Jump to content

Oshkosh observation


Recommended Posts

On 7/30/2019 at 12:48 PM, Sandman993 said:

You have to go back... to the bank for more gas money. 

The 201 is possibly the most efficient certified aircraft built to date. The payload is almost on par with a 182 (or at least the one sharing my hangar). As some know here, I recently had the horsepower plus stc added to my overhaul. I out climbed a C182 to 12.5 (both loaded to limits) on way back from Oshkosh pitched for 120. Was able to go from Oshkosh to Victoria Texas in two hops and landed with 28gal onboard. The high compression pistons are a gift from the aviation gods. It turned my ship into a little speedster... now at 150hrs... she’s in her prime. And I’m burning less fuel

Do you have a cite for info for this STC please?  Is this the one with the helo pistons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post, in my mind brings me back full circle to my original thought...Perhaps if the certified airplane authority (You know who I mean) wasn't so entrenched in their obese bureaucratic culture...things might be different for the airplane industry. Or, maybe if they got their booger hooks in Ferrari, perhaps those too, would cost north of $800,000.00 while only having a tangible value of 300ish. There's an injustice here and I can't seem to articulate it for reasons unknown to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CaptainOveur said:

Do you have a cite for info for this STC please?  Is this the one with the helo pistons?

Yessir, I flew mine out to Loveland Colorado to have Firewall Forward do mine. There were many here dogging them as charlatans, but I found that to be another falsehood parroted by folks that had no prior dealings with the company. Firewall Forward overhaul was exactly what I got...Under my cowl is very nice...and the engine rocks!  I doubt there's a stock 201 anywhere that can hang with it, in climb or cruise. With the Centrilube cam and the pistons, the horsepower plus stc was around an extra 9k if memory serves. Our little engines share all four intake valves on just two lobes for a double whammy and that's why I wanted the cam STC...it was developed for the Beech Duke, a 380hp overclocked Lycoming that has ruined the engine reputation for an otherwise awesome airplane.

My engine struggled to get to 12,500' before...now I can get there with a C182 or before. It's simple...the higher compression makes more hp at higher altitude than it could before. Coming home from Oshkosh at 12.5 she was running 340's cht 1340 egt's at 7.2gph...at over 150kts. I wasn't getting any help from the wind gods as anyone flying south that day would know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandman993 said:

at 7.2gph...at over 150kts

I'd have to see that. 

thats ~54% power LOP.  ROP its less.

Book attached, the ~50% power setting and mid weight is 141 KTAS. 

beating the optimistic POH by 10 KTAS sounds a like a stretch.

 

Screen Shot 2019-08-08 at 12.21.58 PM.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CaptainOveur said:

I’ve heard anywhere between 3,000 and 6,000 labor hours to build a new Mooney. Even in Texas one has to pay skilled workers a wage that, with employer contributions and benefits, must be from $60-100/hour. So there is between $180,000 and $600,000 in just labor. 

Can this cost be reduced by lowering that labor cost? What about bringing in some of those “little people” (is this OK to say, is this a safe space?) everyone makes such a big deal about during the holiday season?  They’re always said to be such good and productive workers and they’re probably not very busy most of the rest of the year. 

Although I’m guessing this Administration’s immigration policies won’t favor visitors from the North. 

I dont think Mooney pays assembly workers 30$ an hour, or even close. Maybe. But 15-20$ is good money in that part of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cyril Gibb said:

Good grief.  Why do some people feel it necessary to insert a political comment to every damn topic.  Just added another name to my ignore list.

I think he was talking about mythical Santa helper elves 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

I'd have to see that. 

thats ~54% power LOP.  ROP its less.

Book attached, the ~50% power setting and mid weight is 141 KTAS. 

beating the optimistic POH by 10 KTAS sounds a like a stretch.

 

The M20J POH (very) optimistically suggests you can get all the way up to 155 KIAS at 55% power.

That being said, I got surprised on my most recent flight.  I was at 12.5k' MSL, altimeter 29.92, OAT 10C, MP 18", 2550 RPM, FF 8.2 running near peak with 123 KIAS.  That's supposed to be about 50-55% power and I calculated that to 155 KTAS.  I've never seen that speed before, I'm usually puttering around in the 140's at that altitude.  I'm still not sure what was different that day or if I have just been screwing up my calculations.  FWIW I didn't do a 3 leg GPS check because it was a long trip..

Getting 150 KTAS at 7.2 gph with 10:1 compression seems to be at least within the realm of possibility...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

I dont think Mooney pays assembly workers 30$ an hour, or even close. Maybe. But 15-20$ is good money in that part of the country.

I think employers have to also pay shares of disability, Social Security and other “loads” that increase the employer cost to between 133-150% of what the gross pay to the employee is.That’s what the airline tells the union, anyway. Maybe not in Texas? 

