231 to a Screaming Eagle

[T. Peterson]

Hello all,

 I may have the opportunity to go from a 1979 K model to a 1999 Screaming Eagle. The Eagle has a timed out engine. My K has about 400 hours before it too times out. Better avionics in the Eagle and I never fly above 12000. If I can pull this off I think I should do it, but there are often unintended consequences to what seemed like a good idea at the time! To begin with, I am hoping to get another 100 hours on this engine, but I know that’s a crap shoot.

Do any of you have an opinion or advice?
 

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Hello all,

 I may have the opportunity to go from a 1979 K model to a 1999 Screaming Eagle. The Eagle has a timed out engine. My K has about 400 hours before it too times out. Better avionics in the Eagle and I never fly above 12000. If I can pull this off I think I should do it, but there are often unintended consequences to what seemed like a good idea at the time! To begin with, I am hoping to get another 100 hours on this engine, but I know that’s a crap shoot.

Do any of you have an opinion or advice?

I am biased with basically a shorter version of that, but I think you will like it.  I think I know which one you are looking at - absolutely great Useful Load.  The power on take off and rate of climb will knock your socks off. Shorter take offs and certainly a more secure feeling when loaded and getting out of an airport environment. 

I typically fly out of high DA airports in New Mexico heavy (3.200 lbs) with no issues.  Another way to think about it is that at 10,000 ft the IO-550 is still producing the same or more power than the TSIO-360 would.

Although it won't go into the flight levels, it will take you to the upper teens if needed without drama.  The low teens, where you fly (maximum), is a real sweet spot.

I don't know what avionics you have now but, if I am thinking of the one you are looking at, it does look nicely equipped.   I am not crazy about the Electronics International MVP-50P Primary Instrument located on the co-pilot side, replacing all the primary engine and fuel instrumentation. - but that is a minor issue.

I am not sure what you have in mind for the engine.  Perhaps you can still fly it some while you order and wait for a Rebuilt engine from Continental.

[T. Peterson]

4 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I am biased with basically a shorter version of that, but I think you will like it.  I think I know which one you are looking at - absolutely great Useful Load.  The power on take off and rate of climb will knock your socks off. Shorter take offs and certainly a more secure feeling when loaded and getting out of an airport environment. 

I typically fly out of high DA airports in New Mexico heavy (3.200 lbs) with no issues.  Another way to think about it is that at 10,000 ft the IO-550 is still producing the same or more power than the TSIO-360 would.

Although it won't go into the flight levels, it will take you to the upper teens if needed without drama.  The low teens, where you fly (maximum), is a real sweet spot.

I don't know what avionics you have now but, if I am thinking of the one you are looking at, it does look nicely equipped.   I am not crazy about the Electronics International MVP-50P Primary Instrument located on the co-pilot side, replacing all the primary engine and fuel instrumentation. - but that is a minor issue.

I am not sure what you have in mind for the engine.  Perhaps you can still fly it some while you order and wait for a Rebuilt engine from Continental.

Thank you so much! That is exactly the kind of feedback for which I am looking. 
I have also heard that the IO 550’s are a bear to start when hot. My 360 has no issue with starting hot, so it may be a different procedure I will just have to perfect.

Your last paragraph also grabbed my attention. If I could order an engine without surrendering mine till the new one is delivered would be a bonus. I didn’t think that would be an option on a rebuilt, but I will certainly pursue that idea even if I just decide to keep my K.

Yes, you are looking at the plane I am considering! LOL!

Thanks again for your input!

[LANCECASPER]

17 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Hello all,

 I may have the opportunity to go from a 1979 K model to a 1999 Screaming Eagle. The Eagle has a timed out engine. My K has about 400 hours before it too times out. Better avionics in the Eagle and I never fly above 12000. If I can pull this off I think I should do it, but there are often unintended consequences to what seemed like a good idea at the time! To begin with, I am hoping to get another 100 hours on this engine, but I know that’s a crap shoot.

Do any of you have an opinion or advice?
 

