Jump to content

M20R Ovation Wanted


TheStig

Recommended Posts

you need at least 27.0 gph fuel flow for take-off and climb. So hotter climates need more than that. 

Beware of over heating the #5 cylinder behind the alternator. The air flow is restricted and this cylinder will exceed 400°F quickly in a climb. There is a "pixie hole" fix to help with this cooling described elsewhere on MooneySpace. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2020 at 4:34 PM, Scottknoll said:

We are having the 310HP upgrade done as we speak. It was one of the first things we decided to do after purchase. We needed to climb at 120 and 700fpm to keep cylinder temps down. The MSC doing says it will be a whole new airplane. Big seat of your pants difference.

What takeoff fuel flow does everyone see (both the 280 & 310HP drivers)? We were 23-24GPH with the stock IO550G (280HP).

Depends on density altitude... but 24-26 with my io-550A (300hp)assuming sea level ~standard day.

Edited by M016576
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scottknoll said:

We are having the 310HP upgrade done as we speak. It was one of the first things we decided to do after purchase. We needed to climb at 120 and 700fpm to keep cylinder temps down. The MSC doing says it will be a whole new airplane. Big seat of your pants difference.

What takeoff fuel flow does everyone see (both the 280 & 310HP drivers)? We were 23-24GPH with the stock IO550G (280HP).

mid 23 GPH was perfect on the 280 HP, on the 310 HP the target is  27.8-28.3 GPH, that's based on adding 0.5 to 1.0 GPH the TCM's high number for the -N which 27.3 GPH. Really the high TCM number is the absolute lowest it should be. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Depends on density altitude... but 24-26 with my io-550A (300hp)assuming sea level ~standard day.

The -A max FF requirements are a couple GPH lower than the 310HP -N configuration - which makes sense given the 10 HP difference.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks kortopates. From what I could research, it looked like the fuel setup for stock 280HP is based on the IO550G numbers and after converting to 310HP, it will be based on the IO550N numbers. So significant FF increase for t/o power. Just curious what each one (280 vs 310) should be, we have not flown with the upgrade just yet. The manual excerpt I found is all in PSI. Yes, number 5 is the hottest, totally understand why, and have seen pictures of the pixie hole.

3EF221FA-5C70-4487-8FF7-2368445497F5.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

MOONEY AIRPLANE COMPANY, INC. 51 GALLON FUEL TANKS
M20M, M20R, M20TN AFM SUPPLEMENT

FUEL
Minimum Fuel Grade (Color) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 LL (Blue) or 100 Octane (Green)
Total Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 U. S. Gal. (408.8 liters)
Usable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.0 U. S. Gal. (386.1 liters)

 

Ah...thank you!  Either my memory or my mechanic were wrong.

Betting on the first one...   :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Scottknoll said:

Thanks kortopates. From what I could research, it looked like the fuel setup for stock 280HP is based on the IO550G numbers and after converting to 310HP, it will be based on the IO550N numbers. So significant FF increase for t/o power. Just curious what each one (280 vs 310) should be, we have not flown with the upgrade just yet. The manual excerpt I found is all in PSI. Yes, number 5 is the hottest, totally understand why, and have seen pictures of the pixie hole.

3EF221FA-5C70-4487-8FF7-2368445497F5.jpeg

Although the numbers haven't changed, that looks like it from the old IO-16 manual, which for fuel setup has been superseded by SID-97 which was also superseded by the current M-0. The SID and the M-0 provide max FF in GPH which is an acceptable way to set up the high end, when your FF is calibrated - actually preferable IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP, you have a serious amount of O knowledge available from the people who have responded.  I’d bounce some more questions off them and start looking (in person) at some different O’s from 175-200k. 50k goes quick when maintaining these planes, don’t make the mistake of buying the cheapest one unless you really know what you’re doing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

OP, you have a serious amount of O knowledge available from the people who have responded.  I’d bounce some more questions off them and start looking (in person) at some different O’s from 175-200k. 50k goes quick when maintaining these planes, don’t make the mistake of buying the cheapest one unless you really know what you’re doing. 

That goes for any plane... unlike real estate, you probably *don’t* want to invest in the cheapest plane (house) on the block (in type/model/series)!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for all the information and input. I love the amount of education I have gotten in just a few short days from this great community. It's helping me 1) affirm that the Ovation is a good choice for my mission. The Bravo is a potential alternative but I don't see that I need the turbo as much.

However, I am also considering if in the near term I may consider a Missile even. My little ones are small enough that it would probably work. My knowledge of Missile vs. Ovation is limited but expanding. Mid-body vs. long-body, similar performance (same engine), better UL but less baggage room, same leg-room?. Missile won't have FIKI but could do TKS system although might not be worth it. Challenge with missiles (or rockets) is parts may need to be fabricated, engine overhaul (esp. rocket) is more expensive due to the STC (maybe not for Missile), heavier engine puts a toll on landing gear and rubber discs because it is not beefed up like long bodies.

Probably a lot more to learn about them.

--Stig

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheStig said:

Thank you all for all the information and input. I love the amount of education I have gotten in just a few short days from this great community. It's helping me 1) affirm that the Ovation is a good choice for my mission. The Bravo is a potential alternative but I don't see that I need the turbo as much.

However, I am also considering if in the near term I may consider a Missile even. My little ones are small enough that it would probably work. My knowledge of Missile vs. Ovation is limited but expanding. Mid-body vs. long-body, similar performance (same engine), better UL but less baggage room, same leg-room?. Missile won't have FIKI but could do TKS system although might not be worth it. Challenge with missiles (or rockets) is parts may need to be fabricated, engine overhaul (esp. rocket) is more expensive due to the STC (maybe not for Missile), heavier engine puts a toll on landing gear and rubber discs because it is not beefed up like long bodies.