 But I can’t speculate any more because I have made someone angry that doing so is too “political.”  I don’t want to make anyone angry, frustration and rage have no place in my cockpit. Save that for when we get home!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CaptainOveur said:

I think employers have to also pay shares of disability, Social Security and other “loads” that increase the employer cost to between 133-150% of what the gross pay to the employee is.

That's fairly accurate, depending on the individual company's Workman's Comp insurance and the level of health insurance offered to its employees. 

Just leave off the rest of your post, please . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Hank said:

That's fairly accurate, depending on the individual company's Workman's Comp insurance and the level of health insurance offered to its employees. 

Just leave off the rest of your post, please . . . .

Awww, we agreed for a paragraph...love DOES conquer all!

<sigh> Then you had to go all “senior member” and start dictating to me—amazing how you are so quick to censor someone else while ignoring others on this board who’ve earned their stellar reputations and who’ve repeatedly pointed out your baseless opinionating. Tell ya what, YOU start listening to that good advice, and maybe, just maybe, I’ll go back to the llama farm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, jetdriven said:

I'd have to see that. 

thats ~54% power LOP.  ROP its less.

Book attached, the ~50% power setting and mid weight is 141 KTAS. 

beating the optimistic POH by 10 KTAS sounds a like a stretch.

 

Screen Shot 2019-08-08 at 12.21.58 PM.png

Sorry, I didn't have my whiz wheel and slide rule out. I was simply looking at the 750 reporting GS while the winds aloft at that Altitude was reporting about a 15kt wind hitting me straight across the port wing. In my view, the extra compression does extree well at higher altitudes...While I notice substantial increases across the board the extra ponies do well aloft. I even noticed on this young engine, the four climb outs to high altitude 2) 11,500 and 2) 12,500 seemed to make it run even better. I like this 201...and elated to have a ship that sips gas and can move along pretty well. My hangar mate has the same year model with a three blade and I have around 10 to 13kts on him...our climb rates are about the same...around 1300fpm to 5,000' MSL pitched for 120mph. As long as I don't get too assertive with the red knob, I can't get it hot even in this weather. Speaking of weather, in winter, I have to watch for full throttle takeoffs in minus density altitudes...is that cool or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I never made it to the Mooney camp at Oshkosh...I must have walked by it a half dozen times. I was parked in the N 40 up towards the red market so coming in and out I often used one of the gates near the Mooney camp. Maybe I was afraid everyone would be walking around with an E6B in their hands or up their *** when all I wanted to do was find an ice cold beer and hear a joke in the evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandman993 said:

Sorry, I didn't have my whiz wheel and slide rule out. I was simply looking at the 750 reporting GS while the winds aloft at that Altitude was reporting about a 15kt wind hitting me straight across the port wing.

Sorry man but that isnt really a method at all it’s just a guess.  A WAG really but it’s only accurate to about 10 kn anyway. Which is about the magnitude of your speed increase.

The STC if I recall correctly it is 10 or 15 more horsepower. But at 11,000 feet you’re talking about five more horsepower. So I just have a hard time grasping how 5 hp translates to 10 kn
Go out and do a 3 GPS track NTPS method and then report back please. That’s accurate to about 1kt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Sorry man but that isnt really a method at all it’s just a guess.  A WAG really but it’s only accurate to about 10 kn anyway. Which is about the magnitude of your speed increase.

The STC if I recall correctly it is 10 or 15 more horsepower. But at 11,000 feet you’re talking about five more horsepower. So I just have a hard time grasping how 5 hp translates to 10 kn
Go out and do a 3 GPS track NTPS method and then report back please. That’s accurate to about 1kt. 

They claim a horsepower increase of up to 25 or a smidge over 12%, while everything I see in aviation advertising is usually very optomistic...Just saying it's better than good and If I had it to do over, I would. I'm not around a lot of 201's save the two at my airport...and my old engine had 1600 hrs at the time of overhaul albeit still making the numbers. Suffice it to say, I'm pleased with the power plant and hope it continues to run well going forward. One biggest difference I notice is how many turns it takes to squirrel the rpm's down these days...taking a more turns to put the engine in a bind. Maybe I'm imagining it all, but it seems to go faster on less gas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sandman993 said:

Maybe I was afraid everyone would be walking around with an E6B in their hands or up their *** when all I wanted to do was find an ice cold beer and hear a joke in the evening.

I DID make it by, seemed like many lovely folks.  While l found beer and jokes, honestly, most of the humor I did not really get, but I do appreciate the effort.

What l didn’t find was anyone who wanted to watch Spartacus with me...until l wandered back to the palatial Wing Derringer Owners Group complex. Those folks really know how to party!  We even got through half of Ben Hur!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.