Monroy fuel tanks

[Niko182]

25 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Yikes!  I will never complain again.

With this being my cheapest, I will still complain. 
 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Niko182

[hais]

20 hours ago, carusoam said:

For modern Long Bodies… 130 gallons with nothing inside the tanks… optimal!

Nothing inside the tanks will surely optimize the excitement....I prefer the suboptimal situation with fuel inside  

[Southbeachdale]

 I’d love to get this upgrade.  How many gallons does the upgrade increase to in an M20K model?

[Southbeachdale]

 I’d love to get this upgrade.  How many gallons does the upgrade increase to in an M20K model?

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, Southbeachdale said:

 I’d love to get this upgrade.  How many gallons does the upgrade increase to in an M20K model?

If memory serves correctly I think it increases the total to 106 gallons on the K.

[ArtVandelay]

If memory serves correctly I think it increases the total to 106 gallons on the K.

Isn’t about 10 gallons less if you have speed brakes?

[MikeOH]

I've been far more concerned with bladder capacity vs. fuel capacity for quite some time now...it's not like any of our Mooneys have lavs  IOW, asking the CFO (my wife) to pee in a lady-J would quickly end my flying career, marriage, and possibly my life  104 gallons!??!!! I'd recommend, "Stay thirsty, my friends!"

[Aerodon]

The STC paperwork with my 1986 M20K says 17G per side, or 14.5 with speed brakes.  Add that to 78.6 / 75.6 useable from the POH, you get 107.6 / 104.6 useable.

I'm told that if you fill right up to the cap you can get a few more gallons.  When I calibrate my JPI I plan to check this accurately.

 

Aerodon

 

[Niko182]

Are the Monroys available and for sale? Haven't heard of any installs being done recently.

[hammdo]

Maxwells has the STC…

-Don

[Pinecone]

My M20K 252 (with speed brakes) is placarded for 52 per side, 104 gallons total useable.

With some time, I can put in at least 108.

 

[BlueSky247]

4 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

My M20K 252 (with speed brakes) is placarded for 52 per side, 104 gallons total useable.

With some time, I can put in at least 108.

 

Is that while taking off from Leadville? 

[Pinecone]

Maybe in the winter.

And I am turbo, so at least have full power available.

[BlueSky247]

I know it’s a whole different ballgame, but you gotta admit, it would be nice if we could swap the “big screw” on our birds as easily and for a particular mission the way the boat folks can. 

[Pinecone]

We do, its called a constant speed prop.

And some ships use the same thing.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

Maybe in the winter.

And I am turbo, so at least have full power available.

It would be interesting study to calculate at what DA the turbo planes begin to outperform their NA brethren in terms of runway performance for a given payload and range.

[Pinecone]

My book take off distance at 8000 feet, ISA temp, max gross looks like a take off run of 2250 feet. 3200 feet over the proverbial 50 foot obstacle. 

That is 2 people, full fuel and a small amount of luggage.  That is about a 9 hour range or over 1500 miles.

[BlueSky247]

@Pinecone that’s pretty sweet. What kind of climb rates do you get down lower?

[Pinecone]

I do a cruise climb and get 800 - 900 FPM at 120 KIAS

[BlueSky247]

On 7/8/2024 at 11:01 AM, Pinecone said:

We do, its called a constant speed prop.

And some ships use the same thing.

This one slipped by me. I was referring to being able to go with more or less blades in addition to the sweep angle. 

[Pinecone]

I wonder how much sweep angle affects take off and climb performance.

Number of blades, within reason, does.  One reason I am considering an MT prop. Better take off and climb.  Minimal to no change in cruise.

And looks great.

 

[BlueSky247]

Well, certainly a more advance airfoil shape on the same blade count would make a difference. But launching at high DAs at max weight needs a bigger hammer than that.  If I were based in the mountains, I'd sure be looking for a different prop.

 

That's one of the things that bugs me about the 390 path, seems like you'd be locked to a single approved prop. Lame. 

[Niko182]

M

35 minutes ago, BlueSky247 said:

Well, certainly a more advance airfoil shape on the same blade count would make a difference. But launching at high DAs at max weight needs a bigger hammer than that.  If I were based in the mountains, I'd sure be looking for a different prop.

 

That's one of the things that bugs me about the 390 path, seems like you'd be locked to a single approved prop. Lame. 

My bet would be that if you had a 390 , MT would just get you a field approval for their 3 blade. They’ve done it a couple times for the Rocket models and the C models. Don’t know why they wouldn’t do it for a 390.

[GeneralT001]

How do you get in contact with Don?

[1980Mooney]

6 minutes ago, GeneralT001 said:

How do you get in contact with Don?

It’s in the very first post on page 1.