Takeoff vs Climb Procedures

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

2003 Mooney Bravo here with (perhaps) a stupid question.  On takeoff, I follow the POH and climb at FULL THROTTLE.  When I reach 1000 FT AGL I transition to a cruise climb (34/2400 120 KIAS) which is again in accordance with the POH as you all know. My question is this…I sort of enjoy the rate of climb I get during that first 1000 ft at FULL THROTTLE.  If I continue to climb at those power settings say to 10,000 FT and my engine remains cool and within normal parameters could I be harming the power plant in any way by not powering back to 34/2400? For what it’s worth I don’t care about the difference in fuel burn between 34/2400 and FULL THROTTLE on the way up.

Edited March 24, 2022 by 231-FLYER

[rbp]

There is no time limit on the bravo engine within POH limits of 38” and 2575 and temps. (On the r44 io540, for example, there’s a limit of  1.6” mp for 5 mins over max MP). However there are   potential longevity consequences that I’m sure someone will pipe in with.  

[carusoam]

How are your TIT and CHTs?

I don’t think any Mooneys have a time limit on max power…

Humans are notably not so good at keeping track of time when cognitively busy… 

Of course what you set for max power is important…. And how you manage the heat it produces is challenge enough…

 

TC’d Mooneys are capable of cruising in full flaming dragon mode… at the expected cost of extra cylinders.

PP thoughts only, not an engine economist…

Best regards,

-a-

[rbp]

1 hour ago, 231-FLYER said:

my engine remains cool and within normal parameters

He said within parameters 

[Boilermonkey]

6 minutes ago, carusoam said:

How are your TIT and CHTs?

I don’t think any Mooneys have a time limit on max power…

Humans are notably not so good at keeping track of time when cognitively busy… 

Of course what you set for max power is important…. And how you manage the heat it produces is challenge enough…

 

TC’d Mooneys are capable of cruising in full flaming dragon mode… at the expected cost of extra cylinders.

PP thoughts only, not an engine economist…

Best regards,

-a-

“Full flaming dragon mode.”      Nice way of saying it.

There was a great video last year about optimizing fuel and distance for a climb.  I think the Bravo number came up with a Vcc of ~130kts until you can’t maintain 500ft/min, then transition to 500ft/min.   I can’t seem to find the link.

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, 231-FLYER said:

2003 Mooney Bravo here with (perhaps) a stupid question.  On takeoff, I follow the POH and climb at FULL THROTTLE.  When I reach 1000 FT AGL I transition to a cruise climb (34/2400 120 KIAS) which is again in accordance with the POH as you all know. My question is this…I sort of enjoy the rate of climb I get during that first 1000 ft at FULL THROTTLE.  If I continue to climb at those power settings say to 10,000 FT and my engine remains cool and within normal parameters could I be harming the power plant in any way by not powering back to 34/2400? For what it’s worth I don’t care about the difference in fuel burn between 34/2400 and FULL THROTTLE on the way up.

There's some rationale to your thinking. Which is worse: (1) Running full throttle to 10,000 and taking 8 minutes to get there or (2) Running 34/24 and getting there in 10-11 minutes? As long as the CHTs are below 400, which they should be at full throttle/full rich, I don't think there's a huge difference either way in wear and tear. On the Bravo it's going to be hard to keep temps in line if you lean in climb. On the Acclaim you can if you want.

 I think you could make the same argument for whatever altitude you're going to, as long as you aren't concerned with fuel burn and reduced range and as long as CHTs are below 400. With a turboprop,  and a lot of the time with a turbo-charged airplane like on the Bravo, depending on winds, for efficiency you want to get as high as you can as quickly as you can and stay there as long as you can. The Bravo really shines in the mid-teens, and if there's an amazing tailwind, higher, if you're comfortable with a mask and the risks associated with the really thin air in the low-mid 20's

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

along those lines I could tell you that I flight plan to use the same amount of fuel regardless of the climb setting.  From engine start to my cruise altitude in the flight levels is always around 20 gallons.  One setting gets you there quicker at a high fuel burn and the other takes longer at a lower fuel burn; however, once you get there its almost always the same amount of fuel used. I also never lean in the climb as the POH dictates that climb should be full rich and I tend to agree in that regard.

Edited March 25, 2022 by 231-FLYER

[rbp]

I plan 25gph in the climb and 20 en route.

89-15=~76 (89-reserve)

30 minutes of climb to 18, 000ft agl and 16 gal

that leaves me 60 gals for cruise and descent, or 3 more hours

its conservative but 4hrs is a decent leg for 750+nm

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

I think we are doing close to the same thing; however, I usually take on the full 100 gallons of fuel to get me a bit more flying time so i plan on having 80 gallons in the tank when i get to 18,000. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by 231-FLYER

[rbp]

10 minutes ago, 231-FLYER said:

full 100 gallons of fuel

How do you get 100?? 

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

ummm....i just fill the tanks to the top ?????

Edited March 25, 2022 by 231-FLYER

[carusoam]

Sounds like somebody met with José and got a few extra gallons of capacity….

-a-

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

who is Jose?

[LANCECASPER]

41 minutes ago, rbp said:

How do you get 100?? 

I think by 2003 Mooney had removed the collar, which allowed you to get 102 gallons in there instead of 89 on early M20M models. It was called “extended tanks” rather than “long range” which would involve the Monroy Long Range STC.

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

I have no modifications to my tanks.  I know the POH says 89 gallons which is to the bottom of the filler neck but i though everyone could get to 100 gallons by simply filling to the top? I didn't realize that was dependent on model year?

Edited March 25, 2022 by 231-FLYER

[carusoam]

20 minutes ago, 231-FLYER said:

who is Jose?

José Monroy of the famed Monroy fuel tank STCs….

 

The fuel neck…

Was Mooneys method of limiting fuel capacity for whatever they need it to be for the airframe or marketing needs…

The most famous goofy fuel neck was for the M20S Eagle… the fuel neck was famously super long…

It artificially sets up a large headspace in the tank…

 

The shortest fuel neck belongs to the Ovation… carefully filing the tank, you find 100+ gallons fit in the space….

Some LBs may have their speed brakes on one side of the main spar or the other… this may take away some fuel capacity if they occupy the volume in front of the main spar…

 

Use caution when filling the tanks… you may get more than expected…. 

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic…

Best regards,

-a-

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

3 minutes ago, carusoam said:

José Monroy of the famed Monroy fuel tank STCs….

got it!...I'm tracking now.  No...i have no tank modifications. Standard fill already eats up 600 lbs of useful load.  I don't need or want to be tanking around anymore than that.

[carusoam]

The M20Ks got a special goofy version of the fuel neck… the anti-siphon valve…

This special flapper valve allows you to lose a fuel cap in the FLs and not have the fuel get siphoned overboard….

There could be a real reason for this…

But, it didn’t make it to the Bravo or the Acclaim…. 
 

Nothing a good o-ring or two can’t solve…

 

The solution to the Eagle’s wacky fuel neck length… was a nicely placed vent hole near the top of it…Have the hangar fairies (use caution when drilling vent holes… to avoid dropping aluminum bits into the fuel tank) 

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic…

Best regards,

-a-