lucky.  When I got my F almost three years ago, I began down a road that I still haven’t found the end of.  That is not a statement against Mooney’s, it’s just that I was unlucky with this one.

If you decide to join us in the wonderful world of Mooney’s, just give thought to the fact that changing to ANY plane could have some frustration involved before you get it in the condition you will want it to be.

 

[gsxrpilot]

12 hours ago, F1WAH said:

I’m based out of ARB, fly a 172 (N8541U in K row of NW T’s), have a lead on a M20F and am going through the 182 v Mooney analysis. Never flown in a Mooney. If willing would like to meet up and get your opinion. 

You need to go fly in one. 

[carusoam]

Flying is believing...

No words can adequately describe how well a Mooney can fly... precision and grace..?

Or how enjoyable a Mooney is to fly...  acceleration, climb rate, speed... efficiency.

Go Mooney!

Best regards,

-a-

[hmasing]

On 5/18/2021 at 9:21 PM, F1WAH said:

I’m based out of ARB, fly a 172 (N8541U in K row of NW T’s), have a lead on a M20F and am going through the 182 v Mooney analysis. Never flown in a Mooney. If willing would like to meet up and get your opinion. 

When do you want to go flying?    I'll PM you.

[M20F]

Most people discount the impact of weight and temperatures when they toss up speed numbers.  In mine it’s about 10kts between the conditions. 

[kellym]

On 4/30/2019 at 1:14 PM, Shadrach said:

This is good advice. It also a nice display of "internet airspeed".  If you're willing to accept a TAS in the mid to high 140s an F model will be burn well under 10GPH.  On the other hand, While I've seen straight leg 182s that will do 135KTAS and I've also seen straight leg 182s burn 12GPH...I've never seen both of those numbers happen at the same time. I'll conceded it's not egregiously optimistic...just slightly.

I find the speed and fuel consumption claims rather generous. I owned an E model for 18 years. Same engine, shorter fuselage with slightly less drag.

75% power is 150 hp, which if you are low enough to generate 75% is 10 gph, no ifs ands or buts. The E will do a bit better than 150kts TAS, but you are fooling yourself if you flight plan for more than 145, given climb to altitude, unforecast headwinds, etc. If you want to go slower, you certainly can get under 10gph. I found carefully measured that I got 153kts in calm air ROP and 147 LOP. Usually went high enough was more like 70% which equates to 9.3 gph. Book fuel consumption for 75% (ROP) is right around 10.8-11.2 depending on altitude.  Now if you are talking an F with most of the 201 mods, that is a different story.

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, kellym said:

I find the speed and fuel consumption claims rather generous. I owned an E model for 18 years. Same engine, shorter fuselage with slightly less drag.

75% power is 150 hp, which if you are low enough to generate 75% is 10 gph, no ifs ands or buts. The E will do a bit better than 150kts TAS, but you are fooling yourself if you flight plan for more than 145, given climb to altitude, unforecast headwinds, etc. If you want to go slower, you certainly can get under 10gph. I found carefully measured that I got 153kts in calm air ROP and 147 LOP. Usually went high enough was more like 70% which equates to 9.3 gph. Book fuel consumption for 75% (ROP) is right around 10.8-11.2 depending on altitude.  Now if you are talking an F with most of the 201 mods, that is a different story.

I fly high when prudent and fly max available power LOP below 4K moving towards peak from 4 up to araound 8k and go ROP as I climb higher.  Under none of those circumstances am I doing less than 140kts and in most cases much closer to 150Kts. In some of those cases I’m doing over  10GPH and max available power LOP below 4K is likely closer to 11gph depending on DA.  Where was your E timed 20° Or 25°? The retreaded timing makes a difference as the engine is leaned past peak. I don’t see nearly the speed losses that some do when I go LOP. It’s about 4-6kias. If by flight planning you mean what I tell ATC, then that number is 150Kts. If you mean what I expect for block speed, that number is closer to 138-140.  I agree that you’ll never see the speed and efficiency being discussed if you run POH power settings. I find that peak EGT really yields the best combo of speed and BFSC. 

[Alan Fox]

The fact that you (replys) are comparing a Mooney , to a 182 , is by far the stupidist argument yet ,  as to the original poster , If you plan on staying in Alaska , keep the 182 , end of story , good night.....  PS , I have owned both , at the same time...