Every airplane you buy the process starts over on finding all of the things that need attention, even with a good pre-buy

If it's the Eagle that Jimmy has for sale - it looks like a nice airplane. It will be a 20 year newer airframe. The long body carries some advantages, but you will go through more shock discs due to the weight. The STec-30 is a very basic autopilot though with manual trim. The advertisement says that it has an Avidyne IFD550, but the picture shows an IFD540. The Moritz gauges have been replaced with an MVP-50, so that was at least a $10,000 job by the time you cut a new panel. This one has been upgraded to leather, which is nice, another $4000 at least. The one thing that the Eagle should have had is rudder trim. Originally it had 244hp and it was certified without it. But now with 310hp you will see on the first take-off how far your right leg needs to be buried into the right rudder, and it needs to stay there for 10-20 minutes during the climb. Paint was not a Mooney strong point back when these were made, so a lot of people have repainted their Mooney from this era already (-$20000). The tanks have less capacity than the Ovation but about what you have now (75 gallons) and due to 24 years should be looked at carefully for leaks. The white paint scheme makes them easy to spot though. (EDIT: The STC raises the tank capacity to 89 gallons)

Since you didn't put any of the hours on that engine there is some uncertainty on how many more hours you can get out of it. I would budget for a new engine (-$60000 ??)  and maybe even order it and then run the engine on condition since it will take probably well over a year to get a new engine - not sure about that timeframe though. Then it becomes a one or two week event when the engine comes in.

What will you gain? Useful load for sure. The extra few inches in the baggage area. Speeds will be about the same depending on how you fly it. Climb performance on take-off will be improved, but will degrade after 8000 feet

[Yetti]

Ya I looked at that one also.   The AP is better than a King.   There are better deals on Ovations than having to do a top end to that engine.   What would a top end cost on the 550 from a G to an N?   Also did not think it had the STC to 310HP so is that available?

[1980Mooney]

55 minutes ago, Yetti said:

Ya I looked at that one also.   The AP is better than a King.   There are better deals on Ovations than having to do a top end to that engine.   What would a top end cost on the 550 from a G to an N?   Also did not think it had the STC to 310HP so is that available?

If the plane in question is the one on G-Max, the advert specifically says 310 hp and IFD550.  I don't think anyone would do a Top End on a 24 year old engine with 2,100+ hours.  New, Rebuild or OH.  

[T. Peterson]

I so appreciate all you fellas and your input. 
My K model has a 430W and a Century 41 auto pilot both of which work flawlessly, but I am concerned about support when they do eventually break. I don’t use the auto pilot for approaches, but I do want one that will track to a fix and hold altitude. In other words I want one that works even if unsophisticated. I take it from the comments that the one in Jimmy’s plane is less sophisticated than the one in mine?

One thing I do desire is the ability to have a VMC pseudo glide slope to a runway in which there is no instrument approach. The Garmin 650 and up have that desirable feature, but the 430W does not. I would assume the Avidyne 550 would have that feature. As you can tell, I have a lot of homework to do of which enlisting your excellent observations, advice and experience is a part.

 I also retire in 9 days which is also a factor. I need a hiring manager somewhere who either likes me or feels sorry for me and gives me a job!

 

[GeeBee]

I thought the Screaming Eagle STC included a tank upgrade to 89 gallons?

[1980Mooney]

4 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I thought the Screaming Eagle STC included a tank upgrade to 89 gallons?

Absolutely correct:

 

[1980Mooney]

29 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I so appreciate all you fellas and your input. 
My K model has a 430W and a Century 41 auto pilot both of which work flawlessly, but I am concerned about support when they do eventually break. I don’t use the auto pilot for approaches, but I do want one that will track to a fix and hold altitude. In other words I want one that works even if unsophisticated. I take it from the comments that the one in Jimmy’s plane is less sophisticated than the one in mine?

One thing I do desire is the ability to have a VMC pseudo glide slope to a runway in which there is no instrument approach. The Garmin 650 and up have that desirable feature, but the 430W does not. I would assume the Avidyne 550 would have that feature. As you can tell, I have a lot of homework to do of which enlisting your excellent observations, advice and experience is a part.

 I also retire in 9 days which is also a factor. I need a hiring manager somewhere who either likes me or feels sorry for me and gives me a job!

You are correct that the IFD-550 does Visual Approaches.  The factory default is 4 degree glide slope.

I also have a Century 41.  Fingers crossed that the flight computer does not need repair - Century Flight Systems is now completely out of business.  

 

[Ragsf15e]

If you can do it financially, order the engine, and the prebuy is good, id do it!  However, what @LANCECASPERsaid is true.  It will take some $$ and a couple years to have it just right and a known quantity compared to what you have now. People don’t usually look back and say, gee, I wish I had a smaller airplane with less power and older avionics.

[1980Mooney]

51 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I so appreciate all you fellas and your input. 
My K model has a 430W and a Century 41 auto pilot both of which work flawlessly, but I am concerned about support when they do eventually break. I don’t use the auto pilot for approaches, but I do want one that will track to a fix and hold altitude. In other words I want one that works even if unsophisticated. I take it from the comments that the one in Jimmy’s plane is less sophisticated than the one in mine?