Probably a lot more to learn about them.

--Stig

Like you...I was looking at a good O or Bravo when my plane search began.  Ovation probably fits my mission better, but there was a good Bravo on the market at a reasonable price when I bought it.  I normally fly below 15k and most flights even below 10k.  I wasn't looking for AC, but wanted FIKI, just they are unicorns when they hit the market and almost always get a premium.  That's the one thing I wish my Bravo had to punch through layers.  You can't beat the performance of a turbo, even if you don't REALLY need it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, daytonabch04 said:

Like you...I was looking at a good O or Bravo when my plane search began.  Ovation probably fits my mission better, but there was a good Bravo on the market at a reasonable price when I bought it.  I normally fly below 15k and most flights even below 10k.  I wasn't looking for AC, but wanted FIKI, just they are unicorns when they hit the market and almost always get a premium.  That's the one thing I wish my Bravo had to punch through layers.  You can't beat the performance of a turbo, even if you don't REALLY need it. 

I’ll give you the perfect use case for a bravo as experienced on my flight Saturday from Longview, TX to Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

There was high pressure over Longview with sky clear.  About 250 miles to the southeast a cold front was pushing east.  I climbed to FL230 in the clear, caught a 35 knot tailwind and pretty soon I was 7-8k feet above a solid cloud layer extending from the ground to 15k. My ground speed was around 240.  Yes, I would have picked up some ice in an emergency but the freezing level was still well above ground level for the entire route of flight.  Arriving in FL it was scattered clouds at levels above freezing. 

Of course, this is the near perfect use case for a non-fiki bravo and I’m not always that lucky!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One down (M20J), one to go (M20R).

984VW is at her new home base in Colorado. 3 pilots greeted me upon arrival and were very excited to see the new plane. Our trusty old 182 was kicked to the curb and is now on tie-downs until we can get second or bigger hangar.

She sure is a pretty plane.

IMG_2070.jpeg

IMG_2079.jpeg

IMG_2083.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheStig said:

One down (M20J), one to go (M20R).

984VW is at her new home base in Colorado. 3 pilots greeted me upon arrival and were very excited to see the new plane. Our trusty old 182 was kicked to the curb and is now on tie-downs until we can get second or bigger hangar.

She sure is a pretty plane.

IMG_2070.jpeg

IMG_2079.jpeg

IMG_2083.jpeg

I was the caretaker for about 3 years of this one, perhaps one of my favorite J's ever. She's a fast one, as I have documented here before.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

I was the caretaker for about 3 years of this one, perhaps one of my favorite J's ever. She's a fast one, as I have documented here before.

I found those posts when I first was looking and talking to Joe. I didn't attempt to set any speed records on this trip. Mostly just getting the feel for how she flew, how the instruments work in concert and what little tweaks we might make (reducing the speed / setting that she starts squealing when flying slow for example). I like to come in as slow as I can before I drop the gear and the "unsafe gear" alert comes on pretty quick depending on MP/RPM setting. I think getting that down around 105 (or at least 120) would be good. Sure you can drop the gear to slow down, but not necessary. I believe that is something that can be addressed but I'm no expert.

I was not familiar with the KAP 150 prior to this plane so it took me a few tries to adjust altitude without it screaming at me (stay off yoke trim, use up/dn instead). Super solid and the GTN 650 / Aspen Evo combo works great. 

She flies really well and even in the light chop I had from N. TX back to BJC (3+ hours) it was easy to control her and keep her on track. Finally, even with a good crosswind and gusts (but not as bad as early in the day 28@270G39), she came down with a couple of light squeaks. DA35014B-C538-4480-AD5A-29F1A7518C47.thumb.jpeg.d4932d83fc5ed98b95a14ef4efdfc4d4.jpeg

19C8C8B7-6D2A-421B-AC22-E89916A86513.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2020 at 7:35 AM, TheStig said:

Mostly just getting the feel for how she flew, how the instruments work in concert and what little tweaks we might make (reducing the speed / setting that she starts squealing when flying slow for example). I like to come in as slow as I can before I drop the gear and the "unsafe gear" alert comes on pretty quick depending on MP/RPM setting. I think getting that down around 105 (or at least 120) would be good. Sure you can drop the gear to slow down, but not necessary. I believe that is something that can be addressed but I'm no expert. I was not familiar with the KAP 150 prior to this plane so it took me a few tries to adjust altitude without it screaming at me (stay off yoke trim, use up/dn instead). Super solid and the GTN 650 / Aspen Evo combo works great. 

Most of those issues should have been covered with good transition training with someone knowledgeable with not only Mooneys (MP determines gear warning horn) but the installed avionics.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2020 at 3:41 PM, TheStig said:

Hello,

I am looking for a low time airframe mdi nineties Ovation. Would love the 310 STC.

Need FIKI, A/C, ideally O2. But don need fancy avionics. Will do an upgrade down the road. ADS-B is good but can manage without although that begs the question of when it last was flown.... 430/530W is good enough but others are better. Mid to HIGH TIME ENGINE is ok. If it has 300 hours or so left in it, I can live with that. Air brakes are nice too.

Let me know what you want to part with.

Thanks,

Stig

Stig,

Would like to chat about joining your "club". I live in Cocoa Beach when I am not in Denver, near BJC.

Mike

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.