One thing I do desire is the ability to have a VMC pseudo glide slope to a runway in which there is no instrument approach. The Garmin 650 and up have that desirable feature, but the 430W does not. I would assume the Avidyne 550 would have that feature. As you can tell, I have a lot of homework to do of which enlisting your excellent observations, advice and experience is a part.

 I also retire in 9 days which is also a factor. I need a hiring manager somewhere who either likes me or feels sorry for me and gives me a job!

Here is a just posted PIREP from someone who bought an Ovation with the 310 hp STC and TKS.  He says "After talking to Jimmy Garrison I selected an Ovation over an Acclaim".  Sounds like has the same mission as you (not interested in the flight levels).  He even posted flight test data - click on the link in his last post - (should put some of the hangar talk/wives tales to rest) .  Note that he got it up to 22,000 ft and was level at 164 kts TAS even with the speed penalty of the TKS.

 

 

[1980Mooney]

One thing that is not highlighted in the above threads is that the fuel consumption of a big bore Continental in any flavor will be worse than what you currently have. (see fuel flows by phase of flight and altitude in the 310 hp Ovation attachment above).  The Lycoming TIO-540 in the Bravo is even worse.   The good news is that big bore Continental's run LOP pretty well,  Continental has gotten better with fuel injector balance - my temps are pretty even.  

Everything in aviation is a trade-off....

Edited November 21 by 1980Mooney

[ziggysanchez]

20 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Hello all,

 I may have the opportunity to go from a 1979 K model to a 1999 Screaming Eagle. The Eagle has a timed out engine. My K has about 400 hours before it too times out. Better avionics in the Eagle and I never fly above 12000. If I can pull this off I think I should do it, but there are often unintended consequences to what seemed like a good idea at the time! To begin with, I am hoping to get another 100 hours on this engine, but I know that’s a crap shoot.

Do any of you have an opinion or advice?
 

I went from a 79 K to a 99 Screaming Eagle in 2020. I loved the K model...flew it for around 1100 hours between 2016 and 2020. The Eagle is much easier when it comes to engine management. Seemed like I was always making adjustments in cruise on the K model. Useful load is way better (1130 in my Eagle). The Eagle being a longbody and 20 years newer was nice. What swayed me toward the Eagle I purchased was the TKS. I had an unexpected encounter with ice in the K model and didn't want to be without at least some protection in the future. Both are great airplanes. An overhaul of that engine is going to be expensive but seems like there has been an adjustment made in the price to compensate for that. Below is a picture of both my K and Eagle during pre purchase for both. If you have any specific questions send me a message and I'll give you my number. We can chat it up.

[Niko182]

9 hours ago, GeeBee said:

I thought the Screaming Eagle STC included a tank upgrade to 89 gallons?

The STC only includes the paperwork change from the 75 gallons to 89 gallons. Nothing on the air frame actually gets changed. Regardless if you have the 75, 89, or 100 gallon tabs, the tanks will easily keep on filling to in beween 102 to 106 galllons.

[T. Peterson]

35 minutes ago, ziggysanchez said:

I went from a 79 K to a 99 Screaming Eagle in 2020. I loved the K model...flew it for around 1100 hours between 2016 and 2020. The Eagle is much easier when it comes to engine management. Seemed like I was always making adjustments in cruise on the K model. Useful load is way better (1130 in my Eagle). The Eagle being a longbody and 20 years newer was nice. What swayed me toward the Eagle I purchased was the TKS. I had an unexpected encounter with ice in the K model and didn't want to be without at least some protection in the future. Both are great airplanes. An overhaul of that engine is going to be expensive but seems like there has been an adjustment made in the price to compensate for that. Below is a picture of both my K and Eagle during pre purchase for both. If you have any specific questions send me a message and I'll give you my number. We can chat it up.

Wow, both those airplanes are very nice!

 I will pm you tomorrow with my phone number. I am very grateful to all the folks who have chimed in on this thread. Right now I am loading folks in Charlotte for a short flight to Orlando.

 I look forward to visiting with you soon!

[GeeBee]

12 hours ago, Niko182 said:

The STC only includes the paperwork change from the 75 gallons to 89 gallons. Nothing on the air frame actually gets changed. Regardless if you have the 75, 89, or 100 gallon tabs, the tanks will easily keep on filling to in beween 102 to 106 galllons.

Actually you have to change the fuel placard.